1918:"With such a script, even a newcomer could see quickly what remains to be worked on in the candidate article." This is a dramatic oversimplification of FAC: Wiki is a volunteer venture on a website anyone can edit: there is often no such thing as "check, done". So, if one driveby reviewer says prose is fine, no one else should check? If one reviewer says images are fine, that's it? Although few image reviewers agree, and there is often lengthy discussion with unclear conclusions? If one reviewer says sources are fine, no one else is going to look at sourcing in greater detail? This is not only an inaccurate view of how FAC works, it will lead to dangerously superficial, check-the-box type reviews. Wiki depends on volunteers, and all reviews/reviewers are not equal. Six (fan support) reviewers can say prose is fine, until an excellent copyeditor comes in and shows the prose deficiencies. One reviewer can say the sources look fine, until someone who knows the area better comes in and digs deeper and finds that the sources don't support the text. How will a script determine something is "done"? And will a summary script, giving the impression the boxes are checked and the reviews are done, discourage deeper review?
1881:, it's easy to keep track of everything." That statement is a deceptive oversimplification of the decision process—one that heads toward the notion that FAC is a vote and neglects all the factors that I look at in evaluating both Supports and Opposes. As just a few examples, on technical topics, I look for topic area input as well as layperson input. I look at WikiProject vs. non-WikiProject supports. I don't want to pass a technical topic that hasn't had both expert and layperson review. That's one example. Then, each WikiProject has different tendencies: some pile on fan support, some respectfully hold back, considering it a COI to support their own nominations. How many votes there are is truly irrelevant: I know what I'm looking for in each case, every article and Project is different, and it's Really Not A Vote. I don't think it will help the nominators, the reviewers, or me to give the impression that FAC decisions can be summarized to a vote or a table of Supports and Opposes.
1004:
everything was going fine until it suddenly decided to skip a paragraph, and then things really started getting whacky and it was randomly leaving out words, skipping around... Not a pretty picture. I tried it on
Knowledge as well with a marginal amount more of success- I do like how it pronounces my username "el akwateek" instead of "lakwateek"- gotta give it some kudos for trying! Anyway, I downloaded the basic training manual and I'm slowly reading through it. I think if I can learn at least some of the shortcuts things will go much smoother- my attempting to use the mouse probably confused it. I do have to say, though, if I can get it to work it will be the realization of a childhood dream- I remember late nights wanting more than anything to stay up and read one more chapter of a book, but I just couldn't keep my eyelids open!
1467:). I found, at least with my current settings, that JAWS doesn't seem to care much about superscript and subscript, it read abc (a times b times c) and ac (a to the b, plus c) the same, attempting to pronounce it as a word: "ahbk" or something like that. The idea that I'm toying with, is taking a leaf from the html tags that code for subscript and superscript and writing "sup" "end sup", sort of like how JAWS reads parentetical statements "left paren" "right paren". For example, ac (a to the b, plus c) would be written a sup b endsup c. The question is, would other people recognize that for what it is, or would they just think, "dude, what the heck does sup end sup mean?".
1753:!votes; supports, neutrals, comments, me-too votes, etc. seem secondary. Perhaps a future FAC script could identify such opposes and reprint their threaded discussions in full, whereas it could just count the Neutrals, Comments and Supports and credit the corresponding users, as the script does at present. With such a script, even a newcomer could see quickly what remains to be worked on in the candidate article. To help such a script do its work, perhaps the FAC reviewers could agree to state the FA criterion on which they're objecting, and how their
35:
1051:
it's unreasonable to expect that the mountain will come to us. Shortcuts have worked for me, although I do find it a little scary how JAWS takes over your computer and won't let you type things into text boxes if it's in a bad mood; have you had that happen? I also wish JAWS or Fire Vox could make MP3's or audio files, so that I could listen to them without the screen reader running. Then you could listen to your favorite articles as you fall asleep — I know the feeling.
1954:
the process from the outside, without having written FAs and reviewed FACs, is likely to see it as generating heat rather than light, because the process is not a checklist like it might be in a coroporate environment or in a journal review; critical review by volunteers, often laypersons, on a website anyone can edit, isn't tidy or linear and shouldn't be a "check-the-box" endeavour. I do not see this script proposal as a step in the right direction.
1609:
These different subscripts might be read differently. The "to the" phrasing works great for powers, but perhaps not so well for the other contexts; we wouldn't say "C to the alpha", would we? Ideally, the ALT text would clarify the context. You could do that by asking authors to ALT-label their equations themselves. Or you could make some templates to handle mathematical functions; I might try my hand at that tomorrow, if I can steal a little time.
1695:, which is part of the manual of style. Then, maybe leave a note at the major affected WikiProjects so they know what's going on. Then, we roll up our sleeves and start putting it into place. This isn't the sort of thing that's going to get people riled up, since it isn't changing the look or substance of the page at all- the vast majority of the people will never know the difference, and those that do will be happy for the change .
1921:"If the objection was resolved, there's not much need to read the discussion about it." Ouch. And what about the (surprisingly frequent) Supports that actually mention important deficiencies? How does a script decide when something is resolved when often engaged brains can't decide that ? What about the Opposer who begrudgingly strikes and leaves in anger because they got tired of trying to get a point across: is that resolved?
1898:; some commentary ended up on article talk and in userspace; some editors didn't return to strike; some opposes weren't actionable: in short, the issues are too varied to capture with an automated tool. And, will a tool parse WikiProject memberlists to weigh fan support versus independent support? Will it detect newly registered users? Will it happen to notice canvassing that no one mentions?
2420:
2493:. Also having an explicit maximum number of rows isn't really a good idea (no matter how high it is). That's why I suggested using one parameter for the whole table, with a row template (containing the repetitive formating code, which needs to stay 100% consistent) that can be used 1–∞ times, rather than having an over-large template with a bunch of rarely used parameters. —
790:("g sub m") as "kilometer" and "gram", respectively; it seems that JAWS is a little too smart for its own good. Fire Vox did make a different pause between a and a+c, so there's no need for a virtual comma there; however, JAWS did not, at least for me. For example, JAWS made no distinction between "a b + c + d" (juxtaposed a and b plus c plus d) and "
1912:" ... supports, neutrals, comments, me-too votes, etc. seem secondary. " An oversimplification, depending on the reviewer, the topic area, the involved WikiProjects, etc. Often a comment is more valuable than a Support or Oppose declaration. A topic expert Support or Oppose has to be weighed differently than a newly registered drive-by comment.
1091:
automatically when it thinks you want it activated. I haven't played with JAWS 10 much, so I don't know how well that works; upgrading is (a) expensive and (b) is a *huge* deal for me because I have to redo most of my JAWS customisations. BTW I didn't know that JAWS 10 was released until I read this discussion ... so I had to update the
940:. I'm a little embarrassed about mentioning such a basic script, but I think it could become much better with input from other people. By the way, everyone here should feel free to as critical as they want. It's OK if you think the script is not very useful; I'm just tinkering and would appreciate the guidance.
1915:"... identify such opposes and reprint their threaded discussions in full, ... " The train wrecks occur when nominators and reviewers don't thread their discussions and start multiple sections to say the same thing: a script won't be able to sort the rare messes, and the typical FACs don't need a script.
2341:
Perhaps you might consider leaving a note on the Talk page for this template? The people there might have other helpful suggestions, or long-standing improvements they've wanted to introduce. If they give you flak, you can always refer them to the consensus here, but I'm guessing that they only did
1655:
That seems reasonable, at least to me. If I understood your suggestion, we should omit the "endsub"/"endsup" for simple sub- and superscripts, and in some cases, even the initial "sub" and "sup" for the most common cases. For example, I'd be tempted to write "C-alpha" instead of "C sup alpha" for C
1608:
Some other thoughts. The meaning of a sub- or superscript varies with context; in different equations, a superscript might be an index, a power, a contravariant component of a relativistic tensor, an atomic position within its molecule like the C atom in proteins, the electronic or spin state, etc.
1399:
I made earlier for Graham to summarize AfD !voting. I can already tell that the script isn't working perfectly, partly because FAC !votes are more free-wheeling in their structure. But it works OK and if you all had any suggestions for improving the script, I'd appreciate it. Going to bed, read my
654:
a template would allow you to change the formatting consistently across the wiki as technology progressed or fashions changed. Braces or parentheses do seem like the simplest way to distinguish a and a+c, the former being "a to the open paren b plus c closed paren" and the latter "a to the b plus c".
2540:
many levels when it comes to standardisation and maintainability, but this negates the possibility of using a sub-template due to thw way template inheritance works. I picked a pathological limit for all parameters, beyond that reached by any footballer in history thus far AFAIK, so even if it needs
1948:
FAC is simply too different from AfD for automation; with so many areas of Wiki that can benefit from automation, I just don't see this as a productive use of resources, and I see it as heading in a dangerous, vote-like direction, not acknowledging that article review on a volunteer
Project is not a
1873:
The discussion so far shows such an oversimplification of all that is involved in the decision making and review process, that it's hard to know where to start, but the endpoint will probably be the same: I don't think it's useful to attempt to summarize FAC with a script, and I believe any attempts
1687:
Yes, you read my suggestion correctly. I think the function / endfunction markup could be used in other circumstances as well, for example say we wanted to write 2x + 2x + (4x + 2/3), we might say 2x plus 2x sup 3 + fraction numerator 4x plus 2 denominator 3 endfraction. It could also be helpful for
1623:
Well, it doesn't have to be all or nothing. For example, if the equation was x = a (X equals A to the B), it wouldn't be necessary to write the whole thing: we could write A sup B, or maybe even just A^B, that's recognizable, right? I think whether or not the situation called for sup endsup would be
1153:
from arbitrary protein sequences, I could do that in an eye-blink. That protein sequence is only 158 residues long, which is relatively small for a protein. Some proteins are thirty times longer and may be decorated with many additional chemical groups, such as sugars. Different proteins might be
653:
could be read as "k-sub-minus times A times B" or better yet, "k-sub-minus times the concentration of A times the concentration of B". For well-defined special cases such as chemical equations, you could write a template that produces the correctly formatted text and ALT text automatically. Such
1972:
I never meant to suggest that FAC was a vote, or that it was a check-the-box affair, or that automation would play any role other than helping the participants and encouraging newbies to participate more. I'm honestly bewildered how you could have formed such a mistaken impression; probably you're
1953:
reviewers already complaining about the current trend of specialization at FAC, I don't see this heading FAC in the directions it needs to go, which is more comprehensive, less specialized reviews. We don't just tick off the 1a, 1b, 1c boxes and say "done", "passed". I think that anyone looking at
1772:
Yes, that sounds good. Maybe the script could figure out when an objection is resolved, and state something like "objection about copyediting resolved". If the objection was resolved, there's not much need to read the discussion about it. I haven't dipped my toes into FAC for years, so you probably
1585:
It's great that people care so much about solving this problem. The "sup"-"endsup" seems a good approach, especially since expressions will always be unambiguous, no matter how many levels of super- and sub-scripts, which likely isn't true for other schemes. However, the sup-endsup approach might
1314:
It occurred to me that 10th-graders might be able to do some of their chemistry homework by typing their equations into a sandbox and running the script. I've been toying with the idea of writing a routine to balance the equation for them; it wouldn't be hard to write. It would be like a gift to
858:
has just been released. If it's like version 9, it operates under "40-minute mode", meaning that you have 40 minutes to try it out. However, whenever you reboot your computer, you get another 40 minutes; I believe you can do that indefinitely. Some of its options seem to be disabled in the demo,
1838:
I've no wish to make FAC seem to be a vote, I completely agree with you. But I would like to give nominators and reviewers tools to help manage larger FACs. I understand that FAC and AfD are not votes, and that the wiki-way is to reach consensus through rational discussion. Would you agree that
1186:
There aren't many new features in JAWS 10 that are important for testing JAWS on websites, besides the auto-forms mode thing. The beta cycle is a normal length for JAWS: the first JAWS 10 beta was released in late August, and they've been updating it since then. IIRC the last time the beta testing
1032:
Coolness is relative and the grass is always greener; you'd be surprised how much "bio-envy" that quantum physicists have. Quite a few of my Ivy-League colleagues have confided in me something like, "Oh, I am so sick of flogging Nature to eke out one more tidbit of information. I wish I could go
1333:
Haha, well it doesn't change much past that point... still mostly equations, with a few random laws thrown in for good measure. I haven't taken a university level chem class yet but looking at the textbook I'm expecting more of the same. I liked Chem back when it was the periodic table, "how many
1050:
I've also had trouble learning how to use JAWS, but I have to admit, I haven't been practicing as much as I should. It's probably like a fine violin that screetches until you master it. Everyone else seems to use it, and if we care about improving accessibility, then we must go to the mountain;
1003:
I've spent a few forty minute sessions with JAWS now, and I have to say, it's quite confounding! Subtitles aren't really necessary since everything that it reads appears visually as well, but it seems like it gets easily confused. For example, I tried to get it to read me a short story I wrote...
2232:
will know best, but the HTML code you provide suggests that this template could be improved significantly. The two tables appear to be 4x3 and 3x3 tables, respectively, which I believe would be fine for people using screen readers to navigate. However, according to your HTML code, they're both
1594:
brief, and save the sup-endsup approach for more complicated situations. On the other hand, "sup" and "endsup" together are only 3 syllables. (3) I think people would wise up quickly to the meanings of "sup" and "endsup", although they're less familiar. You might be able to do the same thing,
1300:
Thanks, Graham, I thought you would appreciate the script, although I was worried that it was too long-winded. It'd be good to figure out how to break up its functions and arrange them on a page so that people can get what they want as quickly as possible. The present script checks whether the
1219:
JAWS reads superscripts and subscripts much more reliably when you move by character (with left and right arrows). However it raises the pitch of the voice and makes them sound funny. To make them read reliably, one would use the speech and sounds manager. I'm sure someone, somewhere, has made a
981:
A general property that I like about this script is that the content (in this case, the chemical reaction) can become more interactive and instructive at the request of the reader. The article has "hidden depths" that are unfolded by the script(s). A similar approach could be extended to other
667:
Two more ideas, just off-the-cuff. A clever script could produce your "acetic acid plus water" translation from the chemical-symbol ALT text, which might be helpful for many students. However, to allow for more sophisticated chemical equations, you might consider stashing the SMILES coding (or
953:
In its present form, the script reads all the chemical reactions on a page, and describes them one by one, checking that mass is conserved and the reaction is balanced. You'll see right away at the sandbox that the script isn't savvy about nuclear reactions, since it thinks that "H + n → D" is
334:
What do blind people hear? "Cee aych three cee ow two aych plus aych two ow ...", "Carbon-trihydrogen-Carbon-dioxide-hydrogen added di-hydrogen-mono-oxide ...", or "Acetic acid and water is in equilibrium with
Acetate and hydrogen ion"? The software I've listened to can generally handles math
1976:
I will look at the examples you cite and think more about FAC. My current understanding of the FAC process is that whether fifty people support or object is not relevant in itself; as everyone says, it's not a vote, but a consensus arrived at by rational discussion of the outstanding issues.
1426:
To be honest I think the AFD analysing script would be more useful. FAC is much more likely to have long threaded discussions, which don't make as much sense when simplified to a !vote count. The idea of FAC discussions is that they should be closed if there are no actionable objections, so if
1090:
Hi
Proteins, JAWS has a thing called forms mode, which lets you type text into a textbox. It's activated by pressing enter when you're on the bit that says "edit". When forms mode is off, the letter keys and numbers 1-6 are used for quick navigation keys. JAWS 10 tries to activate forms mode
931:
I've been thinking about your problem of making chemical reactions accessible. I drafted a script to do that and some basic calculations, although please be forewarned that it's still rudimentary. You can try the script out by adding "importScript('User:Proteins/chemicalreactions.js');" to
129:. It seems to me then, that instead of bulk replacing all the equilibrium symbols, it would be better to simply use alt text for the entire equation. The question that I have, is in doing this would it be preferable to use chemical names or chemical equations? For example, if my equation was
2167:
articles? I'm convinced it's bad news enough for editors with slightly uncorrected vision because the slightest deviation in byte count can push this pseudo-table out of alignment. Also it uses various white-space hacks instead of proper CSS alignment. Something should be done about this. —
1793:
Rather strange to see this here and not at FAC; I really don't know how a script can decide what is actionable or not, when an oppose is resolved, and whether a
Support is a drive-by, new editor or fan support. Unlike AfD, FAC is not a vote: I'm not in favor of making it appear to be one.
1627:
I also think we would see a significant amount less of sub than sup, because subscripts are often not read separately, i.e. in chemical equations there would be no real need to write H sub 2 endsub O, H 2 O would suffice just fine because of the nature of the layout of chemical equations.
954:
unbalanced. The last two equations in the sandbox are deliberately unbalanced, for testing purposes. I was thinking of adding buttons to each reaction so that a reader could check each one separately for balancing and mass/charge conservation: does that sound like a better approach?
2234:, which is counterintuitive and not straightforward to navigate, I think. Using whitespace to align the table entries also seems impractical. I'm sure you've thought of this, but conversion to a normal table, with normal style conventions for alignment, seems like a good solution?
1220:
scheme for JAWS which is optimised for math and science reading, but I don't know about it. I couldn't get JAWS to say "kilograms" instead of kg, for example, but I'm using a slightly earlier version than the ones y'all are testing. That shouldn't make much of a difference, though.
967:
By looking at the sandbox contents, you'll see that much of the information is encoded in SPAN elements. These could be generated automatically from a well-designed set of templates. Such templates would also provide a common interface for chemical and nuclear reactions across
2198:
Yes, it's a mess and linearises badly (which affects adults, not just children). Infoboxes can have multiple rows, using parameters such as year1, year2 etc.; which is what should be used in this case. I'm not sure how to code that, so you may need to ask for help elsewhere.
579:
Writing "to the" in place of superscript seems somewhat reasonable, although how would you designate the end of the superscript? For example, by that formula a would read the same as a+c, (both would be "a to the b plus c") even though they're quite obviously not the same
1893:
atypical for reasons tangential to FAC; designing a script around them wouldn't likely be a productive venture and wouldn't capture essential aspects of the FAC decision. Most of the commentary had to be moved to talk as it frequently strayed off-topic or away from
1269:
As for the script, I don't know much about chemistry but to me the most useful part would be knowing if an equation is balanced. I did chemistry up to year 10 (or the 10th grade as they call it in the U.S.), and it was just equations, equations, and more equations.
1624:
something we would have to decide individually on a case by case basis, but it seems to me that we're not intending to use it as a fill in for "to the"- I guess I'm saying I don't see why we couldn't write C sup alpha, even though we don't say C to the alpha.
1888:
and others of that type? It might be useful to have a tool for organizing FAC's with 634 kB of data, and for organizing/summarizing the reasoning on both sides of such a debate." Having read several thousand FACs, the four Roman
Catholic Church FACs are
1486:
Yes, it'd be a good idea, but it'd take some getting used to. But as I said above, JAWS indicates subscripts and superscripts when you arrow through the document with left and right arrow, and the speech and sounds manager can be used to indicate them.
1977:
Although votes don't count, the (actionable, valid) criticisms do; it is they that must be reasoned through and resolved. For example, if a reviewer supports but offer 12 criticisms, those criticisms should be resolved if they suggest a failing of a
2558:
My initial suspicion is that one template expected to meet all possible needs of every type of infobox will create a greater maintainability nightmare in the long term, but I'm willing to see whether this can actually work. Do you mind if I edit your
1814:
We're discussing it here only because Graham has been helping me with writing scripts for accessibility, while I've been thinking of FA issues. His request for an AfD-summarizing script led me to think of an FAC counterpart. I haven't brought it to
1722:
This might not be the right venue for discussing this script, since it's not closely related to accessibility, but we're here and it's still early days, so I'll just continue the conversation, if you don't mind. Maybe we'll hit upon something good.
1988:
Please don't worry yet about the technical details, as in "how would a script do X?" You might be surprised at what's possible. However, at the moment and for the foreseeable future, I'm just gathering information on what might be useful.
1235:
You can get a rough idea of what JAWS is seeing by using insert-control-w to virtualise the window, which will display the text that JAWS thinks is in a window in the virtual viewer. JAWS gets easily confused if you move the mouse pointer;
321:
Yes, chemical equations should not be set in TeX. There are occasions where editors have set them in TeX, but these should be changed for plain text: it looks better, it's easier to edit and it's more accessible for screen readers etc.
913:
It's nice to meet a fellow scientist, L'Aquatique! With Graham's help, I've been trying to write some scripts to help visually impaired
Wikipedians, but if you had anything you wanted to improve for better accessibility, you should
2426:
Anyway if the "new way" uses entirely new parameter names, we can use parser functions to let the "old way" continue to work in the meantime so the rush would not be urgent enough to risk further corrupting poorly presented data. —
1135:
That's helpful, Graham, thank you! It was markable how quickly
Freedom Scientific moved from beta-testing to release of JAWS 10. I haven't tried the JAWS 10 demo; do you think there's been enough change/improvement that I should
982:
types of
Knowledge content, such as mathematical equations, peptide sequences, taxonomies, etc. You can imagine adding buttons to give explanations or to do almost any sort of calculation or cross-check or even to plot things.
246:
918:; we might be able to find a good solution. My dad is also hearing-impaired, and I just finished my first course in American Sign Language, which I loved. For a while, I was getting addicted to the ASL videos on YouTube.
601:
There's a reason mathematicians prefer equations to talk! The only way of disambiguating that in talk is to add some parentheses to the equation, or to use inflection and rhythm to try to convey the order of association.
2578:
Incidentally why do the headers become progressively wider after row 40? I'm pretty entering data there or below would make rows 1-39 appear incomplete (having only 3 columns) so I hope this is some kind of mistake? —
451:
348:
The vast majority of blind people will hear the first example. Use of abbreviations is the best way to write chemistry equations for the blind, because they don't take long to read with a speech synthesizer.
514:
1301:
reaction is balanced, and reports on the counts of different types of atoms in the reactants and products. I was hoping that might help students and other readers understand what "balanced equation" meant.
1940:
2431:
2324:
2315:
2221:
2172:
335:
equations half decently and will try to render chemistry equations as math equations, so it'll sound like the first one. I personally like it written out with chemical names but worry about those using
387:
Okay, so I have another question. As it happens, TeX does not allow use of superscript and subscript in alt text. However, it seems like you sort of need them for differentiation purposes. For example,
1154:
better lullabies for different people; they might say, "Really? I prefer to fall asleep to the potassium transporter protein." Some peptides are cyclic, too, so the lullaby could repeat endlessly...
936:. A small tab labelled "rxn" will appear at the top of the page, in the line with the "history" and "move" tabs; clicking on the "rxn" will invoke the script. For now, the script will work only on
707:
Physchim: writing them to be read the way they would be read in actuality makes sense, but then we get back to the fact that a and a+c are read the same. Parethensis are an interesting idea (a -: -->
2003:
516:. Is there another way we can designate superscript and subscript 1.) without making an unholy mess and 2.) in a way that people who haven't been privy to this conversation will readily recognize?
365:
Wow, Dispenser, it took me a disturbingly long amount of time to figure out what you had written in the first example... Kinda looks like Welsh or something. *sigh* Ah, for a phonetic alphabet!
1734:. For one thing, I had your guidance in the former. But after studying FAC with my students for two years now, I sense the need for something to help the people involved and those who might
772:
Here was my experience at least. Fire Vox skips over parentheses altogether, but JAWS reads opening and closing parentheses as "left parenthesis" and "right parenthesis". However, JAWS read
1064:
If you get a chance, please let me know what you think of the chemistry script, or the other scripts listed on my user page. They're definitely works in progress, and could use some help.
708:
a to the (b plus c) ) are they actually red in screan readers or does the speech synthesizer merely alter the intonation, like you would when reading a parenthetical statement in real life?
1150:
1104:
1885:
1743:
900:
It is funny how the makers of JAWS didn't think of subtitles, but I suppose they had their hands full in getting the rest of the program to work well; it seems a gargantuan task to me.
1973:
continually besieged by people with FAC suggestions, and just lumped us all together. I'm sorry that you got roped into this very preliminary discussion between Graham and myself.
1746:
and others of that type? It might be useful to have a tool for organizing FAC's with 634 kB of data, and for organizing/summarizing the reasoning on both sides of such a debate.
1551:
113:
The equilibrium discussion has sat long enough that I think consensus has been decided. So I downloaded AWB and currently have it running, finding all instances of <math: -->
2583:
2497:
2211:
2191:
2672:
2616:
2567:
2549:
2476:
2436:
532:
125:, which contains the same bit of TeX with alt text added. Unfortunately, I've run into a bit of an obstacle- that string almost never appears outside a larger <math: -->
2392:
2351:
2243:
724:
596:
329:
1966:
1806:
1705:
1682:
1638:
1618:
1572:
1498:
1370:
1281:
1015:
883:
824:
382:
343:
314:
293:
2379:
694:
360:
2271:
1784:
1446:
1409:
1324:
1198:
1118:
646:; that's used among scientists, although it's less common and slightly longer. Secondly, you could state multiplication and other operators explicitly; for example,
611:
687:(for "virtual comma") to tell voice readers when to insert a short pause, just as natural speakers would do when reading out loud a potentially ambiguous equation.
2311:
Only it will be a pain in the ass to convert because you cannot select one row to copy and paste, only the columns. Have to use some kind of javascript I guess. —
1163:
1073:
991:
868:
803:
677:
1477:
98:
90:
1878:
1739:
85:
73:
68:
63:
2658:
2520:
2511:
576:
Ahh! Mine head hurts. Those two would presumably be read the same by a screen reader. Indeed, it took me longer than I care to admit to notice the difference.
2257:
1909:!votes; ... " How is a script going to determine this? For example, pls read the last Hillary Clinton FAC; are all of those 1e opposes actionable and valid?
1874:
to write a summary script will yield deceptive, vote-like impressions that won't be productive for the process. Concerns from some of the discussion above:
276:
2462:
570:
1998:
1867:
1766:
1854:? Conversely, if an objection to an article is not related to a FA criterion, is it valid to raise it at FAC? I'm willing to pose these questions at
1656:
since it's so common and since that's how it's spoken in practice by protein scientists. I think we can overcome concern (1) by reading "sup" out as "
1334:
protons does this atom have" etc. At a more advanced level, it's mostly math and as I mentioned earlier, math goes in one ear and out the other for me.
132:
2284:| senior_clubs = {{senior_club_row|1992–1998|Template United F.C.|75|26}} {{senior_club_row|1999–2000|Template Rangers|32|11}} <!-- etc. --: -->
282:
It'd be better to write out the chemical symbols. That's what sighted users get in all chemical equations, so that's what blind people should hear.
1245:
563:
are pronounced "k-plus" and "k-minus"! So you two sample equations would read "k-minus S-to-the-sigma T-to-the-tau" and "k minus S-to-the-sigma…"!
1590:". It's relatively rare in most settings, but still there might be some ambiguity. (2) My first impulse is to keep simple superscripts such as
2402:
I guess a bot could probably do it right 49 times out of 50, but I'm worried about "coincidental" alignment issues. For example, if there is a
996:
Haha, well, I'm not the cool kind of scientist, unfortunately. I can't do math to save my life, so I had to go into
Biology and leave all the
1458:
21:
1757:
is actionable. To an outsider, the FAC process sometimes seems to generate more heat than light, and it'd be good to help with that.
1673:
I'm unclear on what happens next, though? After we agree on an accessibility approach, do we then try to convince others to adopt it?
748:
2516:
You know, I'm really thinking about splitting caps and goals into separate columns (3rd and 4th) rather than using the parentheses. —
637:
Anyway, here are some ideas that might help. You could use "sub" in the ALT text to indicate subscripts, as in "k sub m" to indicate
855:
391:
456:
2563:
to allow the input of a parameter occupying all three columns? It's not impossible, in fact there are several ways to do it. —
1359:
Proteins: I would love to take a look at your script, however, my coding experience begins and ends at <font color=blue: -->
1100:
2444:
1504:
attribute, which is necessary to write more complex stuff, like sigma notation and differentials, throwing in a <sub: -->
2454:(who probably has the biggest club list around). Can someone check that it works properly and then suggest a roll-out plan?
2332:
Hi Charlotte, that seems like an excellent solution. Are you planning to write a bot to fix the instances of this template?
2009:
686:, rather than creating a new translation. Unfortunately, that would mean a new HTML tag along the lines of <vcomma /: -->
2608:
will occupy all three columns. Can you provide a test case for the header issue? probably just a syntax hiccup in my code.
624:
This is an interesting discussion! How do you plan on changing the ALT text of math-mode equations — perhaps by a script?
2208:
1586:
have a few drawbacks worth considering. (1) There's already a mathematical operation known as "sup", which stands for "
1360:. How I ever got hired to do web design remains a complete mystery. I will, however, install it and see how it works.
759:
could give you much better information — perhaps subscripts and superscripts are a solved problem for screen readers?
1939:? Conversely, if an objection to an article is not related to a FA criterion, is it valid to raise it at FAC?" See
1033:
into bio-sciences and do something that would have an impact! Plus, that's where the real money is." Watch out, a
873:
Thanks. I have some hearing problems, but we'll see what I can do. Too bad it probably doesn't come with subtitles!
1819:
because it's not ready; I don't want to trouble Wikipedians with half-baked ideas. if you're interested, I wrote
1464:
937:
2233:
actually one row of three cells; the appearance of four and three rows is created using linebreaks <br /: -->
1932:? " I can probably provide a counterexample for any scenario you can imagine: see the last Hillary Clinton FAC.
1850:
I'm interested in your thoughts on the following question. Does every valid objection at FAC correspond to an
1717:
668:
something equivalent) as an attribute in the image tag. Please let me know if I can be helpful in the coding,
51:
17:
1099:
can convert Knowledge articles into MP3 files; I wish I'd remembered about the program earlier. There is also
1820:
1731:
1727:
1396:
1392:
933:
106:
859:
but even so, it has lots of settings to fiddle with. Have fun and please share with us what you learn! :)
1832:
1241:
1508:
1463:
Ripping off Proteins' good idea, I set up my own sandbox to play with superscript and subscript (here:
744:
42:
2417:"row" in proper alignment (which is unreliable to begin with because people have different font sizes
1240:, a free Windows screen reader, is better at doing that. You can find out what JAWS output through a
2292:, the use of which usually indicates a serious design flaw, but for that matter so does the use of
1237:
2217:
Well I know how to fix it. I'm just looking for a rough consensus that it's actually a problem. —
1562:
seems like the closest we're going to get, unless there's something we haven't thought of yet...?
2655:
2580:
2564:
2517:
2508:
2494:
2473:
2428:
2406:
team name in the middle column, it might wrap onto two lines, forcing the other columns to use a
2389:
2321:
2312:
2218:
2204:
2188:
2169:
1847:? A vote considers only the latter, but the focus at FAC seems to be on resolving the former.
755:. I should say right away that I'm a newbie to both programs, and don't know the best settings;
2320:
Frankly I'm stunned that anyone would set it up the current way whether they're blind or not. —
1738:
to become involved in FAC discussions. If the FAC is short and clear in its reasoning, such as
1503:
Right, and that works when you're writing in plain text, but when writing with the <math: -->
1187:
process took longer was in JAWS 5.0, but that version was basically a complete rewrite of JAWS.
2365:
1962:
1802:
1095:
article which was a whole week out of date. As for playing Knowledge articles on MP3 players,
2669:
2613:
2560:
2546:
2483:
On the other hand it is only a partial solution as it still uses the ugly goose-egg template
2459:
2288:
With something like this inside the row template (this also gets rid of the completely inane
1982:
2597:
2374:
1092:
752:
691:
567:
326:
248:, for the alt text should I write "Acetic acid plus water is in equilibrium with..." or "CH
8:
1096:
2347:
2266:
2239:
2200:
2163:
Surely this is an accessibility problem for the blind children… accessing… Knowledge's
1994:
1863:
1855:
1828:
1816:
1779:
1762:
1678:
1614:
1493:
1441:
1405:
1320:
1276:
1193:
1159:
1113:
1069:
1034:
987:
864:
808:
Where did you get that demo version of Jaws? Fiddling with settings is what I do best.
799:
673:
355:
288:
2451:
2164:
1955:
1795:
1696:
1629:
1563:
1468:
1361:
1005:
1000:
to others. I have a fairly firm grasp of Chemistry, but it's not as good as I'd like.
874:
842:
812:
712:
584:
520:
369:
302:
264:
1103:; one of my favourite audio files produced by that project is the spoken version of
2665:
2609:
2542:
2530:
2455:
2364:
There are nearly 40,000 references to this template. I strongly suggest asking at
1692:
1391:
Thank you, L'Aquatique! In case you or Graham are interested, I just dashed off a
682:
I would say that it is best to try to keep as close to the way these equations are
1315:
my younger self, since I used to have difficulties balancing reactions in school.
241:{\displaystyle CH_{3}CO_{2}H+H_{2}O\rightleftharpoons CH_{3}CO_{2}^{-}+H_{3}O^{+}}
2369:
1978:
1936:
1895:
1851:
997:
688:
564:
336:
323:
2503:
I picked a random soccer player to illustrate what I mean. Check out my edit to
50:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
2504:
2469:
915:
607:
340:
2343:
2262:
2235:
2229:
1990:
1941:
Knowledge:Featured article candidates/Space Science Fiction Magazine/archive1
1859:
1775:
1758:
1674:
1660:", and I think the parentheses idea could backfire in some complicated cases.
1610:
1489:
1437:
1401:
1316:
1272:
1189:
1155:
1109:
1065:
983:
860:
795:
756:
669:
351:
284:
1905:"My impression is that you'd like to keep track of the actionable, reasoned
1902:
notion of vote tallying at FAC is deceptive, unlike any other area of Wiki.
1749:
My impression is that you'd like to keep track of the actionable, reasoned
119:
2626:
I didn't test it, I just looked at the code, which starts out doing this:
2342:
things that way because they didn't know how to do it better. Good luck,
2654:
etc. becoming wider further down and reaching 9 columns at rows 90–99. —
1432:
1107:, which might, or might not, be a good antidote to insomnia for you. ;)
2541:
to be increased in future it's not going to be too difficult to do so.
2487:
2289:
2179:
1505:
in the alt text actually breaks the code. For example, the math string
1553:
is A + B, but when you try to put that as the alt text, this happens:
854:, Graham pointed me to the demo version. I downloaded version 9, but
2650:<th colspan="5" style="text-align:center; {{{headerstyle|}}}": -->
2640:<th colspan="4" style="text-align:center; {{{headerstyle|}}}": -->
2631:<th colspan="3" style="text-align:center; {{{headerstyle|}}}": -->
603:
2026:
Template City F.C. | caps(goals) = {{0}}75 (26)<br /: -->
1981:
criterion, don't you agree? Conversely, if someone objects because
2033:
Templatia | nationalcaps(goals) = {{0}}{{0}}1 {{0}}(0)<br /: -->
1824:
1657:
1587:
2526:
The reason for using an explicit number of rows is that using the
1691:
As far as, if we get consensus here, then we add it to this page:
2004:
Infobox templates with data entered by column, rather than by row
127:
string that contains the rest of the equation, i.e. <math: -->
1985:, that seems to offer no criticisms that need to be resolved.
2023:
2002– | clubs = Template United F.C.<br /: -->
1858:, but I'd like to know your opinion before I solicit others'.
1773:
know more about the conventions on things like that than I do.
446:{\displaystyle {\mbox{rate}}=k_{-}{S}^{\sigma }{T}^{\tau }\,\!}
509:{\displaystyle {\mbox{rate}}=k{-}{S}^{\sigma }{T}^{\tau }\,\!}
1555:
Failed to parse (syntax error): {\displaystyle 1</sup: -->
1730:
is better crafted for its purpose than the prototype of its
794:+ d" (a to the left paren b plus c right paren + d). FWIW,
1431:, this article contains pictures" in a FAC for the article
1248:
which is in the start menu with all the other JAWS options.
2184:<span style="visibility:hidden;color:transparent;": -->
2419:
1877:"If the FAC is short and clear in its reasoning, such as
1831:. Given your experiences at FAC, you might be amused by
1742:, it's easy to keep track of everything. But what about
2256:
Yes, the bad HTML is a problem for screen readers. See
2031:
1999– | nationalteam = Examplia U16<br /: -->
1924:"Would you agree that the number and quality of valid
1879:
Knowledge:Featured article candidates/Rings of Neptune
1740:
Knowledge:Featured_article_candidates/Rings_of_Neptune
747:
in which to try a few equations, and tested them with
461:
396:
2664:
D'oh! copy-paste error. Should be fixed now, thanks!
2634:
but for reasons I don't understand it changes to this
2258:
Knowledge:WikiProject Usability/Infobox accessibility
1511:
459:
394:
135:
1935:"Does every valid objection at FAC correspond to an
1595:
though, using parentheses, although they're slower.
1149:If we wanted a script to produce lullabies such as
2029:113 (46) | nationalyears = 1991<br /: -->
1545:
508:
445:
240:
181:
2423:). Other ambiguous situations are also possible.
2281:Basically you'd want to do something like this:
1541:
1393:script for assessing !voting at FAC discussions
504:
441:
2020:| years = 1992–1998<br /: -->
700:tag, which codes equations using TeX, has an
128:A + B \rightleftharpoons C + D</math: -->
2301:{{{1|{{{years|{{{year|}}}}}}}}}</td: -->
2016:It instructs users to enter data like this:
2008:See the template documentation for example
2536:subclass for the base infobox is a win on
1435:, the objection would rightly be ignored.
2384:Frankly I don't doubt they'll tell me to
2010:Template:Football player infobox#Examples
2450:should resolve this. I've tested it on
1539:
502:
439:
14:
2285:| national_team = <!-- etc. --: -->
1928:are more important than the number of
1843:are more important than the number of
1101:Knowledge:WikiProject Spoken Knowledge
48:Do not edit the contents of this page.
2468:Like I said I'm not surprised by the
2368:for help in doing the conversion. --
2306:<td style="text-align:right;": -->
2304:<td style="text-align:right;": -->
2178:By whitespace hacks I'm referring to
2039:To get a table which looks like this:
1561:. Using "sup" instead of <sup: -->
29:
1546:{\displaystyle {A}^{1}+{B}^{2}\,\!}
1151:acetylseryltyrosylseryliso...serine
1105:acetylseryltyrosylseryliso...serine
27:
2025:→ Example F.C. (loan)<br /: -->
28:
2684:
2649:{{#if:{{{header50|}}}|<tr: -->
2639:{{#if:{{{header40|}}}|<tr: -->
2034:{{0}}{{0}}8 {{0}}(2)<br /: -->
1037:might join you at the fishery. ;)
2630:{{#if:{{{header1|}}}|<tr: -->
2418:
2307:{{{4|{{{goals|}}}}}}</td: -->
1839:the number and quality of valid
453:does not mean the same thing as
114:\rightleftharpoons</math: -->
33:
2596:Check out the documentation at
2305:{{{3|{{{caps|}}}}}}</td: -->
2303:{{{2|{{{team|}}}}}}</td: -->
2666:Chris Cunningham (not at work)
2610:Chris Cunningham (not at work)
2543:Chris Cunningham (not at work)
2456:Chris Cunningham (not at work)
1827:violations, as I mentioned at
1465:User:L'Aquatique/AccessSandbox
260:O is in equilibrium with..."?
18:Knowledge talk:Manual of Style
13:
1:
2673:11:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
2659:18:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
2617:16:12, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
2584:14:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
2568:14:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
2550:23:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
2521:19:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
2512:16:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
2498:13:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
2477:13:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
2463:09:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
2432:16:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
2393:16:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
2380:14:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
2352:14:33, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
2325:12:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
2316:12:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
2272:02:22, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
2244:01:22, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
2222:18:56, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
2212:17:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
2192:16:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
2173:17:41, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
2028:{{0}}15 {{0}}(7)<br /: -->
2024:Template Rangers<br /: -->
1999:01:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
1967:05:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
1868:23:18, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
1807:18:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
1785:01:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
1706:18:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
1683:16:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
1639:07:50, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
1619:06:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
1573:02:39, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
1499:02:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
1478:01:19, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
2445:Infobox Football biography 2
1949:tidy, linear process. With
1767:15:11, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
1688:things like rads, logs, etc.
1447:11:59, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
1410:07:39, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
1371:07:30, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
1325:07:26, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
1282:07:08, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
1199:15:03, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
1164:14:36, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
1119:11:59, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
1074:07:14, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
1016:05:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
992:04:47, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
884:19:50, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
869:13:35, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
825:06:19, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
804:22:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
725:19:25, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
695:16:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
678:13:42, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
612:10:42, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
597:10:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
571:10:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
533:09:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
383:08:42, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
361:07:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
344:06:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
330:08:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
315:08:54, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
294:01:07, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
277:21:28, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
7:
2507:before it gets reverted. —
1242:refreshable Braille display
751:and with a demo version of
699:Proteins: the <math: -->
10:
2689:
2388:or something less kind. —
2032:Templatia U21<br /: -->
1833:this nightmarish test file
1823:yesterday that checks for
2110:
2045:
2027:{{0}}32 (11)<br /: -->
1459:Superscript and Subscript
1400:last chapter for today,
1244:looks like by using the
1238:NonVisual Desktop Access
2366:Knowledge:Bot requests
2203:(User:Pigsonthewing);
2030:1996–1998<br /: -->
2021:1999–2000<br /: -->
1728:AfD-summarizing script
1718:FAC-summarizing script
1547:
510:
447:
242:
2561:Template:Infobox3cols
2082:→ Example F.C. (loan)
1548:
934:your monobook.js page
511:
448:
243:
107:Equilibrium Revisited
46:of past discussions.
2598:template:infobox/doc
2437:New template created
2078:Template United F.C.
1509:
1093:JAWS (screen reader)
1035:superstring theorist
549:Hmm, tricky one, as
457:
392:
133:
115:and replace it with
2386:go jump in the lake
1559:{A}^1 + {B}^2 \,\!}
214:
2084:Template City F.C.
1560:
1543:
1542:
1540:
506:
505:
503:
465:
443:
442:
440:
400:
238:
200:
2604:line without the
2470:hostile responses
2452:Lutz Pfannenstiel
2378:
2165:football (soccer)
2161:
2160:
2022:2001<br /: -->
1726:I agree that the
1554:
464:
399:
104:
103:
58:
57:
52:current talk page
2680:
2607:
2603:
2535:
2529:
2492:
2486:
2449:
2443:
2422:
2411:
2372:
2295:
2269:
2156:
2151:
2147:
2144:
2139:
2135:
2132:
2103:
2099:
2094:
2089:
2080:Template Rangers
2043:
2042:
1959:
1884:"But what about
1799:
1782:
1703:
1702:
1636:
1635:
1570:
1569:
1552:
1550:
1549:
1544:
1538:
1537:
1532:
1523:
1522:
1517:
1496:
1475:
1474:
1444:
1427:someone writes "
1368:
1367:
1279:
1196:
1116:
1012:
1011:
998:bigger questions
881:
880:
852:
851:
822:
821:
781:("k sub m") and
722:
721:
703:
594:
593:
530:
529:
515:
513:
512:
507:
501:
500:
495:
489:
488:
483:
477:
466:
462:
452:
450:
449:
444:
438:
437:
432:
426:
425:
420:
414:
413:
401:
397:
379:
378:
358:
337:braille displays
312:
311:
291:
274:
273:
247:
245:
244:
239:
237:
236:
227:
226:
213:
208:
196:
195:
177:
176:
161:
160:
148:
147:
124:
118:
82:
60:
59:
37:
36:
30:
2688:
2687:
2683:
2682:
2681:
2679:
2678:
2677:
2652:
2642:
2632:
2605:
2601:
2533:
2527:
2490:
2484:
2447:
2441:
2439:
2409:
2309:
2293:
2286:
2267:
2186:
2185:0</span: -->
2154:
2149:
2145:
2142:
2137:
2133:
2130:
2101:
2097:
2092:
2087:
2036:
2006:
1957:
1797:
1780:
1732:FAC counterpart
1720:
1698:
1697:
1631:
1630:
1565:
1564:
1556:+ B<sup: -->
1533:
1528:
1527:
1518:
1513:
1512:
1510:
1507:
1506:
1494:
1470:
1469:
1461:
1442:
1395:, based on the
1363:
1362:
1277:
1194:
1114:
1014:
1007:
1006:
876:
875:
844:
843:
814:
813:
789:
780:
714:
713:
701:
652:
645:
586:
585:
562:
555:
522:
521:
496:
491:
490:
484:
479:
478:
473:
460:
458:
455:
454:
433:
428:
427:
421:
416:
415:
409:
405:
395:
393:
390:
389:
381:
371:
370:
356:
304:
303:
298:Great! Thanks.
289:
266:
265:
259:
255:
251:
232:
228:
222:
218:
209:
204:
191:
187:
172:
168:
156:
152:
143:
139:
134:
131:
130:
122:
116:
109:
78:
34:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
2686:
2676:
2675:
2648:Row 50 --: -->
2646:
2638:Row 40 --: -->
2636:
2628:
2624:
2623:
2622:
2621:
2620:
2619:
2589:
2588:
2587:
2586:
2573:
2572:
2571:
2570:
2553:
2552:
2505:Argelico Fucks
2501:
2500:
2480:
2479:
2438:
2435:
2400:
2399:
2398:
2397:
2396:
2395:
2382:
2357:
2356:
2355:
2354:
2336:
2335:
2334:
2333:
2298:
2283:
2279:
2278:
2277:
2276:
2275:
2274:
2249:
2248:
2247:
2246:
2215:
2214:
2195:
2194:
2183:
2159:
2158:
2153:
2141:
2128:
2126:
2124:
2121:
2119:
2117:
2113:
2112:
2108:
2107:
2105:
2096:
2091:
2085:
2083:
2081:
2079:
2076:
2074:
2072:
2070:
2066:
2065:
2059:
2054:
2048:
2047:
2041:
2040:
2019:
2018:
2017:
2005:
2002:
1983:WP:IDONTLIKEIT
1970:
1969:
1946:
1945:
1944:
1933:
1922:
1919:
1916:
1913:
1910:
1903:
1882:
1812:
1811:
1810:
1809:
1788:
1787:
1719:
1716:
1715:
1714:
1713:
1712:
1711:
1710:
1709:
1708:
1689:
1666:
1665:
1664:
1663:
1662:
1661:
1648:
1647:
1646:
1645:
1644:
1643:
1642:
1641:
1625:
1601:
1600:
1599:
1598:
1597:
1596:
1578:
1577:
1576:
1575:
1557:2</sup: -->
1536:
1531:
1526:
1521:
1516:
1482:
1460:
1457:
1456:
1455:
1454:
1453:
1452:
1451:
1450:
1449:
1417:
1416:
1415:
1414:
1413:
1412:
1384:
1383:
1382:
1381:
1380:
1379:
1378:
1377:
1376:
1375:
1374:
1373:
1346:
1345:
1344:
1343:
1342:
1341:
1340:
1339:
1338:
1337:
1336:
1335:
1307:
1306:
1305:
1304:
1303:
1302:
1293:
1292:
1291:
1290:
1289:
1288:
1287:
1286:
1285:
1284:
1258:
1257:
1256:
1255:
1254:
1253:
1252:
1251:
1250:
1249:
1246:Braille viewer
1224:
1223:
1222:
1221:
1214:
1213:
1212:
1211:
1210:
1209:
1208:
1207:
1206:
1205:
1204:
1203:
1202:
1201:
1171:
1170:
1169:
1168:
1167:
1166:
1142:
1141:
1140:
1139:
1138:
1137:
1128:
1127:
1126:
1125:
1124:
1123:
1122:
1121:
1081:
1080:
1079:
1078:
1077:
1076:
1057:
1056:
1055:
1054:
1053:
1052:
1043:
1042:
1041:
1040:
1039:
1038:
1025:
1024:
1023:
1022:
1021:
1020:
1019:
1018:
1001:
974:
973:
972:
971:
970:
969:
960:
959:
958:
957:
956:
955:
946:
945:
944:
943:
942:
941:
924:
923:
922:
921:
920:
919:
906:
905:
904:
903:
902:
901:
893:
892:
891:
890:
889:
888:
887:
886:
834:
833:
832:
831:
830:
829:
828:
827:
785:
776:
765:
764:
763:
762:
761:
760:
736:
735:
734:
733:
732:
731:
730:
729:
728:
727:
705:
660:
659:
658:
657:
656:
655:
650:
641:
630:
629:
628:
627:
626:
625:
617:
616:
615:
614:
577:
560:
553:
544:
543:
542:
541:
540:
539:
538:
537:
536:
535:
499:
494:
487:
482:
476:
472:
469:
436:
431:
424:
419:
412:
408:
404:
319:
318:
317:
257:
253:
249:
235:
231:
225:
221:
217:
212:
207:
203:
199:
194:
190:
186:
183:
180:
175:
171:
167:
164:
159:
155:
151:
146:
142:
138:
126:</math: -->
112:
108:
105:
102:
101:
96:
93:
88:
83:
76:
71:
66:
56:
55:
38:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2685:
2674:
2671:
2667:
2663:
2662:
2661:
2660:
2657:
2656:CharlotteWebb
2651:
2645:
2641:
2635:
2629:Row 1 --: -->
2627:
2618:
2615:
2611:
2600:: entering a
2599:
2595:
2594:
2593:
2592:
2591:
2590:
2585:
2582:
2581:CharlotteWebb
2577:
2576:
2575:
2574:
2569:
2566:
2565:CharlotteWebb
2562:
2557:
2556:
2555:
2554:
2551:
2548:
2544:
2539:
2532:
2525:
2524:
2523:
2522:
2519:
2518:CharlotteWebb
2514:
2513:
2510:
2509:CharlotteWebb
2506:
2499:
2496:
2495:CharlotteWebb
2489:
2482:
2481:
2478:
2475:
2474:CharlotteWebb
2471:
2467:
2466:
2465:
2464:
2461:
2457:
2453:
2446:
2434:
2433:
2430:
2429:CharlotteWebb
2424:
2421:
2416:
2412:
2410:<br /: -->
2405:
2394:
2391:
2390:CharlotteWebb
2387:
2383:
2381:
2376:
2371:
2367:
2363:
2362:
2361:
2360:
2359:
2358:
2353:
2349:
2345:
2340:
2339:
2338:
2337:
2331:
2330:
2329:
2328:
2327:
2326:
2323:
2322:CharlotteWebb
2318:
2317:
2314:
2313:CharlotteWebb
2297:
2294:<br /: -->
2291:
2282:
2273:
2270:
2265:
2264:
2259:
2255:
2254:
2253:
2252:
2251:
2250:
2245:
2241:
2237:
2231:
2228:
2227:
2226:
2225:
2224:
2223:
2220:
2219:CharlotteWebb
2213:
2210:
2206:
2202:
2197:
2196:
2193:
2190:
2189:CharlotteWebb
2181:
2177:
2176:
2175:
2174:
2171:
2170:CharlotteWebb
2166:
2129:
2125:Templatia U21
2122:
2115:
2114:
2111:National team
2109:
2086:
2077:
2068:
2067:
2063:
2060:
2058:
2055:
2053:
2050:
2049:
2044:
2038:
2037:
2035:{{0}}46 (13)
2015:
2014:
2013:
2011:
2001:
2000:
1996:
1992:
1986:
1984:
1980:
1974:
1968:
1964:
1960:
1952:
1947:
1942:
1938:
1934:
1931:
1927:
1923:
1920:
1917:
1914:
1911:
1908:
1904:
1901:
1897:
1892:
1887:
1883:
1880:
1876:
1875:
1872:
1871:
1870:
1869:
1865:
1861:
1857:
1853:
1848:
1846:
1842:
1836:
1834:
1830:
1826:
1822:
1818:
1808:
1804:
1800:
1792:
1791:
1790:
1789:
1786:
1783:
1778:
1777:
1771:
1770:
1769:
1768:
1764:
1760:
1756:
1752:
1747:
1745:
1741:
1737:
1733:
1729:
1724:
1707:
1704:
1701:
1694:
1690:
1686:
1685:
1684:
1680:
1676:
1672:
1671:
1670:
1669:
1668:
1667:
1659:
1654:
1653:
1652:
1651:
1650:
1649:
1640:
1637:
1634:
1626:
1622:
1621:
1620:
1616:
1612:
1607:
1606:
1605:
1604:
1603:
1602:
1593:
1589:
1584:
1583:
1582:
1581:
1580:
1579:
1574:
1571:
1568:
1534:
1529:
1524:
1519:
1514:
1502:
1501:
1500:
1497:
1492:
1491:
1485:
1484:
1483:
1480:
1479:
1476:
1473:
1466:
1448:
1445:
1440:
1439:
1434:
1430:
1425:
1424:
1423:
1422:
1421:
1420:
1419:
1418:
1411:
1407:
1403:
1398:
1394:
1390:
1389:
1388:
1387:
1386:
1385:
1372:
1369:
1366:
1358:
1357:
1356:
1355:
1354:
1353:
1352:
1351:
1350:
1349:
1348:
1347:
1332:
1331:
1330:
1329:
1328:
1327:
1326:
1322:
1318:
1313:
1312:
1311:
1310:
1309:
1308:
1299:
1298:
1297:
1296:
1295:
1294:
1283:
1280:
1275:
1274:
1268:
1267:
1266:
1265:
1264:
1263:
1262:
1261:
1260:
1259:
1247:
1243:
1239:
1234:
1233:
1232:
1231:
1230:
1229:
1228:
1227:
1226:
1225:
1218:
1217:
1216:
1215:
1200:
1197:
1192:
1191:
1185:
1184:
1183:
1182:
1181:
1180:
1179:
1178:
1177:
1176:
1175:
1174:
1173:
1172:
1165:
1161:
1157:
1152:
1148:
1147:
1146:
1145:
1144:
1143:
1134:
1133:
1132:
1131:
1130:
1129:
1120:
1117:
1112:
1111:
1106:
1102:
1098:
1094:
1089:
1088:
1087:
1086:
1085:
1084:
1083:
1082:
1075:
1071:
1067:
1063:
1062:
1061:
1060:
1059:
1058:
1049:
1048:
1047:
1046:
1045:
1044:
1036:
1031:
1030:
1029:
1028:
1027:
1026:
1017:
1013:
1010:
1002:
999:
995:
994:
993:
989:
985:
980:
979:
978:
977:
976:
975:
966:
965:
964:
963:
962:
961:
952:
951:
950:
949:
948:
947:
939:
935:
930:
929:
928:
927:
926:
925:
917:
912:
911:
910:
909:
908:
907:
899:
898:
897:
896:
895:
894:
885:
882:
879:
872:
871:
870:
866:
862:
857:
853:
850:
849:
840:
839:
838:
837:
836:
835:
826:
823:
820:
819:
811:
807:
806:
805:
801:
797:
793:
788:
784:
779:
775:
771:
770:
769:
768:
767:
766:
758:
754:
750:
746:
742:
741:
740:
739:
738:
737:
726:
723:
720:
719:
711:
706:
698:
697:
696:
693:
690:
685:
684:actually read
681:
680:
679:
675:
671:
666:
665:
664:
663:
662:
661:
649:
644:
640:
636:
635:
634:
633:
632:
631:
623:
622:
621:
620:
619:
618:
613:
609:
605:
600:
599:
598:
595:
592:
591:
583:
578:
575:
574:
573:
572:
569:
566:
559:
552:
547:
534:
531:
528:
527:
519:
497:
492:
485:
480:
474:
470:
467:
434:
429:
422:
417:
410:
406:
402:
386:
385:
384:
380:
377:
376:
368:
364:
363:
362:
359:
354:
353:
347:
346:
345:
342:
338:
333:
332:
331:
328:
325:
320:
316:
313:
310:
309:
301:
297:
296:
295:
292:
287:
286:
281:
280:
279:
278:
275:
272:
271:
263:
233:
229:
223:
219:
215:
210:
205:
201:
197:
192:
188:
184:
178:
173:
169:
165:
162:
157:
153:
149:
144:
140:
136:
121:
100:
97:
94:
92:
89:
87:
84:
81:
77:
75:
72:
70:
67:
65:
62:
61:
53:
49:
45:
44:
39:
32:
31:
23:
22:Accessibility
19:
2653:
2647:
2643:
2637:
2633:
2625:
2537:
2515:
2502:
2440:
2425:
2414:
2413:to keep the
2407:
2403:
2401:
2385:
2319:
2310:
2308:</tr: -->
2287:
2280:
2261:
2216:
2209:Andy's edits
2201:Andy Mabbett
2162:
2123:Examplia U16
2061:
2056:
2051:
2046:Senior clubs
2007:
1987:
1975:
1971:
1950:
1937:FA criterion
1929:
1925:
1906:
1899:
1890:
1852:FA criterion
1849:
1844:
1840:
1837:
1813:
1774:
1754:
1750:
1748:
1735:
1725:
1721:
1699:
1632:
1591:
1566:
1488:
1481:
1471:
1462:
1436:
1428:
1364:
1271:
1188:
1108:
1008:
938:this sandbox
877:
847:
845:
817:
815:
809:
791:
786:
782:
777:
773:
717:
715:
709:
683:
647:
642:
638:
589:
587:
581:
557:
550:
548:
545:
525:
523:
517:
374:
372:
366:
350:
307:
305:
299:
283:
269:
267:
261:
111:Hi everyone!
110:
79:
47:
41:
2404:really long
2302:<td: -->
2300:<td: -->
2299:<tr: -->
2205:Andy's talk
1700:L'Aquatique
1633:L'Aquatique
1567:L'Aquatique
1472:L'Aquatique
1433:photography
1365:L'Aquatique
1009:L'Aquatique
878:L'Aquatique
846:L'Aquatique
816:L'Aquatique
716:L'Aquatique
588:L'Aquatique
524:L'Aquatique
373:L'Aquatique
306:L'Aquatique
268:L'Aquatique
40:This is an
2370:Rick Block
2290:Template:0
2180:Template:0
1926:objections
1841:objections
968:Knowledge.
856:version 10
704:attribute.
689:Physchim62
565:Physchim62
324:Physchim62
99:Archive 15
91:Archive 10
2415:following
2182:which is
2127:Templatia
2118:1996–1998
2071:1999–2000
2069:1992–1998
2062:App (Gls)
1930:objectors
1845:objectors
1693:WP:ACCESS
1097:Pediaphon
743:I made a
341:Dispenser
86:Archive 9
80:Archive 8
74:Archive 7
69:Archive 6
64:Archive 5
2644:and this
2344:Proteins
2236:Proteins
2106:113 (46)
1991:Proteins
1979:WP:WIAFA
1896:WP:WIAFA
1886:this one
1860:Proteins
1825:MOS:HEAD
1821:a script
1759:Proteins
1744:this one
1675:Proteins
1658:supremum
1611:Proteins
1588:supremum
1402:Proteins
1317:Proteins
1156:Proteins
1136:upgrade?
1066:Proteins
984:Proteins
861:Proteins
796:Proteins
749:Fire Vox
670:Proteins
256:H plus H
20: |
2531:infobox
2408:double
2157:46 (13)
2095:32 (11)
2090:75 (26)
1958:Georgia
1798:Georgia
916:be bold
745:sandbox
43:archive
2263:Graham
2230:Graham
1907:Oppose
1891:highly
1856:WT:FAC
1829:WT:MOS
1817:WT:FAC
1776:Graham
1755:Oppose
1751:Oppose
1558:": -->
1490:Graham
1438:Graham
1429:Object
1397:script
1273:Graham
1190:Graham
1110:Graham
757:Graham
692:(talk)
568:(talk)
352:Graham
327:(talk)
285:Graham
2606:label
2120:1999–
2075:2002–
2052:Years
1956:Sandy
1796:Sandy
339:. —
16:<
2670:talk
2614:talk
2602:data
2547:talk
2472:. —
2460:talk
2375:talk
2348:talk
2240:talk
2116:1991
2073:2001
2057:Club
1995:talk
1963:Talk
1951:many
1864:talk
1803:Talk
1763:talk
1736:like
1679:talk
1615:talk
1406:talk
1321:talk
1160:talk
1070:talk
988:talk
865:talk
800:talk
753:JAWS
702:alt=
674:talk
608:talk
604:Itub
556:and
463:rate
398:rate
2296:):
2152:(2)
2140:(0)
2104:(7)
2100:15
1900:Any
841:Hi
120:Eqm
2668:-
2612:-
2545:-
2538:so
2534:}}
2528:{{
2491:}}
2485:{{
2458:-
2448:}}
2442:{{
2350:)
2268:87
2260:.
2242:)
2207:;
2187:—
2148:8
2136:1
2012:.
1997:)
1965:)
1866:)
1835:.
1805:)
1781:87
1765:)
1681:)
1617:)
1495:87
1443:87
1408:)
1323:)
1278:87
1195:87
1162:)
1115:87
1072:)
990:)
867:)
802:)
676:)
610:)
602:--
546:←
498:τ
486:σ
475:−
435:τ
423:σ
411:−
357:87
290:87
252:CO
211:−
182:⇌
123:}}
117:{{
95:→
2488:0
2377:)
2373:(
2346:(
2238:(
2155:0
2150:0
2146:0
2143:0
2138:0
2134:0
2131:0
2102:0
2098:0
2093:0
2088:0
2064:*
1993:(
1961:(
1943:.
1862:(
1801:(
1761:(
1677:(
1613:(
1592:a
1535:2
1530:B
1525:+
1520:1
1515:A
1404:(
1319:(
1158:(
1068:(
986:(
863:(
848:!
818:!
810:~
798:(
792:a
787:m
783:g
778:m
774:k
718:!
710:~
672:(
651:−
648:k
643:m
639:k
606:(
590:!
582:~
561:–
558:k
554:+
551:k
526:!
518:~
493:T
481:S
471:k
468:=
430:T
418:S
407:k
403:=
375:!
367:~
308:!
300:~
270:!
262:~
258:2
254:2
250:3
234:+
230:O
224:3
220:H
216:+
206:2
202:O
198:C
193:3
189:H
185:C
179:O
174:2
170:H
166:+
163:H
158:2
154:O
150:C
145:3
141:H
137:C
54:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.