Talk:Danish Palaces (Fabergé egg)

1974:– I see several titles (e.g. Standart Yacht, Rose Trellis, Danish Palaces, and Bay Tree) that cry out for further qualification, in that it's likely that people would type in just those words to find out about something definitely not Fabergé or egg related. Those titles can exist without disambiguation in part only because of their second words' being capitalized, a subtle distinction for people to have to make in searching the drop-down list in the search box. Also, opposing for the reasons of this attempt at reverting the RfC being placed in an even more out-of-the-way place than the RfC (and my having to add yet another page to my watchlist) and its being too soon (wait to see what real implementational hiccups develop). 2051:. Can you identify which are works of art, city names, films, books, TV show episode names, etc., from just the titles? These are not cherry-picked anomalies. That is, it's trivial to verify hordes of articles have titles that are not recognizable or meaningful to most without context, and yet we do not add descriptive information in parentheses to these titles. It is not and has never been a goal to make article titles recognizable to anyone unfamiliar with each article's topic. Also, please note that in each of these categories of titles there are also hordes of examples of articles with their titles augmented with additional descriptive information in parentheses - 2134:"Thousands of WP editors have made it for us". Not true. You misrepresent the numbers, and allusions to the "dawn of Knowledge" are poetic nonsense. Early decisions can often be arbitrary, and age is not a reason to not review a practice. A small group, very small, established early practices, and one of the most important considerations in their reasoning was "What text in other articles are editors likely to want to wikilink", and this is a poor reason, because wikilinks can be piped, and because small editing convenience should not outweigh quality of the product. 71: 53: 243: 1683:"When titling articles in specific fields, or with respect to particular problems, there is often previous consensus that can be used as a precedent. Look to the guideline pages referenced. When no previous consensus exists, a new consensus is established through discussion, with the above questions in mind. The choice of article titles should put the interests of readers before those of editors, and those of a general audience before those of specialists." 154: 127: 736:" is considered to be part of the name of each of these cities. By removing the parenthetic disambiguation on these titles we will bring them in line with policy, guidelines and conventions. Leaving them this way creates a precedent for ignoring our naming conventions and opens the door for much more ambiguity and conflict regarding what titles can be in such cases, a recipe for endless unproductive bickering. 368: 164: 22: 1367:

article is about an art object. Sometimes a relatively fanciful name indicates this well enough, but a descriptive name almost never does. In this case some of the names are of each type, but they represent a uniform type of object, and the type is very well known and unmistakable. Readers are helped by consistency, and therefore the qualifier should be included.

1386:. Agree with Herostratus that moving all these articles would be problematic, since a number would be unclear without some kind of clarifier. Moving some but not others would run afoul of AT's guidance that a good title is consistent in form with those of similar articles. Moving none leaves a set that's clear and internally consistent, and is what I favor. 298: 271: 862:, and then closed the RfC with a result that reflected the consensus throughout the entire discussion. To suggest that either I didn't know what I was doing, or I didn't understand policy (key word there), or (laughably) that my status as a non-admin has any reflection on the closure... well, it made me do the rarely seen "triple facepalm." 707:– The parenthetic disambiguation in each of these titles is unnecessary. Their unadorned names are unique; we have no other articles that share any of these names. There is no ambiguity to resolve for any of them. For most of these, the articles were recently at the unadorned base names anyway, but were moved after what I believe to be 1583:

that does not say what he alleged, but found no consensus that parenthetical disambiguation once invoked must be complete, which is quite a different question. I repeat that the lines on PrimaryRedirect have little awareness amongst the community, negligible visibility on the product, unlike actual titles, and can be discounted. --

1751:, and still seems to be going down in flames, which I find to be astonishing. But that's what happens sometimes when editors focus on trying to establish consistency among article names within one particular area, instead of maintaining consistency with all article titles on WP (which includes disambiguation only when necessary). -- 2067:

Many, though not all, articles could be better titled with more description, precision, and words. Up to about 42 characters, the title renders as a single line on standard output (PDF). The list of titles you just gave reads like a trivia question list for people to guess the topic, that is not good

1903:

This could be just a semantics dispute. "Disambiguation" here is being used to mean two different things, I think -- by one editor to mean "make the title less ambiguous, vague, unclear" and by another editor to mean "differentiate between two similarly-named Knowledge articles". When we use the same

2085:

your personal judgement - "that is not good titling" - is very subjective. I don't make that judgement. I suggest neither should you. Thousands of WP editors have made it for us. There is no evidence that anyone but you, let alone any kind of consensus, has ever given consideration to the number of

1819:

supports the current titles. For example, it states: "The choice of article titles should put the interests of readers before those of editors, and those of a general audience before those of specialists." A general audience would have no idea that "Danish Palaces" is a Fabergé egg; only specialists

805:

the proposal to reverse the consensus of the RfC. The Fabergé egg's are named after things, and thus referring to them not in the context of "Fabergé egg" is ambiguous, not sufficiently precise. "Technical" uniqueness on Knowledge is not good enough, titles have to inform the reader of the content

2249:

Except on WP first you have to establish that a consensus of the community agrees with you that something is wrong. If that were the case then countless RMs every day would be going the other way, and more and more titles would be changing to be of the descriptive kind. Just because you can find a

2137:

A very short title produces a lot of white space at the top of the article, when rendered as a PDF. A long title takes multiple lines. That happens at about 42 characters. Based on this, I submit that the title is not problematically long per se at less than 42 characters, and that after that it

1582:

I see a widely advertised RfC, advertised at the Village Pump, though not at RM, that was widely participated and a wide range of experienced editors, that repudiated the not-quite blank and white alleged policy prohibiting unnecessary disambiguation. Pppery 19:05, 3 May 2017, pointed me to an RfC

1561:

None of these cases apply here. The disambiguated form is not considered a different term in this context, these articles do not cover wider topical scopes, nor is there a specific naming convention that justifies the parenthetic remark in the title. If you disagree with the guideline, perhaps take

1284:

examples cited in the policy). As the recently concluded RFC-decided, Fabergé eggs are a good candidate for such a naming convention, and reasonably so, since they tend to have names that could be a bit confusing out of context, which is heightened by inconsistency among the set. While my preferred

1344:

There is a naming convention; it was just established by the recent "RFC on egg naming convention". I don't see anything in Explicit Conventions that the RFC ran afoul of. Listing at RM would have been good, but it would be ridiculous to throw out the entire discussion because of that omission. It

1163:

Nominator makes the point that this is contrary to rule and common practice, and that stringently following rule and common practice has certain global benefits, such as reducing conflict and discussion time ("endless unproductive bickering"). Nominator may be right, and I don't know the answer to

786:

after the proper close of the (allegedly misguided) RfC. Using RM to overturn a recent RfC is an issue. Naming conventions are prone to being disconnected from community consensus. I suggest the allegedly misguided RfC RM should be taken to Move Review, and that at a minimum an RfC reversal should

723:

for including the parenthetic disambiguation in these cases. I understand the desire to have them all look the same as those that require disambiguation, but WP is replete with counter-examples. That's just not how we do things here. For example, we only add (film) in a title of an article about a

2201:

It's like this. You go through life, and you make this decision, and that decision. You turn down this job, you take that one; you move to this city, you marry that girl, you hang out with these people; and so forth. And then one day you wake up and you're operating a rundown illegal bear-baiting

2141:

The closer has little free play in making decisions. What I hope you realise is that you are frequently verbosely pushing a minority view and that you will moderate yourself. I also wish that you would use processes properly - if you disagree that the RFC-RM was properly done, take it to WP:MR,

1366:

WP is written for the readers, not to illustrate a theory of naming, or to see how few words can be used in a title. . One key purpose of a name is to confirm that the reader has identified the article they want. If they are looking for an article about an art object, they need to know that the

2090:

regarding good titling since the dawn of Knowledge. And it is by that contrary-to-consensus judgement that you and the other opposers here believe that removing the unnecessary disambiguation from these titles is "not good titling". I hope the closer of this discussion recognizes the difference

2068:

titling. Faberge eggs were deliberately named ambiguously, a common trick of many commercial products, deliberately seeking to be clever and gain attention by the very title alone, within the context of the type of product. This method does not produce good titles for scholarly articles. --

1105:

to be parentheses, if the argument that "this looks too much like disambiguation" is taken to heart. It could be "Danish Palaces – Fabergé egg" or something else. "Fabergé egg Danish Palaces" maybe. Parens work OK for me, but I haven't thought deeply about nuances of titling issues and the

1820:

would know that. The current titles better serve the interests of readers than the ones you suggest. This is reflected in the recognizability and conciseness criteria as well, not to mention consistency (since all the Fabergé egg articles follow the current naming convention).

1164:

this larger point. At the same time, here we are, discussing, so.... everybody just relaxing about occasional exceptions being made, if there's a good reason (as there seems here) is maybe an alternate way to reduce discussions. It's a wiki. The titles of things aren't usually

989:

The RfC drew in many experienced Wikipedians who are not RM regulars. I read the RfC as having repudiated the alleged "unnecessary disambiguation" policy. Where is the "unnecessary disambiguation" section? It may require removal, and/or a policy page RfC to test it.

2262:

Enh, I dunno. It's very hard to get rules changed here. A lot of times rules are just old pages from ten years ago or something that a relatively small number of editors pushed through. Lots of times rules are ignored for this reason. We are not really rulebound here --

1306:

specifically warns against using specialized names (which includes the inclusion of unnecessary parentheticals in the title), and, more importantly, there is no specific naming convention justifying the inclusion of unnecessary parentheticals that applies here. Also,

437:

There is relatively wide consensus among most editors against the move and upholding the result of the recent RfC. Most editors agree that because fabergé eggs are generally named after other things that the parenthetical disambiguation is advantageous in this case. —

1559:"The title of the primary topic article may be different from the ambiguous term. This may happen when the topic is primary for more than one term, when the article covers a wider topical scope, or when it is titled differently according to the naming conventions." 1051:. This is indeed overly precise and unnecessary disambiguation, which I don't usually support unless the title has a chance to be ambiguous/shocking even if it's not a title other articles share. Here, I don't see that as the case. For instance, what else could 2086:

characters that can be rendered in a title line when deciding on a title. The examples I listed and countless like them are the titles they decided were good. You don't agree with them. You don't agree with what has clearly been broad community

1904:

term to mean two different things we tend to talk at cross-purposes. "Danish Palaces" does not, technically, require disambiguation in the narrow sense of there being another article with the same title. It does, or may be argued to, require

1153:

of them shouldn't be moved to their bare names (IMO), then it's a question of should some be moved and some not? Not sure, but possibly not -- the current situation looks neater anyway. Not voting on that, just opposing the concept that

884:" demonstrates your lack of experience. It's not just reading the words that gives one experience, but actually experiencing how they apply to a variety of different title situation over several years is what makes one experienced. -- 1115:

and the egg (this doesn't preclude the egg from just being at "Danish Palaces" as the capitalization is different, but... not a huge fan of sending people to two entirely different places depending what capitalization they happen to

1403:, cannot be unambiguated. Looking at sources, mainly peripheral sources because most sources are firmly already in the context of Fabergé eggs, there are other ways to unambiguously name them, non-parenthetically. These include: 1703:

Why do think it's being ignored? That reference to "the guideline pages referenced" refers to naming area specific guidelines where community consensus has been reached and documented for that naming area. Examples include

1030:"Showed consensus against unnecessary disambiguators"? That is not true. Try reading the RfC you link. It was "no consensus" on additional specific guidance, which is consistent with variation on a case by case basis. -- 2231:. Maybe you're too rule-bound. Maybe you're interpreting the rules wrongly. Maybe you're valorizing poor rules and deprecating good ones. Maybe you're forgetting first principles. Maybe the rules themselves are defective. 1285:

option for the naming convention was the natural disambiguation ("... egg") that appears to be part of the common names of these items, I fully accept the outcome of the RFC. This is not the place to re-litigate it.--

1467:

We use descriptive titles for ad hoc articles (e.g. "List of ...") and sometimes when disambiguation is required. Otherwise, especially without a specific naming convention to the contrary, normally we use the

2280:

We just don't. That's not a rule. That's a fact, made clearly evident by any survey of our article titles. I also happen to think our titles are this way for very good reasons, but that's beside the point.

2235:. You know you did because you're arguing that it's a good thing if titles don't best say what's in an article. Your job now is to figure out where you're going wrong and address it, not dig in your heels. 1238:

It makes the titling of Fabergé eggs in general consistent with the way other sorts of articles (with a few exceptions) are titled on Knowledge: with parentheticals when needed and without them when not.

2370: 103: 2276:

what editors actually do, and what editors actually do with respect to title decision-making is what I'm talking about. This is evident in how the vast, vast, vast majority of our articles are titled:

2405: 1055:

possibly be that requires disambiguation? If someone searches for that title, they're likely to know what it is, and if they don't, the disambiguation is not the only thing that will clue them in.

252: 137: 109: 1509:. Already thoroughly discussed and decided. No need for another discussion. And a particularly daft one to choose to place the RM on - are you really saying "Danish Palaces" is not ambiguous? -- 904:

the policies were being followed, not that they had never read them in the first place. If you have a argument with an outcome, make an argument against the outcome. Please stop trying to paint

2103:

I suggest the entire collection of WP titles reflects community consensus on a much wider scale than those few participating here, and what that wider consensus is about good titling is clear:

2415: 352: 1950:- Unlike what is said above me, there is no ambiguity here, thus no disambiguation is needed. If you want these to be disambiguated, then we might as well disambiguate everything. 358: 977:

but which are disambiguated anyway. This proposal is to bring these titles in line with naming policy, guidelines and conventions by removing that unnecessary disambiguation. --

2365: 2176:, re "Here are a smattering of examples Can you identify which are works of art, city names, films, books, TV show episode names, etc., from just the titles?" You can't, and 2420: 2425: 2395: 629: 377: 281: 2410: 2278:

Except for certain rare and mostly notable exceptions, we don't add descriptive information to the name of a subject in its title unless it is needed for disambiguation.

854:

I performed the closure of the RfC. As can be seen from the edit history, I spent 30 minutes reading through the discussion, reading through applicable policies such as

338: 806:

of the article. Consistency between all Fabergé eggs is good, though it need not have had t have been parenthetical. However, I see this was addressed in the RfC. --

2227:

Well, same deal here. You wake up and one day you're arguing that titles on the Knowledge don't best reflect what's in the article and that's a damn good thing, then

2385: 1705: 314: 2390: 432: 1527:

to this article. If that's an error then it's a separate matter. This proposal is about moving only those articles that are currently disambiguated and yet have

1797:

There is no recent RM to be reversing. There was no RM at all (prior to this one) regarding the recent moves of the these titles. That's one of the points. --

1097:

of these articles might benefit from elucidation in some way. Individual Fabergé eggs are fairly obscure, and "Danish Palaces" unelucidated could confuse with

445: 1723:

Perhaps you're trying to say that a "new consensus established through discussion" ? Again, the problem there was that discussion was not advertised at

749:

Please refrain from referring to me as "inexperienced" or "misguided." To be frank, opening this discussion a couple of weeks after consensus was reached

305: 276: 475: 78: 58: 1991:

for those who are opposing here... most of you are making arguments that should also apply to countless articles. Here are a smattering of examples:

1144:

ree" are technically different things, but rightly or wrongly people do consider "X Tree" to be proper names for tree species and type it that way...

825:- I earlier closed an RFC asking about merging two templates. Not a single person complained that this was taking place on a talk page instead of at 640: 530: 2380: 233: 223: 497: 1531:

to them at the respective base name (mostly as a result of the RFC). I'm baffled by the support for all these unjustified primary redirects. --

1889:

The base names are ambiguous. They do not convey the topic. That's unless you are locked into a narrow perspective of the technical concern. --

1651: 1601: 1112: 1098: 563: 1962: 1925:

In an ideal world, we would maybe use "disambiguation" to mean the one thing and "elucidation" or "expansion" or whatever to mean the other.

1716:, etc. There is no such guideline page referenced that justifies all this unnecessary disambiguation for this set of articles, and the basic 607: 541: 2400: 1713: 1709: 1330:, The RfC was not advertised at RM? That is a serious failing. RM regulars should be advised of an RfC to impact titling conventions. -- 1570:, fine. But I don't see any acknowledgment of the guideline here, much less arguments for invoking IAR in each of these cases. Do you? -- 1400: 585: 416:

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a

2315: 1780: 1720:

doesn't either, or this kind of parenthetic disambiguation when no disambiguation is required would be prevalent on many other articles.

1125: 519: 596: 833:

wider audience than a one-week RM discussion. Additionally, as stated by SmokeyJoe, overturning an RFC with an RM is just bad form,

199: 1630:

with the P capitalized, they're almost certainly looking for the egg. Anyway, that's an issue independent of this proposal, since

486: 2375: 1834:

I am passingly familiar with Fabergé eggs, but would not recognise most of the list if presented in isolation out of context. --

552: 448: 695: 684: 673: 662: 464: 1276:

policy, is quite clear that a specific naming convention can override the general rule not to include parentheticals (see the

2101:"Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. " 926:

Meh, I think it's beyond that point, but because I'm a delightful ray of sunshine I'll simply smile and rise above it all.

651: 1908:

to further explain to the reader, coming across it or seeing it in a search results list etc., what the article is about.

1418: 897: 195: 177: 132: 33: 1412: 2142:

don't start a knee-jerk reverse RM. Even if participants here agreed to move back, an RM doesn't overrule an RfC. --

442: 1406: 1453:. The title should be at least somewhat descriptive. Without specifying "Fabergé egg" the title is not descriptive. 1101:. Ditto for "Fifteenth Anniversary", "Lilies of the Valley", and "Rose Trellis", and maybe some others. It doesn't 618: 574: 2105:

we don't add descriptive information to the name of a subject in its title unless it is needed for disambiguation.

2337: 1738: 1528: 1524: 1312: 508: 407: 1678: 1485: 1303: 2267:

and all. Rules are supposed to codify best/accepted practice, and that can change while the old rule remains.

1396: 70: 52: 2012: 1523:

Yes. Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe there is no other destination for this title. It is currently a

1311:

specifically states that "Any potentially controversial proposal to change a title should be advertised at

1732: 1308: 1060: 1106:

repercussions of using parens for elucidation rather than strictly for disambiguation, and nominator has.

2347: 2323: 2240: 2131:

Many issues are subjective, that is not an issue as long as the project is run by people not algorithms.

1930: 1173: 1121: 1005: 945: 417: 182: 82:. Please copy assessments of the article from the most major WikiProject template to this one as needed. 39: 2311: 2285: 2254: 2202:

operation beyond an abandoned strip mall in Merrimack, New Hampshire. So then what you have to is go

2111: 2096: 2059: 2016: 1953: 1881: 1801: 1755: 1690: 1658: 1638: 1609: 1574: 1535: 1514: 1476: 1469: 1319: 981: 931: 888: 877: 867: 855: 771: 758: 740: 310: 973:. The outcome of the recent RFC is that we now have over 20 articles with titles that don't require 715:

and closed by a non-admin closer who I believe misread consensus. In any case, there is no basis at

21: 2147: 2092: 2087: 2073: 2044: 1894: 1859:

per the usual reasons; disambiguation is better than ambiguity. This is the usual B2C conciseness

1839: 1788: 1776: 1588: 1548: 1437: 1335: 1035: 995: 953: 881: 859: 811: 792: 1399:

displays beautiful consistency. This sort of proposal must destroy consistency, as many, such as

313:

on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

1868: 1772: 1717: 1222: 913: 842: 2327: 2288: 2257: 2244: 2151: 2114: 2077: 2062: 1983: 1966: 1934: 1898: 1884: 1872: 1843: 1829: 1804: 1792: 1758: 1694: 1661: 1641: 1613: 1592: 1577: 1552: 1538: 1518: 1497: 1479: 1462: 1441: 1390: 1378: 1354: 1339: 1322: 1294: 1256: 1226: 1204: 1177: 1081: 1072:- the disambig makes every page name meaningful, clear, unambiguous and consistent throughout.-- 1064: 1039: 1025: 999: 984: 957: 935: 917: 891: 871: 846: 815: 796: 774: 762: 743: 454: 1472:

of the subject as the title of the article. Why an exception is warranted here is beyond me. --

242: 2004: 1979: 1825: 1493: 1458: 1350: 1290: 1269: 1056: 1052: 2319: 2236: 1926: 1563: 1387: 1277: 1249: 1197: 1169: 1077: 1018: 1677:

Why are people who are supporting this proposal ignoring the very clear criteria listed at

2282: 2251: 2173: 2108: 2056: 2032: 1878: 1798: 1752: 1686: 1655: 1635: 1605: 1571: 1532: 1510: 1473: 1327: 1316: 978: 927: 905: 885: 863: 768: 754: 737: 2143: 2082: 2069: 1890: 1835: 1784: 1647: 1631: 1627: 1623: 1619: 1584: 1544: 1433: 1331: 1031: 991: 949: 807: 788: 344: 2359: 2264: 2233:

It doesn't matter. What's apparent is that somewhere back there you took a wrong turn

2008: 1864: 1567: 1374: 1315:" (like this one is). The RFC discussion you reference was not advertised there. -- 1233: 1218: 909: 838: 826: 169: 2055:

Why should these articles about Fabergé eggs be treated differently/specially? --

2000: 1975: 1821: 1816: 1768: 1748: 1728: 1724: 1489: 1454: 1346: 1299: 1286: 1273: 716: 712: 1737:"Any potentially controversial proposal to change a title should be advertised at 1685:), skipping over it so they can cherry-pick the bits they like? Is it deliberate? 1128:

or something, "Fifteenth Anniversary" should possible have some way of getting to

153: 126: 1240: 1210: 1188: 1129: 1073: 1009: 974: 720: 2346:

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a

2036: 2020: 1992: 159: 1345:

was advertised at the Village Pump and drew a large number of contributors.--

2048: 2028: 724:

film if the title is ambiguous. There are a few special cases, most notably

367: 708: 1654:

there, and added a redirect hatnote link to the list for this article. --

1488:. It does not simply come down to common name as you continually assert. 1369: 1133: 1111:

Actually "Danish palaces" should maybe be be a disambig page pointing to

1727:, the standard place for listing title change requests, as specified on 2040: 2024: 1996: 1432:

I would have preferred the last, if I had participated in the RfC. --

1168:

important as long as the proper redirects and hatnotes are in place.

186: 194:

Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the

876:

The fact that you had to read "through applicable policies such as

297: 270: 2250:

group that agrees on an isolated case now and then is not that. --

1281: 2206:

and maybe its time to start tracing back and possibly correcting.

1557:

Regardless of your opinion of this guideline, it clearly states:

1217:

consistent, since some will have a disambiguator and some won't.

1136:

is currently a disambiguation page... yes I understand that "Bay

1747:

proposal to rectify what happened in that RFC was advertised at

347:

in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.

343:

This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the

15: 1783:

applies very similarly to revisiting titling discussions. --

829:. I started the RFC because an RFC (in my opinion) garners a 366: 241: 2272:

I'm not talking about the rules. The rules are supposed to

1622:

can reasonably redirect there of course, but probably not

2204:

Wait. This isn't working. Something went wrong, somewhere

2091:

between consensus among a few participants and community

1650:

was a redlink, I went ahead and created the redirect to

732:" convention is arguably not disambiguation, as the ", 700: 689: 678: 667: 656: 645: 634: 623: 612: 601: 590: 579: 568: 557: 546: 535: 524: 513: 502: 491: 480: 469: 2371:

Unknown-importance Metropolitan Museum of Art articles

908:

like they are a pleb who has idea what they're doing.

2336:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a

1008:

showed consensus against unnecessary disambiguators.

2406:

Stub-Class articles with conflicting quality ratings

1741:, and consensus reached before any change is made. " 309:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 1213:, this proposal makes the titling of this sequence 420:. No further edits should be made to this section. 2350:. No further edits should be made to this section. 1634:is currently a redirect to this article anyway. -- 1484:As usual you are ignoring the titling criteria at 357:This article has not yet received a rating on the 108:This article has not yet received a rating on the 900:now? My reading of their statement was that they 630:Red Cross with Imperial Portraits (Fabergé egg) ‎ 2416:Unknown-importance Gemology and Jewelry articles 1706:Knowledge:Naming conventions (geographic names) 944:This delightful sub-thread may have a place at 91:Template:WikiProject Metropolitan Museum of Art 1767:RM should not be used to reverse recent RMs. 1543:Primary Redirects are of little importance. -- 948:, but definitely not an article talk page. -- 1304:Knowledge:Article_titles#Explicit_conventions 8: 2366:C-Class Metropolitan Museum of Art articles 2421:WikiProject Gemology and Jewelry - Jewelry 406:The following is a closed discussion of a 323:Knowledge:WikiProject Gemology and Jewelry 265: 121: 47: 2426:WikiProject Gemology and Jewelry articles 2396:Visual arts in Russia task force articles 1877:There is no ambiguity to disambiguate. -- 1187:per nom, making titling more consistent. 326:Template:WikiProject Gemology and Jewelry 88:Knowledge:GLAM/Metropolitan Museum of Art 2411:Stub-Class Gemology and Jewelry articles 1626:. I mean, if someone bothers to type in 2053:when it's necessary for disambiguation. 837:when the ink on the RFC is barely dry. 531:Bouquet of Lilies Clock (Fabergé egg) ‎ 267: 123: 49: 19: 2386:Low-importance C-Class Russia articles 2178:you're saying that that's a good thing 1652:List of castles and palaces in Denmark 1602:List of castles and palaces in Denmark 1113:List of castles and palaces in Denmark 1099:List of castles and palaces in Denmark 751:simply because you don't agree with it 498:Basket of Wild Flowers (Fabergé egg) ‎ 476:Alexander III Equestrian (Fabergé egg) 79:WikiProject Metropolitan Museum of Art 2391:C-Class Russia (visual arts) articles 641:Red Cross with Triptych (Fabergé egg) 7: 425:The result of the move request was: 303:This article is within the scope of 253:the visual arts in Russia task force 175:This article is within the scope of 76:This article is within the scope of 2316:Lily of the valley (disambiguation) 1781:Knowledge:Renominating_for_deletion 1126:Lily of the Valley (disambiguation) 896:Jeez, we're almost at the point of 564:Fifteenth Anniversary (Fabergé egg) 94:Metropolitan Museum of Art articles 38:It is of interest to the following 1419:Catherine the Great egg by Fabergé 608:Lilies of the Valley (Fabergé egg) 542:Cradle with Garlands (Fabergé egg) 345:project-independent quality rating 14: 1413:Fabergé's Catherine the Great egg 1401:Catherine the Great (Fabergé egg) 1132:, hatnote or dab I don't know... 635:Red Cross with Imperial Portraits 597:Kelch Chanticleer (Fabergé egg) ‎ 586:Imperial Coronation (Fabergé egg) 2229:something's gone wrong somewhere 1775:. There is empirical wisdom in 520:Blue Serpent Clock (Fabergé egg) 306:WikiProject Gemology and Jewelry 296: 269: 162: 152: 125: 69: 51: 20: 1407:Fabergé Catherine the Great egg 801:If this is going to proceed, I 228:This article has been rated as 2381:Low-importance Russia articles 2095:, and especially pays heed to 1124:should maybe be a redirect to 674:Steel Military (Fabergé egg) ‎ 663:Standart Yacht (Fabergé egg) ‎ 487:Twelve Monograms (Fabergé egg) 1: 1714:WP:Naming conventions (flora) 1710:WP:Naming conventions (films) 553:Diamond Trellis (Fabergé egg) 375:This article is supported by 329:Gemology and Jewelry articles 317:and see a list of open tasks. 250:This article is supported by 696:Memory of Azov (Fabergé egg) 685:Third Imperial (Fabergé egg) 652:Rose Trellis (Fabergé egg) ‎ 465:Danish Palaces (Fabergé egg) 208:Knowledge:WikiProject Russia 2401:WikiProject Russia articles 1006:a more global RfC on WT:DAB 211:Template:WikiProject Russia 2442: 711:that was not announced at 359:project's importance scale 234:project's importance scale 85:Metropolitan Museum of Art 59:Metropolitan Museum of Art 1779:. I think the advice at 1739:Knowledge:Requested moves 1313:Knowledge:Requested moves 575:First Hen (Fabergé egg) ‎ 399:Requested move 2 May 2017 374: 356: 342: 291: 249: 227: 185:dedicated to coverage of 147: 107: 64: 46: 2343:Please do not modify it. 2013:Math and Other Problems 1486:Knowledge:Article titles 1158:of them should be moved. 753:reflects poorly on you. 619:‎Nobel Ice (Fabergé egg) 509:Bay Tree (Fabergé egg) ‎ 481:Alexander III Equestrian 413:Please do not modify it. 2376:C-Class Russia articles 2328:15:34, 9 May 2017 (UTC) 2289:16:35, 9 May 2017 (UTC) 2258:02:39, 9 May 2017 (UTC) 2245:02:26, 9 May 2017 (UTC) 2152:01:47, 9 May 2017 (UTC) 2115:23:41, 8 May 2017 (UTC) 2078:23:10, 8 May 2017 (UTC) 2063:22:04, 8 May 2017 (UTC) 1984:02:39, 6 May 2017 (UTC) 1967:12:28, 5 May 2017 (UTC) 1935:03:20, 6 May 2017 (UTC) 1899:01:31, 6 May 2017 (UTC) 1885:18:11, 5 May 2017 (UTC) 1873:05:51, 5 May 2017 (UTC) 1844:04:21, 5 May 2017 (UTC) 1830:02:26, 5 May 2017 (UTC) 1805:16:14, 5 May 2017 (UTC) 1793:04:21, 5 May 2017 (UTC) 1759:00:06, 5 May 2017 (UTC) 1695:22:25, 4 May 2017 (UTC) 1662:16:19, 4 May 2017 (UTC) 1642:16:09, 4 May 2017 (UTC) 1614:15:12, 4 May 2017 (UTC) 1593:22:40, 4 May 2017 (UTC) 1578:16:09, 4 May 2017 (UTC) 1566:. If you want to argue 1553:14:23, 4 May 2017 (UTC) 1539:13:56, 4 May 2017 (UTC) 1519:13:06, 4 May 2017 (UTC) 1498:14:06, 4 May 2017 (UTC) 1480:13:56, 4 May 2017 (UTC) 1463:12:31, 4 May 2017 (UTC) 1442:11:22, 4 May 2017 (UTC) 1391:09:26, 4 May 2017 (UTC) 1379:01:14, 4 May 2017 (UTC) 1355:14:12, 4 May 2017 (UTC) 1340:06:31, 4 May 2017 (UTC) 1323:00:39, 4 May 2017 (UTC) 1295:00:21, 4 May 2017 (UTC) 1257:19:10, 3 May 2017 (UTC) 1227:19:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC) 1205:19:05, 3 May 2017 (UTC) 1178:13:50, 3 May 2017 (UTC) 1089:at least for moving of 1082:09:05, 3 May 2017 (UTC) 1065:03:10, 3 May 2017 (UTC) 1040:23:30, 3 May 2017 (UTC) 1026:19:05, 3 May 2017 (UTC) 1000:00:07, 3 May 2017 (UTC) 985:22:38, 2 May 2017 (UTC) 958:00:03, 3 May 2017 (UTC) 936:22:26, 2 May 2017 (UTC) 918:22:23, 2 May 2017 (UTC) 892:22:20, 2 May 2017 (UTC) 872:22:04, 2 May 2017 (UTC) 847:21:48, 2 May 2017 (UTC) 816:23:35, 3 May 2017 (UTC) 797:21:44, 2 May 2017 (UTC) 775:21:31, 2 May 2017 (UTC) 763:21:17, 2 May 2017 (UTC) 744:20:56, 2 May 2017 (UTC) 646:Red Cross with Triptych 536:Bouquet of Lilies Clock 455:21:47, 9 May 2017 (UTC) 198:, or contribute to the 2314:to change to point to 728:US cities, but the ", 709:a recent misguided RFC 503:Basket of Wild Flowers 371: 246: 28:This article is rated 1771:is advised, this was 1397:Category:Fabergé eggs 1122:Lillies of the valley 946:Knowledge:Move review 569:Fifteenth Anniversary 370: 245: 2318:for other meanings. 2312:Lilies of the Valley 2017:Grazing in the Grass 613:Lilies of the Valley 547:Cradle with Garlands 320:Gemology and Jewelry 311:Gemology and Jewelry 277:Gemology and Jewelry 2310:and I've nominated 2180:. But that's crazy. 2045:The Basket of Bread 1777:Knowledge:Moratoria 1529:WP:PRIMARYREDIRECTs 591:Imperial Coronation 378:the Jewelry subpage 1525:WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT 1093:of them. at least 898:casting aspersions 787:also be an RfC. -- 525:Blue Serpent Clock 372: 247: 200:project discussion 178:WikiProject Russia 34:content assessment 2005:Raised by Another 1679:WP:NAMINGCRITERIA 1053:Kelch Chanticleer 602:Kelch Chanticleer 451: 436: 433:non-admin closure 393: 392: 389: 388: 385: 384: 264: 263: 260: 259: 120: 119: 116: 115: 2433: 2345: 2269: 2268: 2138:is getting long. 1989:Comment/Question 1956: 1278:Leeds North West 1247: 1243: 1237: 1195: 1191: 1016: 1012: 823:Oppose and close 703: 692: 681: 670: 659: 648: 637: 626: 615: 604: 593: 582: 571: 560: 549: 538: 527: 516: 505: 494: 492:Twelve Monograms 483: 472: 441: 430: 415: 331: 330: 327: 324: 321: 300: 293: 292: 287: 284: 273: 266: 216: 215: 212: 209: 206: 172: 167: 166: 165: 156: 149: 148: 143: 140: 129: 122: 110:importance scale 96: 95: 92: 89: 86: 73: 66: 65: 55: 48: 31: 25: 24: 16: 2441: 2440: 2436: 2435: 2434: 2432: 2431: 2430: 2356: 2355: 2354: 2341: 2174:User:Born2cycle 2033:The Moon Maiden 1965: 1955:Taylor Trescott 1954: 1733:WP:TITLECHANGES 1309:WP:TITLECHANGES 1253: 1245: 1241: 1231: 1201: 1193: 1189: 1022: 1014: 1010: 784:Close, too soon 699: 688: 677: 666: 655: 644: 633: 622: 611: 600: 589: 578: 567: 558:Diamond Trellis 556: 545: 534: 523: 512: 501: 490: 479: 468: 411: 401: 328: 325: 322: 319: 318: 285: 279: 214:Russia articles 213: 210: 207: 204: 203: 192:To participate: 168: 163: 161: 141: 135: 93: 90: 87: 84: 83: 32:on Knowledge's 29: 12: 11: 5: 2439: 2437: 2429: 2428: 2423: 2418: 2413: 2408: 2403: 2398: 2393: 2388: 2383: 2378: 2373: 2368: 2358: 2357: 2353: 2352: 2338:requested move 2332: 2331: 2330: 2305: 2304: 2303: 2302: 2301: 2300: 2299: 2298: 2297: 2296: 2295: 2294: 2293: 2292: 2291: 2216: 2215: 2214: 2213: 2212: 2211: 2210: 2209: 2208: 2207: 2190: 2189: 2188: 2187: 2186: 2185: 2184: 2183: 2182: 2181: 2161: 2160: 2159: 2158: 2157: 2156: 2155: 2154: 2139: 2135: 2132: 2122: 2121: 2120: 2119: 2118: 2117: 1986: 1969: 1961: 1944: 1943: 1942: 1941: 1940: 1939: 1938: 1937: 1916: 1915: 1914: 1913: 1912: 1911: 1910: 1909: 1853: 1852: 1851: 1850: 1849: 1848: 1847: 1846: 1813: 1812: 1811: 1810: 1809: 1808: 1807: 1721: 1698: 1697: 1672: 1671: 1670: 1669: 1668: 1667: 1666: 1665: 1664: 1648:Danish palaces 1632:Danish Palaces 1628:Danish Palaces 1624:Danish Palaces 1620:Danish palaces 1599: 1598: 1597: 1596: 1595: 1504: 1503: 1502: 1501: 1500: 1447: 1446: 1445: 1444: 1427: 1426: 1425: 1424: 1423: 1422: 1416: 1410: 1381: 1361: 1360: 1359: 1358: 1357: 1342: 1272:, part of the 1263: 1262: 1261: 1260: 1259: 1251: 1199: 1181: 1180: 1160: 1159: 1146: 1145: 1140:ree" and "Bay 1118: 1117: 1108: 1107: 1084: 1067: 1046: 1045: 1044: 1043: 1042: 1028: 1020: 975:disambiguation 962: 961: 960: 942: 941: 940: 939: 938: 921: 920: 849: 820: 819: 818: 780: 779: 778: 777: 705: 704: 701:Memory of Azov 693: 690:Third Imperial 682: 679:Steel Military 671: 668:Standart Yacht 660: 649: 638: 627: 616: 605: 594: 583: 572: 561: 550: 539: 528: 517: 506: 495: 484: 473: 470:Danish Palaces 460: 458: 423: 422: 408:requested move 402: 400: 397: 395: 391: 390: 387: 386: 383: 382: 373: 363: 362: 355: 349: 348: 341: 335: 334: 332: 315:the discussion 301: 289: 288: 274: 262: 261: 258: 257: 248: 238: 237: 230:Low-importance 226: 220: 219: 217: 190: 189:on Knowledge. 174: 173: 157: 145: 144: 142:Low‑importance 130: 118: 117: 114: 113: 106: 100: 99: 97: 74: 62: 61: 56: 44: 43: 37: 26: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2438: 2427: 2424: 2422: 2419: 2417: 2414: 2412: 2409: 2407: 2404: 2402: 2399: 2397: 2394: 2392: 2389: 2387: 2384: 2382: 2379: 2377: 2374: 2372: 2369: 2367: 2364: 2363: 2361: 2351: 2349: 2344: 2339: 2334: 2333: 2329: 2325: 2321: 2317: 2313: 2309: 2306: 2290: 2287: 2284: 2279: 2275: 2271: 2270: 2266: 2261: 2260: 2259: 2256: 2253: 2248: 2247: 2246: 2242: 2238: 2234: 2230: 2226: 2225: 2224: 2223: 2222: 2221: 2220: 2219: 2218: 2217: 2205: 2200: 2199: 2198: 2197: 2196: 2195: 2194: 2193: 2192: 2191: 2179: 2175: 2171: 2170: 2169: 2168: 2167: 2166: 2165: 2164: 2163: 2162: 2153: 2149: 2145: 2140: 2136: 2133: 2130: 2129: 2128: 2127: 2126: 2125: 2124: 2123: 2116: 2113: 2110: 2106: 2102: 2098: 2097:WP:CONLIMITED 2094: 2089: 2084: 2081: 2080: 2079: 2075: 2071: 2066: 2065: 2064: 2061: 2058: 2054: 2050: 2046: 2042: 2038: 2034: 2030: 2026: 2022: 2018: 2014: 2010: 2009:Half Measures 2006: 2002: 1998: 1994: 1990: 1987: 1985: 1981: 1977: 1973: 1970: 1968: 1964: 1959: 1958: 1957: 1949: 1946: 1945: 1936: 1932: 1928: 1924: 1923: 1922: 1921: 1920: 1919: 1918: 1917: 1907: 1902: 1901: 1900: 1896: 1892: 1888: 1887: 1886: 1883: 1880: 1876: 1875: 1874: 1870: 1866: 1862: 1858: 1855: 1854: 1845: 1841: 1837: 1833: 1832: 1831: 1827: 1823: 1818: 1814: 1806: 1803: 1800: 1796: 1795: 1794: 1790: 1786: 1782: 1778: 1774: 1770: 1766: 1765: 1764: 1763: 1762: 1761: 1760: 1757: 1754: 1750: 1746: 1742: 1740: 1734: 1730: 1726: 1722: 1719: 1715: 1711: 1707: 1702: 1701: 1700: 1699: 1696: 1692: 1688: 1684: 1681:(for example 1680: 1676: 1673: 1663: 1660: 1657: 1653: 1649: 1645: 1644: 1643: 1640: 1637: 1633: 1629: 1625: 1621: 1617: 1616: 1615: 1611: 1607: 1603: 1600: 1594: 1590: 1586: 1581: 1580: 1579: 1576: 1573: 1569: 1565: 1560: 1556: 1555: 1554: 1550: 1546: 1542: 1541: 1540: 1537: 1534: 1530: 1526: 1522: 1521: 1520: 1516: 1512: 1508: 1505: 1499: 1495: 1491: 1487: 1483: 1482: 1481: 1478: 1475: 1471: 1470:WP:COMMONNAME 1466: 1465: 1464: 1460: 1456: 1452: 1449: 1448: 1443: 1439: 1435: 1431: 1430: 1429: 1428: 1420: 1417: 1414: 1411: 1408: 1405: 1404: 1402: 1398: 1394: 1393: 1392: 1389: 1385: 1382: 1380: 1376: 1372: 1371: 1365: 1362: 1356: 1352: 1348: 1343: 1341: 1337: 1333: 1329: 1326: 1325: 1324: 1321: 1318: 1314: 1310: 1305: 1301: 1298: 1297: 1296: 1292: 1288: 1283: 1279: 1275: 1271: 1267: 1264: 1258: 1255: 1248: 1235: 1230: 1229: 1228: 1224: 1220: 1216: 1212: 1209:Technically, 1208: 1207: 1206: 1203: 1196: 1186: 1183: 1182: 1179: 1175: 1171: 1167: 1162: 1161: 1157: 1152: 1148: 1147: 1143: 1139: 1135: 1131: 1127: 1123: 1120: 1119: 1114: 1110: 1109: 1104: 1100: 1096: 1092: 1088: 1085: 1083: 1079: 1075: 1071: 1068: 1066: 1062: 1058: 1054: 1050: 1047: 1041: 1037: 1033: 1029: 1027: 1024: 1017: 1007: 1003: 1002: 1001: 997: 993: 988: 987: 986: 983: 980: 976: 972: 968: 967: 963: 959: 955: 951: 947: 943: 937: 933: 929: 925: 924: 923: 922: 919: 915: 911: 907: 903: 899: 895: 894: 893: 890: 887: 883: 879: 878:WP:COMMONNAME 875: 874: 873: 869: 865: 861: 857: 856:WP:COMMONNAME 853: 850: 848: 844: 840: 836: 832: 828: 824: 821: 817: 813: 809: 804: 800: 799: 798: 794: 790: 785: 782: 781: 776: 773: 770: 766: 765: 764: 760: 756: 752: 748: 747: 746: 745: 742: 739: 735: 731: 727: 722: 718: 714: 710: 702: 697: 694: 691: 686: 683: 680: 675: 672: 669: 664: 661: 658: 653: 650: 647: 642: 639: 636: 631: 628: 625: 620: 617: 614: 609: 606: 603: 598: 595: 592: 587: 584: 581: 576: 573: 570: 565: 562: 559: 554: 551: 548: 543: 540: 537: 532: 529: 526: 521: 518: 515: 510: 507: 504: 499: 496: 493: 488: 485: 482: 477: 474: 471: 466: 463: 462: 461: 457: 456: 453: 452: 450: 447: 444: 434: 428: 421: 419: 414: 409: 404: 403: 398: 396: 380: 379: 369: 365: 364: 360: 354: 351: 350: 346: 340: 337: 336: 333: 316: 312: 308: 307: 302: 299: 295: 294: 290: 283: 278: 275: 272: 268: 255: 254: 244: 240: 239: 235: 231: 225: 222: 221: 218: 201: 197: 193: 188: 184: 180: 179: 171: 170:Russia portal 160: 158: 155: 151: 150: 146: 139: 134: 131: 128: 124: 111: 105: 102: 101: 98: 81: 80: 75: 72: 68: 67: 63: 60: 57: 54: 50: 45: 41: 35: 27: 23: 18: 17: 2342: 2335: 2307: 2277: 2273: 2232: 2228: 2203: 2177: 2104: 2100: 2093:WP:CONSENSUS 2088:WP:CONSENSUS 2052: 2001:Black Gravel 1988: 1971: 1952: 1951: 1947: 1905: 1860: 1856: 1744: 1736: 1682: 1674: 1558: 1506: 1450: 1383: 1368: 1363: 1265: 1214: 1184: 1165: 1155: 1150: 1141: 1137: 1102: 1094: 1090: 1086: 1069: 1057:Nohomersryan 1048: 970: 965: 964: 901: 882:WP:PRECISION 860:WP:PRECISION 851: 834: 830: 822: 802: 783: 750: 733: 729: 725: 706: 657:Rose Trellis 459: 446:CleverPhrase 440: 439: 426: 424: 412: 405: 394: 376: 304: 251: 229: 196:project page 191: 176: 77: 40:WikiProjects 2348:move review 2320:Hyperbolick 2237:Herostratus 1927:Herostratus 1906:elucidation 1773:WP:BLUDGEON 1743:That said, 1718:WP:CRITERIA 1170:Herostratus 1130:Anniversary 418:move review 183:WikiProject 138:Visual arts 2360:Categories 2037:The Pearls 2021:Jungleland 1993:Anima nera 1863:nonsense. 1861:uber Alles 1687:Exemplo347 1606:Necrothesp 1511:Necrothesp 1270:WP:PRECISE 928:Exemplo347 906:Exemplo347 864:Exemplo347 835:especially 755:Exemplo347 624:‎Nobel Ice 286:Stub‑class 2144:SmokeyJoe 2083:SmokeyJoe 2070:SmokeyJoe 2049:Golf Ball 2029:The Stand 1891:SmokeyJoe 1836:SmokeyJoe 1815:Actually 1785:SmokeyJoe 1585:SmokeyJoe 1562:it up at 1545:SmokeyJoe 1434:SmokeyJoe 1332:SmokeyJoe 1032:SmokeyJoe 1004:However, 992:SmokeyJoe 950:SmokeyJoe 902:made sure 808:SmokeyJoe 789:SmokeyJoe 580:First Hen 427:Not Moved 1963:my edits 1865:Dicklyon 1675:Question 1395:Indeed, 1234:Primefac 1219:Primefac 1134:Bay tree 910:Primefac 839:Primefac 767:Done. -- 514:Bay Tree 2274:reflect 2041:Welland 2025:Malavoi 1997:Timmins 1976:Dhtwiki 1948:Support 1822:Omnedon 1490:Omnedon 1455:Omnedon 1347:Trystan 1300:Trystan 1287:Trystan 1185:Support 1049:Support 966:Support 282:Jewelry 232:on the 30:C-class 2308:Oppose 2265:WP:IAR 1972:Oppose 1857:Oppose 1646:Since 1618:Well, 1568:WP:IAR 1507:Oppose 1451:Oppose 1384:Oppose 1364:Oppose 1266:Oppose 1211:pppery 1149:Since 1087:Oppose 1074:Mervyn 1070:Oppose 852:Oppose 827:WP:TFD 803:oppose 443:Insert 205:Russia 187:Russia 133:Russia 36:scale. 1960:- + 1817:WP:AT 1769:WP:MR 1749:WP:RM 1729:WP:AT 1725:WP:RM 1604:? -- 1415:, and 1375:talk 1282:M-185 1274:WP:AT 1116:use.) 969:, as 734:state 730:state 717:WP:AT 713:WP:RM 2324:talk 2241:talk 2148:talk 2074:talk 1980:talk 1931:talk 1895:talk 1869:talk 1840:talk 1826:talk 1789:talk 1745:this 1691:talk 1610:talk 1589:talk 1564:WT:D 1549:talk 1515:talk 1494:talk 1459:talk 1438:talk 1388:╠╣uw 1351:talk 1336:talk 1291:talk 1280:and 1223:talk 1215:less 1174:talk 1166:that 1151:some 1103:have 1095:some 1078:talk 1061:talk 1036:talk 996:talk 954:talk 932:talk 914:talk 880:and 868:talk 858:and 843:talk 831:much 812:talk 793:talk 759:talk 726:most 721:WP:D 449:Here 339:Stub 181:, a 2340:. 2283:В²C 2252:В²C 2109:В²C 2057:В²C 1879:В²C 1799:В²C 1753:В²C 1731:at 1656:В²C 1636:В²C 1572:В²C 1533:В²C 1474:В²C 1370:DGG 1328:В²C 1317:В²C 1156:all 1091:all 979:В²C 971:nom 886:В²C 769:В²C 738:В²C 719:or 353:??? 224:Low 104:??? 2362:: 2326:) 2281:-- 2243:) 2150:) 2107:-- 2099:: 2076:) 2047:, 2043:, 2039:, 2035:, 2031:, 2027:, 2023:, 2019:, 2015:, 2011:, 2007:, 2003:, 1999:, 1995:, 1982:) 1933:) 1897:) 1871:) 1842:) 1828:) 1791:) 1735:: 1712:, 1708:, 1693:) 1612:) 1591:) 1551:) 1517:) 1496:) 1461:) 1440:) 1377:) 1353:) 1338:) 1302:, 1293:) 1268:. 1225:) 1176:) 1080:) 1063:) 1038:) 998:) 990:-- 956:) 934:) 916:) 870:) 845:) 814:) 795:) 761:) 698:→ 687:→ 676:→ 665:→ 654:→ 643:→ 632:→ 621:→ 610:→ 599:→ 588:→ 577:→ 566:→ 555:→ 544:→ 533:→ 522:→ 511:→ 500:→ 489:→ 478:→ 467:→ 429:. 410:. 280:: 136:: 2322:( 2286:☎ 2255:☎ 2239:( 2172:@ 2146:( 2112:☎ 2072:( 2060:☎ 1978:( 1929:( 1893:( 1882:☎ 1867:( 1838:( 1824:( 1802:☎ 1787:( 1756:☎ 1689:( 1659:☎ 1639:☎ 1608:( 1587:( 1575:☎ 1547:( 1536:☎ 1513:( 1492:( 1477:☎ 1457:( 1436:( 1421:. 1409:, 1373:( 1349:( 1334:( 1320:☎ 1289:( 1254:y 1252:r 1250:e 1246:p 1244:p 1242:P 1236:: 1232:@ 1221:( 1202:y 1200:r 1198:e 1194:p 1192:p 1190:P 1172:( 1142:t 1138:T 1076:( 1059:( 1034:( 1023:y 1021:r 1019:e 1015:p 1013:p 1011:P 994:( 982:☎ 952:( 930:( 912:( 889:☎ 866:( 841:( 810:( 791:( 772:☎ 757:( 741:☎ 435:) 431:( 381:. 361:. 256:. 236:. 202:. 112:. 42::

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

Index