624:
597:
541:
780:
634:
759:
277:
465:
374:
434:
356:
876:, it was decided that generally only candidates who receive over 5% of the popular vote should be included in an infobox. The one exception to that rule was where that would result in only one person being in the infobox (as is now the case here). It was decided that in that case the second place candidate (whatever their share of the vote) should be included. This issue is now being discussed again concerning Trump in the
475:
727:
214:
1029:
becomes about "Who challenged the incumbent, at all, and how successful were they in doing so?". Thus, small fries like John Wolfe thus become more significant. Like, with the 2012 Democratic
Primaries and 2020 Republican Primaries, what story is there besides "Obama vs Wolfe" or "Trump vs Weld"? I am very glad we are including second-place finishers now, i think it's a great improvement.
325:
244:
565:
790:
965:
uncontested. Based on the numbers in the infobox, readers should be able to tell quite quickly that it was not contested very well (or that Obama received a landslide). But doesn't removing all the other candidates leave the reader with the initial impression that he ran unopposed? Perhaps final impression if they fail to read on?--
1303:
striking. I think if we want to deviate from the wider consensus in the 2017 RfC we will need to have another broad RfC on the
Elections and Referendums project. There does seem to be some overlap with the ongoing RfC on the 2020 Republican primary page, but that one only seems to deal with that specific page."
1205:
contested (ie that it was a litteral coronation as opposed to figurative one). The infobox as it sits currently quickly shows that Obama won in a landslide, there was a least one chalenger who faired very poorly and some folks protested by voting uncommitted. That is a fair summary of the race is it not?--
1104:
I also agree 1% is insignificant, but "significance" isn't the test for inclusion. The 2017 RfC is clear. If there would otherwise only be one candidate in the infobox, whichever candidate receives the second most votes gets included in the infobox. They are included whether they have 49% or .5%
1006:
Or it could mean that some folks spoiled their ballot, only voted for down ballot candidates or wrote-in random names. That requires a bit of a leap, and reading and making some assumptions about the 11.1% that didn't vote Obama. Not having any other photo there is pretty striking. I think if we
1028:
In my view, the 5% rule is essentially about eliminating small fries in competitive races. So Martin O'Malley gaining less than 1% of the vote in the 2016 Democratic
Primaries is insignificant, the election was about Hillary vs Bernie. But when it's a lopsided incumbent renomination, the election
945:
I picked these for the criteria becasue if a candidate meets any of these criteria, then it could be argued that they had a somewhat considerable impact on the race. John Wolfe Jr. did not make much of a splash in the primary, so i don't see why he should be on the primary's infobox. In contests
979:
I don't think that only having one candidate on the infobox will suggest that the race was uncontested at all. A reader may see only one candidate on the infobox, but they will no doubt see that the candidate does not have 100% of the vote. In the case of this article, Obama having 88.9% as the
1204:
No, a candidate is a person. 'Uncommitted' does not demonstrate that the nomination was contested, admittedly quite poorly contested. Omitting this 'irrelevant' information from the infobox does a poor job of "summarizing the race" because it leaves the false impression that the race was not
1156:
The 2017 RfC is binding unless we form a different consensus. That said, I don't think we are deviating from the summary standard. The idea in the RfC seemed to be that including the second place finisher summaries the race by showing that the race was not uncontested and also showing the gap
1120:
The infobox is supposed to be a summary of the race. Including a candidate that got 1% of the vote and that nobody knows wouldn’t be part of anyone’s summary. I don’t think the standard should change just because there’s only one candidate; the summary here is that of course there was only one
1302:
A wise man once said "it could mean that some folks spoiled their ballot, only voted for down ballot candidates or wrote-in random names. That requires a bit of a leap, and reading and making some assumptions about the 11.1% that didn't vote Obama. Not having any other photo there is pretty
964:
I tend to agree that none of the other candidates made a significant impact on the race. The reason for including the second place candidate, even when they are <5%, or haven't made an impact, appears to have been that only having one candidate in the infobox suggests that the race was
1007:
want to deviate from the wider consensus in the 2017 RfC we will need to have another broad RfC on the
Elections and Referendums project. There does seem to be some overlap with the ongoing RfC on the 2020 Republican primary page, but that one only seems to deal with that specific page.
930:
I don't believe there needs to be second candidate on this specific infobox because all the other candidates did not provide much impact on the race. I think that the criteria for adding a candidate on the infobox (or on any US presidential election infobox on
Knowledge) should be:
915:
on this page about John Wolfe not being included in the infobox. There does not seem to have been extensive discussion about including "uncommitted" in the infobox. In any event the 2017 RfC which came after this, seems to be what we should be going from failing a clear consensus
254:
164:
1566:
741:
55:
1571:
1380:
869:
1169:
I think this does deviate from the summary standard because we are including information that is irrelevant to the overall summary of the article. And isn’t uncommitted technically a second candidate?
1561:
158:
846:
912:
201:
736:
607:
1556:
1496:
664:
1486:
1403:
947:
1491:
1516:
681:
555:
205:
1407:
877:
1531:
579:
574:
550:
448:
444:
1384:
873:
399:
381:
361:
1551:
1536:
1521:
1406:. If you believe there is a good reason to deviate from the 2017 consensus, I recommend you make your case there. I agree that it may be wise to put a notice on
1121:
candidate because Obama was the incumbent and aside from Jimmy Carter in 1980 presidential incumbents usually go without a significant challenger in the primary.
717:
707:
1337:
I think we should have a new Rfc as it seems that there is significant disagreement, and those discussing the matter on the
Republican page should be notified.
884:
is to be included in the infobox there, we should be including the second place finisher here. Not doing so, suggests Obama ran unopposed, which is not true.--
1437:
908:
900:
35:
1576:
1511:
671:
179:
146:
90:
1526:
1506:
531:
521:
260:
1463:
Unsure why it is needed to prominently display the results of these few states, just seems very odd and would probably be better to just delete them.
676:
899:
I tend to think the 2017 RfC is binding on us, unless we establish a clear consensus (and reason) to deviate from it. I noted that previously the
1546:
1586:
1541:
836:
140:
96:
1044:
The 5% threshold was always meant for third place finishers. I was part of those initial discussions and the figure actually derived from
136:
1591:
647:
602:
497:
1501:
659:
186:
1157:
between the candidates. Here the fact that Wolfe did worse than "Uncomitted" also seems to drive home the scale of Obama's win.--
17:
812:
1581:
110:
41:
488:
439:
115:
31:
655:
on
Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
985:
955:
152:
85:
336:
1053:
803:
764:
302:
76:
213:
196:
980:
number under him for percentage of the popular vote itself shows that the race was contested by other candidates.
1449:
1415:
1393:
1252:
You say 1.7%, i say second place finisher. I see no reason to make it seem that Obama's primary was uncontested.
1210:
1162:
1110:
1012:
970:
921:
889:
306:
250:
224:
1472:
1453:
1419:
1397:
1365:
1346:
1312:
1294:
1276:
1261:
1244:
1226:
1196:
1178:
1148:
1130:
1114:
1096:
1078:
1066:
1057:
1038:
1016:
989:
981:
974:
959:
951:
925:
893:
120:
1049:
1267:
I don’t think that’s what it says. As said before it does show that Obama got 89% of the vote, not 100%.
342:
228:
1445:
1411:
1389:
1308:
1257:
1206:
1158:
1106:
1034:
1008:
966:
917:
885:
639:
324:
243:
1361:
1342:
1290:
1272:
1240:
1222:
1192:
1174:
1144:
1126:
1092:
1074:
1045:
310:
172:
66:
811:
on
Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
496:
on
Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
229:
81:
623:
596:
385:, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to
1468:
62:
393:
285:
226:
540:
276:
1304:
1253:
1217:
It isn’t because you spent half the summary talking about a guy who got 1.7% of the vote.
1030:
480:
1433:
1357:
1338:
1286:
1268:
1236:
1218:
1188:
1170:
1140:
1122:
1088:
1070:
904:
779:
758:
474:
464:
433:
373:
355:
1480:
1387:
and should apply to all articles where the second place finisher receives under : -->
652:
1464:
1069:
because we have someone who got 1% of the vote here, that's totally insignificant.
795:
726:
785:
629:
470:
397:
and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit
881:
651:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the
301:) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other
903:
only had Obama in this infobox. I changed this adding "uncommitted" and
493:
387:
907:
to the infobox and started a discussion about it here. I note that the
1428:
Why does this section include results for
Republicans and Libertarians?
911:
seems to have followed a similar precedent. I also note that there is
789:
564:
1375:
808:
18:
Talk:Democratic Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2012
1048:'s assessment of what constitutes a successful third party run.
950:, then he should be in the infobox for that specific primary.
318:
271:
238:
230:
26:
1567:
Low-importance United States presidential elections articles
725:
563:
539:
1572:
WikiProject United States presidential elections articles
946:
where he won over five percent of the popular vote, like
1410:
given the recent discussion of a similar issue there.--
1379:. If there is going to be a new RfC to reconsider the
934:
A candidate has over five percent of the popular vote.
171:
1562:
B-Class United States presidential elections articles
807:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
492:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
1436:was it? I am confused why Ron Paul and others are
937:
A candidate has over five percent of the delegates.
864:Should there be a second candidate in the infobox?
1408:Talk:2020 Republican Party presidential primaries
1557:B-Class United States articles of Low-importance
44:for general discussion of the article's subject.
409:Knowledge:WikiProject Elections and Referendums
1497:WikiProject Elections and Referendums articles
412:Template:WikiProject Elections and Referendums
185:
8:
1487:Knowledge articles that use American English
36:2012 Democratic Party presidential primaries
1492:B-Class Elections and Referendums articles
1383:, I believe it needs to take place on the
753:
591:
428:
350:
289:, which has its own spelling conventions (
1517:Low-importance American politics articles
261:United States presidential election, 2012
253:on 27 November 2008 (UTC). The result of
1532:Low-importance political party articles
755:
737:WikiProject U.S. presidential elections
593:
430:
352:
322:
1105:as long as they are the second best.--
1552:Low-importance United States articles
1537:Political parties task force articles
1522:American politics task force articles
382:WikiProject Elections and Referendums
309:, this should not be changed without
7:
801:This article is within the scope of
645:This article is within the scope of
486:This article is within the scope of
379:This article is within the scope of
692:Knowledge:WikiProject United States
341:It is of interest to the following
34:for discussing improvements to the
1577:WikiProject United States articles
1512:B-Class American politics articles
1388:5% (ie the customary threshold).--
695:Template:WikiProject United States
415:Elections and Referendums articles
25:
1385:Elections and Referendums project
874:Elections and Referendums project
1527:B-Class political party articles
1507:Low-importance politics articles
788:
778:
757:
632:
622:
595:
473:
463:
432:
372:
354:
323:
275:
242:
212:
56:Click here to start a new topic.
841:This article has been rated as
712:This article has been rated as
526:This article has been rated as
249:This article was nominated for
1547:B-Class United States articles
1404:an RfC concerning your request
940:A candidate has won a contest.
506:Knowledge:WikiProject Politics
1:
1587:Low-importance 2010s articles
1542:WikiProject Politics articles
1356:Striking sockpuppet comment.
1285:Striking sockpuppet comment.
1235:Striking sockpuppet comment.
1187:Striking sockpuppet comment.
1139:Striking sockpuppet comment.
1087:Striking sockpuppet comment.
815:and see a list of open tasks.
734:This article is supported by
572:This article is supported by
548:This article is supported by
509:Template:WikiProject Politics
500:and see a list of open tasks.
53:Put new text under old text.
575:Political parties task force
551:American politics task force
821:Knowledge:WikiProject 2010s
61:New to Knowledge? Welcome!
1608:
1592:WikiProject 2010s articles
1420:18:51, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
1398:16:58, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
1347:07:02, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
1313:07:27, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
1277:23:54, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
1262:07:37, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
1227:07:12, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
1179:05:41, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
1131:23:01, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
1058:20:56, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
1039:08:41, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
1017:23:39, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
990:23:19, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
975:22:59, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
960:22:08, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
926:18:02, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
894:18:36, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
824:Template:WikiProject 2010s
718:project's importance scale
532:project's importance scale
1502:B-Class politics articles
1366:23:02, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
1295:23:02, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
1245:23:02, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
1197:23:02, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
1149:23:02, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
1115:20:05, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
1097:23:02, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
1079:19:28, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
909:1996 Democratic primaries
901:2012 Democratic primaries
878:2020 Republican Primaries
840:
773:
733:
711:
648:WikiProject United States
617:
571:
547:
525:
458:
406:Elections and Referendums
367:
362:Elections and Referendums
349:
91:Be welcoming to newcomers
1473:08:10, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
1440:in an article about the
1402:Alright, I have started
868:A few years ago in this
653:United States of America
1454:21:51, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
1582:B-Class 2010s articles
1438:listed in this section
913:an archived discussion
730:
698:United States articles
608:Presidential elections
568:
544:
331:This article is rated
86:avoid personal attacks
1459:State Results section
880:. One would think if
729:
567:
543:
206:Auto-archiving period
111:Neutral point of view
640:United States portal
489:WikiProject Politics
307:relevant style guide
303:varieties of English
116:No original research
1067:ThatOneGuyWithAFork
1046:Walter Dean Burnham
982:ThatOneGuyWithAFork
952:ThatOneGuyWithAFork
666:Articles Requested!
305:. According to the
731:
569:
545:
337:content assessment
97:dispute resolution
58:
1368:
1297:
1247:
1199:
1151:
1099:
1050:William S. Saturn
861:
860:
857:
856:
853:
852:
804:WikiProject 2010s
752:
751:
748:
747:
590:
589:
586:
585:
512:politics articles
449:Political parties
427:
426:
423:
422:
317:
316:
268:
267:
237:
236:
77:Assume good faith
54:
16:(Redirected from
1599:
1442:Democratic Party
1378:
1355:
1284:
1234:
1186:
1138:
1086:
847:importance scale
829:
828:
825:
822:
819:
798:
793:
792:
782:
775:
774:
769:
761:
754:
700:
699:
696:
693:
690:
642:
637:
636:
635:
626:
619:
618:
613:
610:
599:
592:
514:
513:
510:
507:
504:
483:
478:
477:
467:
460:
459:
454:
451:
436:
429:
417:
416:
413:
410:
407:
400:our project page
394:electoral reform
376:
369:
368:
358:
351:
334:
328:
327:
319:
286:American English
282:This article is
279:
272:
246:
239:
231:
217:
216:
207:
190:
189:
175:
106:Article policies
27:
21:
1607:
1606:
1602:
1601:
1600:
1598:
1597:
1596:
1477:
1476:
1461:
1446:Darryl Kerrigan
1430:
1412:Darryl Kerrigan
1390:Darryl Kerrigan
1374:
1207:Darryl Kerrigan
1159:Darryl Kerrigan
1107:Darryl Kerrigan
1009:Darryl Kerrigan
967:Darryl Kerrigan
918:Darryl Kerrigan
886:Darryl Kerrigan
866:
826:
823:
820:
817:
816:
794:
787:
767:
697:
694:
691:
688:
687:
686:
672:Become a Member
638:
633:
631:
611:
605:
511:
508:
505:
502:
501:
481:Politics portal
479:
472:
452:
442:
414:
411:
408:
405:
404:
335:on Knowledge's
332:
311:broad consensus
233:
232:
227:
204:
132:
127:
126:
125:
102:
72:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
1605:
1603:
1595:
1594:
1589:
1584:
1579:
1574:
1569:
1564:
1559:
1554:
1549:
1544:
1539:
1534:
1529:
1524:
1519:
1514:
1509:
1504:
1499:
1494:
1489:
1479:
1478:
1460:
1457:
1434:jungle primary
1432:This wasn't a
1429:
1426:
1425:
1424:
1423:
1422:
1381:2017 consensus
1371:
1370:
1369:
1334:
1333:
1332:
1331:
1330:
1329:
1328:
1327:
1326:
1325:
1324:
1323:
1322:
1321:
1320:
1319:
1318:
1317:
1316:
1315:
1300:
1299:
1298:
1250:
1249:
1248:
1202:
1201:
1200:
1154:
1153:
1152:
1102:
1101:
1100:
1061:
1060:
1026:
1025:
1024:
1023:
1022:
1021:
1020:
1019:
997:
996:
995:
994:
993:
992:
943:
942:
941:
938:
935:
928:
905:John Wolfe Jr.
865:
862:
859:
858:
855:
854:
851:
850:
843:Low-importance
839:
833:
832:
830:
827:2010s articles
813:the discussion
800:
799:
783:
771:
770:
768:Low‑importance
762:
750:
749:
746:
745:
742:Low-importance
732:
722:
721:
714:Low-importance
710:
704:
703:
701:
685:
684:
679:
674:
669:
662:
660:Template Usage
656:
644:
643:
627:
615:
614:
612:Low‑importance
600:
588:
587:
584:
583:
580:Low-importance
570:
560:
559:
556:Low-importance
546:
536:
535:
528:Low-importance
524:
518:
517:
515:
498:the discussion
485:
484:
468:
456:
455:
453:Low‑importance
437:
425:
424:
421:
420:
418:
377:
365:
364:
359:
347:
346:
340:
329:
315:
314:
280:
266:
265:
255:the discussion
247:
235:
234:
225:
223:
222:
219:
218:
192:
191:
129:
128:
124:
123:
118:
113:
104:
103:
101:
100:
93:
88:
79:
73:
71:
70:
59:
50:
49:
46:
45:
39:
24:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1604:
1593:
1590:
1588:
1585:
1583:
1580:
1578:
1575:
1573:
1570:
1568:
1565:
1563:
1560:
1558:
1555:
1553:
1550:
1548:
1545:
1543:
1540:
1538:
1535:
1533:
1530:
1528:
1525:
1523:
1520:
1518:
1515:
1513:
1510:
1508:
1505:
1503:
1500:
1498:
1495:
1493:
1490:
1488:
1485:
1484:
1482:
1475:
1474:
1470:
1466:
1458:
1456:
1455:
1451:
1447:
1443:
1439:
1435:
1427:
1421:
1417:
1413:
1409:
1405:
1401:
1400:
1399:
1395:
1391:
1386:
1382:
1377:
1373:I agree with
1372:
1367:
1363:
1359:
1354:
1353:
1352:
1351:
1350:
1349:
1348:
1344:
1340:
1314:
1310:
1306:
1301:
1296:
1292:
1288:
1283:
1282:
1281:
1280:
1279:
1278:
1274:
1270:
1265:
1264:
1263:
1259:
1255:
1251:
1246:
1242:
1238:
1233:
1232:
1231:
1230:
1229:
1228:
1224:
1220:
1215:
1214:
1212:
1208:
1203:
1198:
1194:
1190:
1185:
1184:
1183:
1182:
1181:
1180:
1176:
1172:
1167:
1166:
1164:
1160:
1155:
1150:
1146:
1142:
1137:
1136:
1135:
1134:
1133:
1132:
1128:
1124:
1118:
1117:
1116:
1112:
1108:
1103:
1098:
1094:
1090:
1085:
1084:
1083:
1082:
1081:
1080:
1076:
1072:
1068:
1065:I agree with
1063:
1062:
1059:
1055:
1051:
1047:
1043:
1042:
1041:
1040:
1036:
1032:
1018:
1014:
1010:
1005:
1004:
1003:
1002:
1001:
1000:
999:
998:
991:
987:
983:
978:
977:
976:
972:
968:
963:
962:
961:
957:
953:
949:
944:
939:
936:
933:
932:
929:
927:
923:
919:
914:
910:
906:
902:
898:
897:
896:
895:
891:
887:
883:
879:
875:
871:
863:
848:
844:
838:
835:
834:
831:
814:
810:
806:
805:
797:
791:
786:
784:
781:
777:
776:
772:
766:
763:
760:
756:
743:
740:(assessed as
739:
738:
728:
724:
723:
719:
715:
709:
706:
705:
702:
689:United States
683:
680:
678:
675:
673:
670:
668:
667:
663:
661:
658:
657:
654:
650:
649:
641:
630:
628:
625:
621:
620:
616:
609:
604:
603:United States
601:
598:
594:
581:
578:(assessed as
577:
576:
566:
562:
561:
557:
554:(assessed as
553:
552:
542:
538:
537:
533:
529:
523:
520:
519:
516:
499:
495:
491:
490:
482:
476:
471:
469:
466:
462:
461:
457:
450:
446:
441:
438:
435:
431:
419:
402:
401:
396:
395:
390:
389:
384:
383:
378:
375:
371:
370:
366:
363:
360:
357:
353:
348:
344:
338:
330:
326:
321:
320:
312:
308:
304:
300:
296:
292:
288:
287:
281:
278:
274:
273:
270:
263:
262:
256:
252:
248:
245:
241:
240:
221:
220:
215:
211:
203:
200:
198:
194:
193:
188:
184:
181:
178:
174:
170:
166:
163:
160:
157:
154:
151:
148:
145:
142:
138:
135:
134:Find sources:
131:
130:
122:
121:Verifiability
119:
117:
114:
112:
109:
108:
107:
98:
94:
92:
89:
87:
83:
80:
78:
75:
74:
68:
64:
63:Learn to edit
60:
57:
52:
51:
48:
47:
43:
37:
33:
29:
28:
19:
1462:
1441:
1431:
1336:
1335:
1266:
1216:
1168:
1119:
1064:
1027:
916:otherwise.--
867:
842:
802:
796:2010s portal
735:
713:
677:Project Talk
665:
646:
573:
549:
527:
487:
398:
392:
386:
380:
343:WikiProjects
298:
294:
290:
283:
269:
259:redirect to
258:
209:
195:
182:
176:
168:
161:
155:
149:
143:
133:
105:
30:This is the
284:written in
159:free images
42:not a forum
1481:Categories
1444:primary.--
1376:Koopinator
1305:Koopinator
1254:Koopinator
1031:Koopinator
1358:Humanengr
1339:Smith0124
1287:Humanengr
1269:Smith0124
1237:Humanengr
1219:Smith0124
1189:Humanengr
1171:Smith0124
1141:Humanengr
1123:Smith0124
1089:Humanengr
1071:Smith0124
882:Bill Weld
388:elections
99:if needed
82:Be polite
32:talk page
948:Arkansas
870:2017 RfC
503:Politics
494:politics
445:American
440:Politics
299:traveled
251:deletion
210:730 days
197:Archives
67:get help
40:This is
38:article.
1465:Yeoutie
872:on the
845:on the
716:on the
530:on the
333:B-class
295:defense
165:WP refs
153:scholar
682:Alerts
339:scale.
137:Google
818:2010s
809:2010s
765:2010s
291:color
180:JSTOR
141:books
95:Seek
1469:talk
1450:talk
1416:talk
1394:talk
1362:talk
1343:talk
1309:talk
1291:talk
1273:talk
1258:talk
1241:talk
1223:talk
1211:talk
1193:talk
1175:talk
1163:talk
1145:talk
1127:talk
1111:talk
1093:talk
1075:talk
1054:talk
1035:talk
1013:talk
986:talk
971:talk
956:talk
922:talk
890:talk
257:was
173:FENS
147:news
84:and
837:Low
708:Low
522:Low
187:TWL
1483::
1471:)
1452:)
1418:)
1396:)
1364:)
1345:)
1311:)
1293:)
1275:)
1260:)
1243:)
1225:)
1213:)
1195:)
1177:)
1165:)
1147:)
1129:)
1113:)
1095:)
1077:)
1056:)
1037:)
1015:)
988:)
973:)
958:)
924:)
892:)
744:).
606::
582:).
558:).
447:/
443::
391:,
297:,
293:,
208::
167:)
65:;
1467:(
1448:(
1414:(
1392:(
1360:(
1341:(
1307:(
1289:(
1271:(
1256:(
1239:(
1221:(
1209:(
1191:(
1173:(
1161:(
1143:(
1125:(
1109:(
1091:(
1073:(
1052:(
1033:(
1011:(
984:(
969:(
954:(
920:(
888:(
849:.
720:.
534:.
403:.
345::
313:.
264:.
202:1
199::
183:·
177:·
169:·
162:·
156:·
150:·
144:·
139:(
69:.
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
