770:- Sorry to just jump in here, but I thought I'd leave this comment before (a) too much time went into this review or (b) it was passed. Saw this come up on the GAN talk page and was curious how a reviewer would handle such a subject, so watchlisted the review page. I have to say I'm a little concerned. It's an interesting article, but the reason I was curious is that the concept of "hole" seems like it will inevitably be the dictionary definition plus some collection of different kinds of holes that are covered in other articles. It seems like it comprises mostly a small subset of various concepts that use the word "hole" in its primary meaning. Any broad coverage of such a topic would also include cavities, pits, hollow places, excavations, caves, hiding places, trenches, ponds, craters, orifices, etc. (these all come from the OED's entry). In other words, it seems like a massive subject of the sort that, while I certainly wouldn't advocate deleting or something, it seems like it would be really really hard to make something like that "broad" in coverage. As an aside, there are also multiple unsourced paragraphs, an entirely unsourced section, etc. —
909:
asking when a mound becomes a hill, or when a length of sand on the edge of a body of water becomes a beach. Can you test the length of sand to determine whether it is a beach? Could any such test be accepted uniformly, in different cultures, for purposes both scientific and aesthetic, or for purposes of both conservation and recreation? We do not write articles on abstract topics because they are easy, but because they are hard. We benefit the reader by giving them the breadth of available views on the topic, which in this case go beyond the physical, and into math, psychology, and even philosophy. Basically, if you look at the page image for this page, is there any question that it is a picture of a hole? Is there any question that anything shown on the page is a picture of a hole?
870:, which describes both the biological diversity of plants, and the human uses of plants. This includes the fact that aesthetic uses of plants include the incorporation of "architectural designs resembling plants", which are themselves not actual plants, but we hardly call that article an extended dicdef because it collects diverse aspects of the topic. Basically, we all know what a "hole" is, and it is useful to know that this concept has precise meanings in certain fields (mathematics, biology, etc.). Like many topics about physical objects, there are edge cases where people question whether something that technically falls into a definition does so in actual usage. This is no different than the question of how tall a hill has to be before it becomes a mountain.
1080:
161:
151:
130:
1461:
1539:
found several. Even if you filled all of those (which you seem disinclined to do), the problem would remain that you had no theoretical basis for the choice of just these particular types of hole, nor do you as yet have any basis for arguing that you have identified all the major types (and the GA criteria require you to cover "the main points" of the domain), let alone covered them adequately. This, indeed, is a "hole" in the article's construction.
851:. But the article as it stands now is much broader and most of its content is about various entities in mathematics, engineering, living organisms, etc. The only thing that these have in common is the fact that they can be referred to in English as "hole". An article built around that is more reflective of the wide range of uses of an English word, and less representative of what you would like to think of as a properly encyclopedic topic. –
894:. Plants have a reasonably clear definition. You can take something, test it, and determine if it's a plant. Plant isn't a potential characteristic of any solid piece of matter. If you work backwards to test material to see what it is, you can come to a conclusion that it's a plant. If you work backwards to classify something as a hole, what separates the result "hole" from a result of cavity, trench, recess, pit, crevice, etc.? —
53:
624:
614:
601:
588:
505:
492:
575:
565:
547:
533:
519:
479:
642:
1452:
99:
1443:
679:
21:
369:
1035:- "when in a hole, stop digging", the hole here standing for a problem of one's own making. That in turn alludes to a wider metaphorical meaning, "being in a hole", equating hole with difficulty, being stuck or trapped, whether or not you have "dug yourself into a hole". "Hole in their story" seems by the way to be uncited. "
865:
as an opening in or through a particular medium, usually a solid body. I completely agree, however, that there is no basis for removal of content. This is more than a random collection of things called "hole"; this is a grouping of different concepts of what makes a hole, and what is their importance
1803:
It seems like Law of holes is quite different from the
Beatles sense. I especially dislike creating a "pop-culture" section for what feels like "everything that is unrelated to other large sections" due to importing separate articles on distinct meanings. The general meaning of hole as "Difficulty,
846:
I could second some of
Rhododendrites's concerns. Of course, this is a really curious and useful article, and deletion or removing content is squarely out of the question. But if it is to become a GA, it really needs to be clear on what it is about. One radical view is to keep to the most abstract
1145:
The "Gallery of holes" is suggestive but does not exactly match the very limited categorisation of holes represented by the article's table of contents: the selection is attractive but comes with no justification or explanation of the reasons for selecting just these types or instances (WP:OR, in
908:
There are organisms that people have argued whether they are really a "plant" or not. There are always edge cases. The question of when a trench ceases to be a "hole" because it is too long, or when a depression ceases to be a hole because it is too wide relative to its depth is no different then
1538:
Much more seriously, however, you have not addressed my main point, which is that the article has no basis in any book or similar source which spans the entire subject. Without such, the article *hopes* to provide coverage, scrabbling here and there when anyone points out a lacuna – and I easily
1516:
I'm afraid I don't agree AT ALL with your response, which I see as a failure of analysis. You give the impression you are trying to skip over the, ah, porous nature of the article, which is your privilege, though GA reviewers may not agree with you. On the shell holes, I see no advantage in your
1329:
Rabbit holes and foxholes could be mentioned, but rabbit hole subject matter would be wholly off topic. Explosion holes caused by shelling seem as notable here as wall-holes caused by the same thing, though at a cursory glance it may be possible to add something about scars left over from WW1. A
1826:
The concept of stopping movement in the wrong direction is widespread, but if the article is expanded that way it will no longer be an article on the "law of holes", but on some supertopic to that. That's fine, but not exactly an impediment to including the content here.
1407:
Here are some pictures of shell holes. Are they really notable? Foxhole however, well I don't know. It conjures for me the spade with the hole in it for shielding a snipers face as he shoots out from the shell hole. Is construable as a focus of war industry? Hm...
1475:
Conversely, these shell holes seem to be preserved as a monument. I like the third one if one of these is used somewhere. I think trivia and culture section or something out of these suggestions, big enough section and that third picture could be nice.
1921:
distinct topics and readers are not better served by combining them. To the extent that there is overlap, a summary of LOH should be added here with a hatnote per Guy, but in general no one looking for one is interested in information from the other.
1904:. The purpose is better served by having a short summary of the law of holes in this article with a "main article: Law of Holes" link. There are over 200 links to the Law of Holes page, and virtually none of them are talking about a literal hole. ==
822:, I feel the article is broad enough, and that some of the things you listed can't be considered holes. However, the article can probably be improved by adding more to the "see also" or hatnotes, and by providing more details on what are
988:
The engineering senses look as if they may cover "the main points" within that subdomain, but unfortunately nearly the whole of that section is uncited, which one might have thought grounds for a quick-fail under the GA
1347:
Summary: Mention wormhole, ozone hole, why a black hole isn't a hole. Expand toward sinus, Pore and stoma. Trivia and entertainment. Find a place to put an introduction to foxholes with a mention of WW1 craters i.e.
954:
No overall source is given for the topic as a whole (no pun intended). How do we know that the editor has not invented the categorisation shown in the table of contents? What other types of hole are not covered?
944:
I'm sorry to burden the reviewer with yet more thoughts, but (seconding the general air of concern), I'd not have thought the article was even close to covering "the main points" of this intriguing and complex
860:
I would disagree with the notion that the only thing that the topics covered have in common is the fact that they can be referred to in
English as "hole". What they have in common is that they can properly be
1729:
as a caption to a 1915 cartoon he drew, and sometimes still used in
Britain as a comeback to someone who is moaning about a situation which can not easliy be changed by the party listening to the complaint.
1194:, specifically says: "A trench is a type of excavation or depression in the ground that is generally deeper than it is wide (as opposed to a wider gully, or ditch), and narrow compared with its length (as
975:
is mentioned very briefly, in an uncited paragraph along with other material. It deserves a section on its own, as can be realised when you consider that "black hole" has a literal meaning in
217:
1250:"Black hole" and "wormhole" are forms of trivia as far as holes are concerned. Trivia is a valid topic and some expansion may make sense but they are not definitive to this subject.
1944:
This has been open since 5 June 2019, and zero editors other than the one who posted the proposal have supported the merge. Could someone who is not involved please close this? --
1267:
There aren't many more like the ozone layer. It is worth mentioning there are holes in it for the article. As for a range of hole types in reference to gaseous layers. Is there?
1517:
images, and strongly suggest you simply use the Old Bill cartoon, which admirably and undeniably (given the famous caption) shows the relevance of shell holes to the topic.
407:
1623:
I should hope so, but that is not the same as having a source which lays out the structure of the subject. To understand the issue, imagine writing the article on
397:
275:
Now that an article exists on the topic, Hole, I propose to merge the stubs for three specific kinds of holes into the section, "Kinds of holes" - these are
1752:
here, in a "Holes in popular culture" section. The
Beatles reference and the reference to portable holes in fiction and gaming can also be combined there.
1985:
207:
1808:
noun definition #12]]) would represent a totally new meaning compared to what is here. There seems to be more (and viable) content than just DICTDEF at
1056:" (a useful disambiguation page here), as in Alice in Wonderland; indeed, the place of holes in literature might merit an entire article. There's a
1577:
My point is, you have absolutely no idea where the gaps are, since you don't have an overview of the subject; and anything you do is therefore
183:
1980:
1975:
1031:
The 'Metaphorical holes' section is a start in the right direction, but does not begin to exhaust its subject. For instance, the matter is
446:
374:
1103:
963:, effectively original research in the absence of suitable sources, even if various fragments of the article are reliably cited, as here.
84:
174:
135:
1291:
Biological holes, there may be some expansion possible along the lines of "sinus", "pore", and "stoma". A permeable cell membrane (
1812:, so maybe it could be re-cast to cover that more-general sense? The same concept is mentioned or used in lots of other fields.
1369:
The gallery. When I consider the pictures from the rest of the article with the gallery, the only part not covered is biology.
1119:(hole = low concentration of this gas in a region of the atmosphere) is a major meaning not covered. I'm sure there are others.
1036:
716:
In the first paragraph of "Types of hole", a sentence uses "digging" twice, perhaps replace the first instance with "foraging"?
469:
402:
70:
1962:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
1198:)". If we describe a trench as a "hole" here, then it looks like we would be creating some inconsistency on this point.
110:
1079:
1663:
I'm failing this nomination per the comments above, pointing out the gaps in broadness. Thank you all for your input.
1158:
1. A satisfactory basis for its structure (a reliable source which covers the entire subject, indicating a structure).
1095:
379:
1102:
should certainly get a mention, including literary references such as the famous First World War cartoon in Punch "
1069:
959:
in science fiction, for instance, are not mentioned. Without such a source, the article is vulnerable to claims of
1136:, and at the moment I see 8 entire paragraphs and numerous other sentences lacking any indication of their source.
1704:
1613:
1567:
1490:
1422:
1383:
1218:
On your first point, well, it seems to be so, and we'd better note that "full of holes" and "as full of holes as
806:
746:
699:
1668:
1190:
Are you saying that this article - wait for it - is full of holes? Note, by the way, that
Knowledge's article,
831:
663:
440:
64:
1098:
certainly is a hole and a defensive fighting position, of which a trench is a different subtype. Foxholes and
336:
section below, where there is another merge request that isn't obvious from reading the table of contents. --
1632:
1590:
1553:
There are gaps in the see also and trivia and entertainment are probably good adds to this sort of subject.
1544:
1239:
1180:
239:
1234:. On trench, no, it's not a hole; both trenches and foxholes are defensive fighting positions, that's all.
788:
I don't think any of these is normally even referred to as a hole i.e. trenches? Never been an article for
979:, and a metaphorical meaning ("black hole in the company's finances"), showing that this is a major topic.
729:
421:
1852:
235:
116:
1295:) isn't considered to be full of specific individual holes. Have a look at the diagrams and you'll see.
160:
1700:
1582:
1581:(original research by synthesis). Talk of 'see also' and 'trivia' in such a context is "ignoring the
98:
1949:
1928:
1909:
1664:
1292:
1002:
896:
827:
819:
772:
659:
436:
341:
1460:
1132:) is disturbing for a "Good Article" - to a first approximation, every claim should be cited to a
182:
on
Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
1726:
1628:
1586:
1540:
1235:
1231:
1176:
1084:
166:
658:
I feel like "Kinds of shapes" should be changed to "Types of shapes" as I feel it reads better.
454:
150:
129:
1776:
here. I do not thing there is any room for expansion of that article outside of this context.
1106:" It seems that wartime holes are yet another subtopic that deserve a subsection of their own.
852:
80:
27:
1883:
1873:
a hole is, and the hole being dug in the adage is the hole broadly defined in this article.
1860:
1837:
1817:
1786:
1762:
1208:
1099:
1043:. This is, I think, only scratching the surface; there is much more to be said on metaphors.
919:
880:
318:
297:
259:
1040:
1578:
1270:
1083:
First World War trench warfare cartoon "Well, if you knows of a better 'ole, go to it" by
1018:
holes are critical to life. As another example (there are plenty more), the immune system
960:
1019:
1945:
1925:
1905:
636:
582:
337:
1722:"If you are in a hole stop digging" used by British politions and political reporters.
713:
In the last sentence of the lead, the "construction" probably should be "engineering".
1969:
1738:
1609:
1563:
1486:
1418:
1379:
1223:
1057:
1015:
998:
802:
789:
742:
695:
608:
486:
459:
425:
75:
1809:
1773:
1749:
1719:
1219:
1133:
1129:
1064:
976:
595:
541:
527:
513:
284:
31:
826:
considered holes. Do those sound like appropriate fixes? Thanks for the comment!
234:
If something is hollow, like a bird's bones, does that mean it has a hole in it?
1874:
1856:
1828:
1813:
1777:
1753:
1199:
1053:
910:
871:
309:
288:
250:
179:
1599:
The major aspects have major publications on them with some overlap I believe.
641:
1227:
1116:
972:
280:
156:
1847:
Is "stopping movement in the wrong direction" currently part of the scope of
1175:
In short, this seems to be very far from being a Good
Article at the moment.
1451:
848:
499:
1442:
428:. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
1734:
1606:
1560:
1483:
1415:
1376:
956:
816:
799:
739:
692:
1733:
A short section on holes used in adages would improve this article. --
1624:
1349:
1032:
276:
1146:
effect). It would be far more satisfactory to map images to subtopics.
1191:
1128:
The amount of uncited material (I do not suggest this is necessarily
1805:
249:
Not according to geometric topology. A cross-section would, though.
1078:
891:
867:
1014:
The coverage of hole in
Biology is also inadequate. For example,
1848:
1312:
You seem to be asking for a section on trivia and entertainment.
635:
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the
92:
47:
15:
728:
Done the first two. The last sentences are a copy/paste from
847:
idea of hole and aim for something of the same scope as the
1627:
without having ever seen a textbook with that title. Yeah.
1953:
1933:
1913:
1888:
1864:
1842:
1821:
1791:
1767:
1742:
1708:
1672:
1636:
1618:
1594:
1572:
1548:
1495:
1427:
1388:
1273:
and upgrade your idea of "The" ozone hole to "what ozone".
1243:
1213:
1184:
924:
903:
885:
855:
835:
811:
779:
751:
704:
667:
450:
345:
323:
302:
264:
243:
39:
1167:
4. Other subtopics, including use in literature and film.
1164:
3. Adequate coverage of the subtopics already identified.
1725:"if you knows of a better 'ole, go to it" originally by
849:
35:
73:
at the time (April 8, 2019). There are suggestions on
1692:
Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
1094:
I see a discussion of whether a trench is a hole. A
178:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
79:for improving the article. If you can improve it,
1222:" are metaphors (and a simile) about holes in an
1155:To conclude, the article appears to be missing:
1352:. I am adding to this caves and watering holes.
1330:defensive foxhole is probably worth mentioning.
1695:A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
8:
719:Merge last two sentences of "Holes In Math".
1699:The result of this discussion was OPPOSE.
357:
124:
1039:" might also deserve a mention. So might
732:. I'm not sure if I understand homology.
1104:If you knows of a better 'ole, go to it!
1438:
1161:2. Sources for many of the claims made.
890:I don't really see a good analogy with
388:
360:
333:
126:
96:
1052:Other metaphors include the literary "
52:
7:
1686:The following discussion is closed.
464:
172:This article is within the scope of
115:It is of interest to the following
1678:Hole used in adage (merge request)
1067:. There's a 19th century thing on
14:
1986:Mid-priority mathematics articles
192:Knowledge:WikiProject Mathematics
1958:The discussion above is closed.
1459:
1450:
1441:
677:
640:
622:
612:
599:
586:
573:
563:
545:
531:
517:
503:
490:
477:
195:Template:WikiProject Mathematics
159:
149:
128:
97:
51:
19:
574:
564:
546:
532:
518:
478:
212:This article has been rated as
26:This article was nominated for
1020:kills bacteria by making holes
34:on 5 June 2019. The result of
1:
1954:13:29, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
1934:19:45, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
1914:04:14, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
1869:It isn't, but the concept of
346:04:04, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
303:13:59, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
287:. Thoughts on this proposal?
265:22:25, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
244:21:23, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
186:and see a list of open tasks.
1981:B-Class mathematics articles
1976:Former good article nominees
1889:04:38, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
1865:04:33, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
1843:03:21, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
1822:03:04, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
1792:02:47, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
1709:03:15, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
762:Comments from Rhododendrites
623:
613:
600:
587:
558:
504:
491:
456:
334:Talk:Hole#Hole used in adage
324:02:46, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
308:Note: These have been done.
1005:. This is a major subtopic.
937:Comments from Chiswick Chap
457:
2002:
866:to human society. Compare
69:, but it did not meet the
1772:I have proposed to merge
1673:14:08, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
1637:16:40, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
1619:16:32, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
1595:16:00, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
1573:15:53, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
1549:15:48, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
1496:15:44, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
1428:15:35, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
1389:15:07, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
1244:18:31, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
1214:18:20, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
1185:11:57, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
925:01:37, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
904:22:17, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
886:15:39, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
856:22:13, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
836:16:47, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
812:11:32, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
780:03:40, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
752:11:32, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
705:07:44, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
668:15:17, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
451:16:17, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
211:
144:
123:
1960:Please do not modify it.
1768:21:57, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
1743:20:30, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
1689:Please do not modify it.
1196:opposed to a simple hole
218:project's priority scale
1748:I would actually merge
175:WikiProject Mathematics
1804:in particular, debt" (
1269:I invite you to visit
1088:
730:Homology (mathematics)
105:This article is rated
1853:Hole (disambiguation)
1851:? We have a separate
1082:
637:Good Article criteria
609:free or tagged images
71:good article criteria
1583:elephant in the room
198:mathematics articles
1293:Biological membrane
1003:solid-state physics
462:review progress box
61:was nominated as a
42:) was to not merge.
1727:Bruce Bairnsfather
1232:mathematical proof
1089:
1085:Bruce Bairnsfather
1065:a film based on it
639:. Criteria marked
167:Mathematics portal
111:content assessment
1612:
1566:
1489:
1421:
1382:
1274:
1001:are important in
805:
745:
698:
655:
654:
651:
650:
647:
416:
415:
232:
231:
228:
227:
224:
223:
91:
90:
83:; it may then be
46:
45:
1993:
1932:
1881:
1835:
1784:
1760:
1691:
1616:
1601:
1570:
1555:
1493:
1478:
1463:
1454:
1445:
1425:
1410:
1386:
1371:
1268:
1206:
1070:Hole in the Wall
917:
901:
899:
878:
809:
794:
777:
775:
749:
734:
702:
687:
685:
681:
680:
644:
633:
626:
625:
616:
615:
603:
602:
590:
589:
577:
576:
567:
566:
549:
548:
535:
534:
521:
520:
507:
506:
494:
493:
481:
480:
465:
455:
370:Copyvio detector
358:
316:
295:
257:
200:
199:
196:
193:
190:
169:
164:
163:
153:
146:
145:
140:
132:
125:
108:
102:
101:
93:
55:
54:
48:
23:
22:
16:
2001:
2000:
1996:
1995:
1994:
1992:
1991:
1990:
1966:
1965:
1964:
1963:
1942:
1923:
1875:
1829:
1778:
1754:
1716:
1701:Generalrelative
1687:
1680:
1661:
1605:
1600:
1559:
1554:
1482:
1477:
1464:
1455:
1446:
1414:
1409:
1375:
1370:
1271:ozone depletion
1200:
1134:reliable source
1041:Ace in the Hole
939:
911:
897:
895:
872:
798:
793:
773:
771:
764:
738:
733:
691:
686:
678:
676:
621:pics relevant (
420:This review is
412:
384:
356:
310:
289:
273:
271:Proposed merges
251:
197:
194:
191:
188:
187:
165:
158:
138:
109:on Knowledge's
106:
76:the review page
20:
12:
11:
5:
1999:
1997:
1989:
1988:
1983:
1978:
1968:
1967:
1957:
1941:
1940:Call for close
1938:
1937:
1936:
1916:
1898:
1897:
1896:
1895:
1894:
1893:
1892:
1891:
1797:
1796:
1795:
1794:
1731:
1730:
1723:
1715:
1714:
1713:
1712:
1711:
1682:
1681:
1679:
1676:
1665:WelpThatWorked
1660:
1657:
1656:
1655:
1654:
1653:
1652:
1651:
1650:
1649:
1648:
1647:
1646:
1645:
1644:
1643:
1642:
1641:
1640:
1639:
1603:
1557:
1527:
1526:
1525:
1524:
1523:
1522:
1521:
1520:
1519:
1518:
1505:
1504:
1503:
1502:
1501:
1500:
1499:
1498:
1480:
1466:
1465:
1458:
1456:
1449:
1447:
1440:
1437:
1436:
1435:
1434:
1433:
1432:
1431:
1430:
1412:
1398:
1397:
1396:
1395:
1394:
1393:
1392:
1391:
1373:
1360:
1359:
1358:
1357:
1356:
1355:
1354:
1353:
1338:
1337:
1336:
1335:
1334:
1333:
1332:
1331:
1320:
1319:
1318:
1317:
1316:
1315:
1314:
1313:
1303:
1302:
1301:
1300:
1299:
1298:
1297:
1296:
1282:
1281:
1280:
1279:
1278:
1277:
1276:
1275:
1258:
1257:
1256:
1255:
1254:
1253:
1252:
1251:
1220:a Swiss cheese
1173:
1172:
1171:
1170:
1169:
1168:
1165:
1162:
1159:
1150:
1149:
1148:
1147:
1140:
1139:
1138:
1137:
1123:
1122:
1121:
1120:
1110:
1109:
1108:
1107:
1077:
1076:
1075:
1074:
1047:
1046:
1045:
1044:
1026:
1025:
1024:
1023:
1009:
1008:
1007:
1006:
999:Electron holes
993:
992:
991:
990:
983:
982:
981:
980:
967:
966:
965:
964:
949:
948:
947:
946:
938:
935:
934:
933:
932:
931:
930:
929:
928:
927:
898:Rhododendrites
853:Uanfala (talk)
843:
842:
841:
840:
839:
838:
828:WelpThatWorked
820:Rhododendrites
796:
783:
782:
774:Rhododendrites
763:
760:
759:
758:
757:
756:
755:
754:
736:
721:
720:
717:
714:
710:
709:
708:
707:
689:
671:
670:
660:WelpThatWorked
653:
652:
649:
648:
646:
645:are unassessed
630:
629:
557:
556:
553:
552:
437:WelpThatWorked
431:
430:
414:
413:
411:
410:
405:
400:
394:
391:
390:
386:
385:
383:
382:
380:External links
377:
372:
366:
363:
362:
355:
352:
351:
350:
349:
348:
327:
326:
272:
269:
268:
267:
230:
229:
226:
225:
222:
221:
210:
204:
203:
201:
184:the discussion
171:
170:
154:
142:
141:
133:
121:
120:
114:
103:
89:
88:
56:
44:
43:
40:permanent link
36:the discussion
24:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1998:
1987:
1984:
1982:
1979:
1977:
1974:
1973:
1971:
1961:
1956:
1955:
1951:
1947:
1939:
1935:
1930:
1927:
1920:
1917:
1915:
1911:
1907:
1903:
1900:
1899:
1890:
1887:
1886:
1882:
1880:
1879:
1872:
1868:
1867:
1866:
1862:
1858:
1854:
1850:
1846:
1845:
1844:
1841:
1840:
1836:
1834:
1833:
1825:
1824:
1823:
1819:
1815:
1811:
1807:
1802:
1799:
1798:
1793:
1790:
1789:
1785:
1783:
1782:
1775:
1771:
1770:
1769:
1766:
1765:
1761:
1759:
1758:
1751:
1747:
1746:
1745:
1744:
1740:
1736:
1728:
1724:
1721:
1718:
1717:
1710:
1706:
1702:
1698:
1697:
1696:
1693:
1690:
1684:
1683:
1677:
1675:
1674:
1670:
1666:
1658:
1638:
1634:
1630:
1629:Chiswick Chap
1626:
1622:
1621:
1620:
1615:
1611:
1608:
1598:
1597:
1596:
1592:
1588:
1587:Chiswick Chap
1584:
1580:
1576:
1575:
1574:
1569:
1565:
1562:
1552:
1551:
1550:
1546:
1542:
1541:Chiswick Chap
1537:
1536:
1535:
1534:
1533:
1532:
1531:
1530:
1529:
1528:
1515:
1514:
1513:
1512:
1511:
1510:
1509:
1508:
1507:
1506:
1497:
1492:
1488:
1485:
1474:
1473:
1472:
1471:
1470:
1469:
1468:
1467:
1462:
1457:
1453:
1448:
1444:
1439:
1429:
1424:
1420:
1417:
1406:
1405:
1404:
1403:
1402:
1401:
1400:
1399:
1390:
1385:
1381:
1378:
1368:
1367:
1366:
1365:
1364:
1363:
1362:
1361:
1351:
1346:
1345:
1344:
1343:
1342:
1341:
1340:
1339:
1328:
1327:
1326:
1325:
1324:
1323:
1322:
1321:
1311:
1310:
1309:
1308:
1307:
1306:
1305:
1304:
1294:
1290:
1289:
1288:
1287:
1286:
1285:
1284:
1283:
1272:
1266:
1265:
1264:
1263:
1262:
1261:
1260:
1259:
1249:
1248:
1247:
1246:
1245:
1241:
1237:
1236:Chiswick Chap
1233:
1229:
1225:
1221:
1217:
1216:
1215:
1212:
1211:
1207:
1205:
1204:
1197:
1193:
1189:
1188:
1187:
1186:
1182:
1178:
1177:Chiswick Chap
1166:
1163:
1160:
1157:
1156:
1154:
1153:
1152:
1151:
1144:
1143:
1142:
1141:
1135:
1131:
1127:
1126:
1125:
1124:
1118:
1114:
1113:
1112:
1111:
1105:
1101:
1097:
1093:
1092:
1091:
1090:
1086:
1081:
1072:
1071:
1066:
1062:
1061:
1058:novel called
1055:
1051:
1050:
1049:
1048:
1042:
1038:
1037:Doughnut hole
1034:
1030:
1029:
1028:
1027:
1021:
1017:
1016:cell membrane
1013:
1012:
1011:
1010:
1004:
1000:
997:
996:
995:
994:
989:instructions.
987:
986:
985:
984:
978:
974:
971:
970:
969:
968:
962:
958:
953:
952:
951:
950:
943:
942:
941:
940:
936:
926:
923:
922:
918:
916:
915:
907:
906:
905:
900:
893:
889:
888:
887:
884:
883:
879:
877:
876:
869:
864:
859:
858:
857:
854:
850:
845:
844:
837:
833:
829:
825:
821:
818:
815:
814:
813:
808:
804:
801:
791:
790:watering hole
787:
786:
785:
784:
781:
776:
769:
766:
765:
761:
753:
748:
744:
741:
731:
727:
726:
725:
724:
723:
722:
718:
715:
712:
711:
706:
701:
697:
694:
684:
675:
674:
673:
672:
669:
665:
661:
657:
656:
643:
638:
634:
632:
631:
628:
618:
610:
605:
597:
592:
584:
579:
569:
559:
555:
554:
551:
543:
537:
529:
523:
515:
509:
501:
496:
488:
483:
473:
471:
467:
466:
463:
461:
453:
452:
448:
445:
442:
438:
435:
429:
427:
426:Talk:Hole/GA1
423:
418:
417:
409:
406:
404:
401:
399:
396:
395:
393:
392:
387:
381:
378:
376:
373:
371:
368:
367:
365:
364:
359:
353:
347:
343:
339:
335:
331:
330:
329:
328:
325:
322:
321:
317:
315:
314:
307:
306:
305:
304:
301:
300:
296:
294:
293:
286:
282:
278:
270:
266:
263:
262:
258:
256:
255:
248:
247:
246:
245:
241:
237:
236:Bullenbeisser
219:
215:
209:
206:
205:
202:
185:
181:
177:
176:
168:
162:
157:
155:
152:
148:
147:
143:
137:
134:
131:
127:
122:
118:
112:
104:
100:
95:
94:
86:
82:
78:
77:
72:
68:
67:
66:
60:
57:
50:
49:
41:
37:
33:
29:
25:
18:
17:
1959:
1943:
1918:
1902:Oppose merge
1901:
1884:
1877:
1876:
1870:
1838:
1831:
1830:
1810:Law of holes
1800:
1787:
1780:
1779:
1774:Law of holes
1763:
1756:
1755:
1750:Law of holes
1732:
1720:Law of holes
1694:
1688:
1685:
1662:
1209:
1202:
1201:
1195:
1174:
1068:
1059:
977:Astrophysics
920:
913:
912:
881:
874:
873:
862:
823:
767:
682:
620:
607:
594:
581:
571:
561:
539:
525:
511:
498:
485:
475:
468:
460:Good Article
458:
443:
433:
432:
419:
408:Instructions
319:
312:
311:
298:
291:
290:
285:Through hole
274:
260:
253:
252:
233:
214:Mid-priority
213:
173:
139:Mid‑priority
117:WikiProjects
74:
65:good article
63:
62:
58:
32:Law of holes
1100:shell holes
1054:rabbit hole
562:broadness (
422:transcluded
189:Mathematics
180:mathematics
136:Mathematics
85:renominated
1970:Categories
1228:legal case
1117:Ozone hole
1033:proverbial
973:Black hole
500:ref layout
375:Authorship
361:GA toolbox
281:Blind hole
1946:Guy Macon
1906:Guy Macon
1806:wikt:hole
957:Wormholes
863:described
434:Reviewer:
398:Templates
389:Reviewing
354:GA Review
338:Guy Macon
81:please do
1929:a·po·des
1579:WP:SYNTH
1224:argument
961:WP:SYNTH
945:subject.
470:Criteria
447:contribs
403:Criteria
1871:digging
1659:Closing
1625:Biology
1350:Hill 62
1096:Foxhole
1073:(1866).
768:Comment
583:neutral
572:focus (
476:prose (
277:Pinhole
216:on the
107:B-class
28:merging
1919:Oppose
1878:BD2412
1857:DMacks
1832:BD2412
1814:DMacks
1801:Oppose
1781:BD2412
1757:bd2412
1203:bd2412
1192:Trench
1087:, 1915
1063:, and
914:bd2412
875:bd2412
596:stable
512:cites
313:BD2412
292:bd2412
283:, and
254:bd2412
113:scale.
1230:, or
1130:WP:OR
1060:Holes
892:plant
868:plant
542:WP:CV
528:WP:OR
514:WP:RS
424:from
30:with
1950:talk
1926:Wug·
1910:talk
1861:talk
1849:hole
1818:talk
1739:talk
1705:talk
1669:talk
1633:talk
1617:'{~
1591:talk
1571:'{~
1545:talk
1494:'{~
1426:'{~
1387:'{~
1240:talk
1181:talk
1115:The
832:talk
810:'{~
750:'{~
703:'{~
683:Done
664:talk
619:6b.
606:6a.
570:3b.
560:3a.
538:2d.
524:2c.
510:2b.
497:2a.
484:1b.
474:1a.
441:talk
342:talk
332:See
240:talk
59:Hole
1735:PBS
1585:".
902:\\
824:not
817:RTG
778:\\
593:5.
580:4.
540:no
526:no
487:MoS
208:Mid
1972::
1952:)
1924:—
1912:)
1863:)
1855:.
1820:)
1741:)
1707:)
1671:)
1635:)
1604:\.
1593:)
1558:\.
1547:)
1481:\.
1413:\.
1374:\.
1242:)
1226:,
1183:)
834:)
797:\.
792:.
737:\.
690:\.
666:)
449:)
344:)
279:,
242:)
1948:(
1931:
1908:(
1885:T
1859:(
1839:T
1816:(
1788:T
1764:T
1737:(
1703:(
1667:(
1631:(
1614:G
1610:T
1607:r
1602:\
1589:(
1568:G
1564:T
1561:r
1556:\
1543:(
1491:G
1487:T
1484:r
1479:\
1423:G
1419:T
1416:r
1411:\
1384:G
1380:T
1377:r
1372:\
1238:(
1210:T
1179:(
1022:.
921:T
882:T
830:(
807:G
803:T
800:r
795:\
747:G
743:T
740:r
735:\
700:G
696:T
693:r
688:\
662:(
627:)
617:)
611:(
604:)
598:(
591:)
585:(
578:)
568:)
550:)
544:(
536:)
530:(
522:)
516:(
508:)
502:(
495:)
489:(
482:)
472::
444:·
439:(
340:(
320:T
299:T
261:T
238:(
220:.
119::
87:.
38:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
