670:
says 6, and even at that, there is not support for this. As I stated before, this is a bad idea and I'll go further and say it's a stupid idea. By what
Knowledge (XXG) policy are you referencing for this approach or is this just your idea? Your approach to splitting articles randomly is well known and shouldn't be applied here. And, by the way, soliciting others to support your viewpoint is also against Knowledge (XXG) policy. I won't re-revert your edits as I don't want to be accused of getting in an edit war, but would appreciate you responding in the appropriate manner.
375:
95:
85:
64:
175:
33:
1579:
how comes that the content of the list is not accounted for that, implying it is not well displayed? Also, the case of splitting does not concern the topic, considering that you are at every large article with different topics which claims that you know lots about each topic. I will not self-revert and if you have a problem with soliciting, find and talk to the one that did it.
1345:. I am able to navigate to any section via the subheadings in the TOC box. This is obviously a reference work in contrast to a prose article. So, there is no need to split. If the article were entirely prose, with paragraphs and subheadings, then I could see the rationale for splitting this article. ---
1578:
I wasn't the only one solicited. Just because I have a strong intent to split articles and was blocked at one point, it doesn't suggest that my points and arguments are irrational and everyone should always be welcome at discussing and voting. And if the amount of readable prose really matters, then
642:
The article may need to be sectioned for ease of use at some point once it's finished, but that should be done by the technical contributors. You freely admit that you don't know anything about the subject, but keep interjecting yourself into it. You also seem to be the only one upset by its length,
1379:
What are the requirements for articles to load onto mobile platforms? Load time, RAM, etc. I loaded this article onto my older iPhone with no delay or problems. This article seems to meet the technical requirements of
Knowledge (XXG). Are you saying that this particular article has problems on your
669:
Proper
Knowledge (XXG) etiquette would have been for you to have discussed this on the Talk Page, but you chose to write something incoherent in the revert instead. From what I can glean from this revert explanation, you are planning to split this article into 13 equal sized articles. Elsewhere it
1498:
is a mess, and that this article is too large. The size of each ISO article is too inconsistent to manage. It is contradicted that there is no good reason to split articles as the markup size doesn't matter, however there is also no good reason to keep articles large. The amount of readable prose
1559:
Some of the arguments offered above are nonsense. The article is a "mess"? Wrong, it is quite well organized. "The size of each ISO article is too inconsistent to manage." I don't even know what that means. "The amount of readable prose doesn't really matter." Well, yes it does. That's what the
1443:
There seem to be three questions here. First, would a split article behave any differently with respect to editing? Second, is that really a problem for this article as it seems to be mostly static without a lot of time-critical changes. Third, is there a
Knowledge (XXG) requirement for ease of
1048:
The reason the revert was "botched" is that the split was poorly done without consensus. As you can see from the discussion above, there is no consensus as to the final structure of the article and no one seems to be able to answer the question as to why the split is necessary. The use of
439:
This article is currently at ~438,000+ bytes, and is one of the largest on the wiki. After looking at the section sizes, scrolling through the article, and looking at the other lists of this same topic, I feel it would be wise to split the article into the following parts:
685:
This has been discussed on the talk page. And idk what you mean by soliciting users but this article definitely needs to be split. And I have said the reason for my section divisions and splits a few times here on the talk page. I do not wish to argue about this.
815:
4. You have proposed above a split into 6 articles, which was rejected. Your other comments say you want split it into articles of 30k–50k size consistent with other articles on this topic. This could be as many as 18 articles. Is that what you are proposing?
1414:
to reflect current computing environments, but I'm not sure if it went anywhere. At any rate, it seems to me that a user trying to use this article on a phone (which is hard to imagine) may have more problems in searching if it's split in two.
1174:
1284:
1280:
1276:
1008:
933:
469:
464:
990:
929:
1659:
it clearly states that some types of lists can remain in wikipedia and this is one such list. ISOs are quite notable and removing them would be removing dozens of articles which have been on the site for years.
796:
I'm referring to your first comment above where you specifically asked onetwothreeip and Zsteve21 to help your cause. You do this frequently with them and this is against
Knowledge (XXG) policy, particularly
475:
This seems to be an approximately equal division after scrolling through the article, and the sizes may match up with the sizes of the other articles, which appear to be within the 30,000-50,000 byte range.
1495:
1272:
589:
Splitting this article is a bad idea. As it stands, it is a useful resource for those interested in ISO standards. As usual, you guys want to split an article you don't understand for no good reason.
606:
The reason I want to split this article is due to length. The reason that I have suggested so many sections to be split is to make the sizes consistent with the other articles of this same topic.
1560:
policy states. "he way that the article is presented is problematic." Clearly, Zsteve21 has no comprehension about ISO standards and given his history, he should self-revert his vote above.
619:
Can you split this article now, with all of the different sections having their own article (I would but idk how). I said above why the article needs to be split into a lot of articles.
1398:
I have run into differences between iPhones and others on the size of image they will load, so there may well be a technical difference here, and most people do not have iPhones. · · ·
1269:
Very large articles should be split into logically separate articles. Long stand-alone list articles are split into subsequent pages alphabetically, numerically, or subtopically.
1088:
Very large articles should be split into logically separate articles. Long stand-alone list articles are split into subsequent pages alphabetically, numerically, or subtopically
1362:, very large articles do not work on the mobile apps for WP. A lot of smartphones don't have enough ram to display a very long article, and it freezes up the phone. --
544:
I have divided the sections in order to make them proportionate with the other articles on this topic, which like I said are in between 30,000–50,000 bytes in size.
151:
1170:
459:
454:
449:
1723:
1600:
I believe the article doesn't need to be split into many articles like previously suggested but should at least be split in twain into 1-1999 and 2000-4999.
1166:
444:
141:
1728:
826:
No they didn't. In fact, onetwothreeip disagreed and Zsteve21 thought a bigger problem was the appearance of the article (whatever that might mean).
117:
1718:
1523:. He also has a long history of splitting activism, causing him to be blocked from editing at one point. And what is "strongly split" even mean?
17:
1622:
1294:
1236:
1184:
1097:
1032:
943:
892:
874:
751:
729:
695:
628:
553:
500:
108:
69:
1130:
707:
1475:(invited by the bot) Would make it much harder for readers to search for something because they wouldn't know which article it is in.
1678:. I guess on second thought it doesn't actually need to be deleted and could be pruned to only standards with articles instead, but
570:
I would agree, but this article is just a long list of bullet points. I believe the appearance of the article is more of an issue.
335:
322:
309:
296:
283:
270:
257:
244:
231:
218:
195:
1542:
The article is fine given the audience. It is no longer the longest article on
Knowledge (XXG), so that argument no longer holds.
1429:
Pulling up the article on the WP App on
Android isn't the problem. When you go to "edit" and make changes, then it freezes up. --
391:
44:
829:
7. Are you the anonymous user who place the tag on the article? You claim that you sometimes edit with just an IP address.
1287:). Why shouldn't we do the same even the extraordinary length of this article? Is there anything so special about 1-4999?
1499:
doesn't really matter, as the list takes up most of the size, but the way that the article is presented is problematic.
424:
1515:
Zsteve21 should not be allowed to vote on this issue since he was solicited in violation of
Knowledge (XXG) policies
989:
Apparently, the split was reverted, but now the archiving by MiszaBot doesn't work. Why didn't the revert go back to
1025:
The revert was botched. I have half a mind to start an RfC on this to get consensus. But, I’m pretty busy off-wiki.
1547:
1453:
1420:
1385:
1333:
1656:
403:
1626:
1300:
1242:
1190:
1103:
1038:
949:
888:
870:
747:
725:
691:
624:
549:
496:
50:
1134:
711:
1113:
Maybe I'm not reading this right, but XTools says that this article has a readable prose size of 433 bytes.
936:. Before the split this was the largest article on Knowledge (XXG), so clearly things needed to be changed.
531:
1687:
1084:
515:
1516:
798:
1565:
1528:
1402:
1350:
1317:
1118:
1058:
836:
766:
761:
A tag was placed on this article by an anonymous user with no discussion and will therefore be removed.
675:
648:
594:
116:
on
Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
1665:
1605:
1543:
1449:
1434:
1416:
1381:
1367:
1329:
1016:
998:
1699:
1669:
1650:
1630:
1609:
1588:
1569:
1551:
1532:
1520:
1508:
1486:
1457:
1438:
1424:
1405:
1389:
1371:
1354:
1337:
1320:
1305:
1264:
1247:
1195:
1138:
1122:
1108:
1062:
1043:
1020:
1002:
954:
896:
878:
840:
802:
770:
755:
733:
715:
699:
679:
652:
632:
598:
579:
557:
535:
519:
504:
1482:
1289:
1231:
1208:
1179:
1127:
1092:
1027:
984:
964:
938:
903:
884:
866:
777:
743:
721:
704:
687:
664:
620:
545:
526:
I think splitting between six articles may be too much, but I do agree with splitting the article.
492:
1639:
1618:
1075:
1050:
925:
1584:
1504:
1216:
1204:
972:
911:
614:
575:
527:
479:
409:
100:
1328:
What is the readable prose of this article as that seems to be the measure of a "long article"?
1212:
1162:
980:
919:
511:
487:
1694:
1645:
1561:
1524:
1399:
1346:
1314:
1224:
1161:
At the time of this post, this is the largest article on
Knowledge (XXG): 566,764 bytes per
1114:
1069:
1054:
968:
907:
832:
762:
671:
644:
590:
405:
374:
1661:
1601:
1430:
1363:
1012:
994:
1445:
1411:
1011:
is still out there; this needs to be fixed, but I don't know what the consensus is.... --
812:
You have not given a reason as to why it should be split. Please do so in your response.
1684:
removing them would be removing dozens of articles which have been on the site for years
407:
819:
5. You say you want to be consistent with other articles. What are you talking about?
94:
1712:
1580:
1500:
1220:
976:
915:
571:
483:
1691:
1642:
113:
84:
63:
883:
Before this gets any more heated, I am going to assume this has no consensus.
90:
18:
Talk:List of International Organization for Standardization standards, 1–1999
1175:
List of International Organization for Standardization standards, 3000–4999
1171:
List of International Organization for Standardization standards, 1000–2999
1009:
List of International Organization for Standardization standards, 2000-4999
934:
List of International Organization for Standardization standards, 2000-4999
848:
2. I was pinging them which is specified on the page about article splits.
470:
List of International Organization for Standardization standards, 3000-4999
465:
List of International Organization for Standardization standards, 2000-2999
460:
List of International Organization for Standardization standards, 1000-1999
742:
And there is support for this, as a few users above said that they agree.
1676:
simple listings without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit
824:
And there is support for this, as a few users above said that they agree.
455:
List of International Organization for Standardization standards, 600-999
450:
List of International Organization for Standardization standards, 200-599
991:
List of International Organization for Standardization standards, 1-4999
930:
List of International Organization for Standardization standards, 1-1999
1167:
List of International Organization for Standardization standards, 1–999
1053:
is not appropriate when splitting an article that is under discussion.
445:
List of International Organization for Standardization standards, 1-199
1275:
of ISO standards are lists of around 1000 or 2000 ISO standards (e.g.
1448:
has several suggestions to mitigate problems editing a long article.
789:. No it wasn't. It was placed as a comment on the revert template.
857:
5. The sizes of the other articles are all 30K-50K bytes in size.
1496:
List of International Organization for Standardization standards
1271:
Luckily there is ample precedent for such splitting - most of
993:, instead of the title with the "period" at the end of it?? --
720:
This discussion is over a year old. Why did you ping me here?
410:
368:
169:
26:
643:
which is not out of line of with others in this category.
1313:
Is there any reason why it should not be split? · · ·
1165:. Should we split the article (I propose, into three:
112:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
1674:Huh? This series of lists has quite clearly become
845:1. This whole discussion here is about the split.
1229:. Notify previous commenters and page creator.
810:but this article definitely needs to be split.
418:This page has archives. Sections older than
8:
860:6. Well onetwothreeip agreed with a split.
794:And idk what you mean by soliciting users.
192:
181:
58:
32:
30:
1081:100 kB Almost certainly should be divided
787:This has been discussed on the talk page
782:In response (your statements in bold):
126:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Engineering
60:
1683:
1679:
1675:
1087:
1079:
428:when more than 3 sections are present.
1444:editing in all situations. The guide
7:
510:I agree with splitting this article.
106:This article is within the scope of
1724:Low-importance Engineering articles
1410:There was a discussion on updating
49:It is of interest to the following
25:
422:may be automatically archived by
1729:WikiProject Engineering articles
928:and split the article into two:
373:
173:
129:Template:WikiProject Engineering
93:
83:
62:
31:
1719:List-Class Engineering articles
146:This article has been rated as
1:
1494:It cannot be denied that the
1157:RfC: split very long article?
599:23:51, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
580:08:55, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
558:18:05, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
120:and see a list of open tasks.
536:03:15, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
520:19:33, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
505:18:37, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
196:List of ISO standards 1–1999
1745:
1688:Knowledge (XXG):ARTICLEAGE
1686:is completely irrelevant (
1651:18:13, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
1631:22:18, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
1610:08:47, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
1589:19:49, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
1570:18:25, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
1552:16:40, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
1533:18:25, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
1509:15:30, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
1487:07:37, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
1139:08:37, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
897:20:58, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
879:20:57, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
716:08:39, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
152:project's importance scale
1458:01:06, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
1439:23:32, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
1425:16:46, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
1406:15:23, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
1390:04:06, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
1372:02:32, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
1355:00:50, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
1338:14:09, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
1321:11:35, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
1306:10:09, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
1248:09:57, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
1196:09:51, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
1123:23:38, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
1109:09:27, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
1080:Readable prose size : -->
1063:19:02, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
1044:16:02, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
1021:00:13, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
1003:00:11, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
955:03:23, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
841:01:05, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
771:23:53, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
756:20:15, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
700:20:13, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
680:20:40, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
653:21:15, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
633:20:38, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
145:
78:
57:
1700:17:37, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
1655:It isn't a violation of
734:00:35, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
1670:07:40, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
109:WikiProject Engineering
1680:ISOs are quite notable
435:Splitting this article
425:Lowercase sigmabot III
39:This article is rated
43:on Knowledge (XXG)'s
132:Engineering articles
1682:needs evidence and
1177:) or do not split?
297:ISO 1500 – ISO 1999
284:ISO 1000 – ISO 1499
199:
193:
101:Engineering portal
45:content assessment
1250:
1163:Special:LongPages
432:
431:
397:
396:
367:
366:
362:
361:
358:
357:
271:ISO 700 – ISO 999
258:ISO 500 – ISO 699
245:ISO 200 – ISO 499
194:Section size for
166:
165:
162:
161:
158:
157:
16:(Redirected from
1736:
1297:
1292:
1270:
1239:
1234:
1228:
1201:
1187:
1182:
1100:
1095:
1073:
1035:
1030:
988:
946:
941:
923:
863:7. No I am not.
781:
668:
618:
491:
427:
411:
388:
387:
377:
369:
200:
182:
177:
176:
170:
134:
133:
130:
127:
124:
103:
98:
97:
87:
80:
79:
74:
66:
59:
42:
36:
35:
34:
27:
21:
1744:
1743:
1739:
1738:
1737:
1735:
1734:
1733:
1709:
1708:
1697:
1696:it has begun...
1648:
1647:it has begun...
1636:Delete entirely
1544:Dr. Grampinator
1450:Dr. Grampinator
1417:Dr. Grampinator
1400:Peter Southwood
1382:Dr. Grampinator
1330:Dr. Grampinator
1315:Peter Southwood
1295:
1290:
1273:the other lists
1268:
1257:
1237:
1232:
1202:
1185:
1180:
1159:
1128:@Starship.paint
1098:
1093:
1067:
1033:
1028:
962:
944:
939:
901:
775:
705:@Blubabluba9990
662:
612:
477:
437:
423:
412:
406:
382:
363:
232:ISO 1 – ISO 199
187:
174:
131:
128:
125:
122:
121:
99:
92:
72:
40:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
1742:
1740:
1732:
1731:
1726:
1721:
1711:
1710:
1707:
1706:
1705:
1704:
1703:
1702:
1695:
1646:
1633:
1623:70.124.147.243
1612:
1594:
1593:
1592:
1591:
1573:
1572:
1554:
1536:
1535:
1512:
1511:
1492:Strongly split
1489:
1469:
1468:
1467:
1466:
1465:
1464:
1463:
1462:
1461:
1460:
1393:
1392:
1374:
1357:
1340:
1323:
1308:
1256:
1253:
1252:
1251:
1209:Blubabluba9990
1158:
1155:
1154:
1153:
1152:
1151:
1150:
1149:
1148:
1147:
1146:
1145:
1144:
1143:
1142:
1141:
1125:
985:Starship.paint
965:Blubabluba9990
904:Blubabluba9990
885:Blubabluba9990
867:Blubabluba9990
778:Blubabluba9990
759:
758:
744:Blubabluba9990
740:
739:
738:
737:
736:
722:Blubabluba9990
688:Blubabluba9990
665:Blubabluba9990
660:
659:
658:
657:
656:
655:
621:Blubabluba9990
610:
609:
608:
607:
587:
586:
585:
584:
583:
582:
563:
562:
561:
560:
546:Blubabluba9990
539:
538:
523:
522:
493:Blubabluba9990
473:
472:
467:
462:
457:
452:
447:
436:
433:
430:
429:
417:
414:
413:
408:
404:
402:
399:
398:
395:
394:
384:
383:
378:
372:
365:
364:
360:
359:
356:
355:
352:
349:
345:
344:
341:
338:
336:External links
332:
331:
328:
325:
319:
318:
315:
312:
306:
305:
302:
299:
293:
292:
289:
286:
280:
279:
276:
273:
267:
266:
263:
260:
254:
253:
250:
247:
241:
240:
237:
234:
228:
227:
224:
221:
215:
214:
212:
209:
207:
204:
198:(10 sections)
189:
188:
185:
180:
178:
164:
163:
160:
159:
156:
155:
148:Low-importance
144:
138:
137:
135:
118:the discussion
105:
104:
88:
76:
75:
73:Low‑importance
67:
55:
54:
48:
37:
24:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1741:
1730:
1727:
1725:
1722:
1720:
1717:
1716:
1714:
1701:
1698:
1693:
1689:
1685:
1681:
1677:
1673:
1672:
1671:
1667:
1663:
1658:
1654:
1653:
1652:
1649:
1644:
1641:
1638:as violating
1637:
1634:
1632:
1628:
1624:
1620:
1616:
1613:
1611:
1607:
1603:
1599:
1596:
1595:
1590:
1586:
1582:
1577:
1576:
1575:
1574:
1571:
1567:
1563:
1558:
1555:
1553:
1549:
1545:
1541:
1538:
1537:
1534:
1530:
1526:
1522:
1518:
1514:
1513:
1510:
1506:
1502:
1497:
1493:
1490:
1488:
1484:
1480:
1479:
1474:
1471:
1470:
1459:
1455:
1451:
1447:
1442:
1441:
1440:
1436:
1432:
1428:
1427:
1426:
1422:
1418:
1413:
1409:
1408:
1407:
1403:
1401:
1397:
1396:
1395:
1394:
1391:
1387:
1383:
1378:
1375:
1373:
1369:
1365:
1361:
1358:
1356:
1352:
1348:
1344:
1341:
1339:
1335:
1331:
1327:
1324:
1322:
1318:
1316:
1312:
1309:
1307:
1304:
1302:
1298:
1293:
1286:
1282:
1278:
1274:
1266:
1262:
1259:
1258:
1254:
1249:
1246:
1244:
1240:
1235:
1226:
1222:
1218:
1217:Onetwothreeip
1214:
1210:
1206:
1205:Pigsonthewing
1200:
1199:
1198:
1197:
1194:
1192:
1188:
1183:
1176:
1172:
1168:
1164:
1156:
1140:
1136:
1132:
1131:89.196.198.73
1129:
1126:
1124:
1120:
1116:
1112:
1111:
1110:
1107:
1105:
1101:
1096:
1089:
1086:
1085:WP:SUBARTICLE
1082:
1077:
1071:
1066:
1065:
1064:
1060:
1056:
1052:
1047:
1046:
1045:
1042:
1040:
1036:
1031:
1024:
1023:
1022:
1018:
1014:
1010:
1006:
1005:
1004:
1000:
996:
992:
986:
982:
978:
974:
973:Onetwothreeip
970:
966:
961:
960:
959:
958:
957:
956:
953:
951:
947:
942:
935:
931:
927:
921:
917:
913:
912:Onetwothreeip
909:
905:
899:
898:
894:
890:
886:
881:
880:
876:
872:
868:
864:
861:
858:
855:
852:
849:
846:
843:
842:
838:
834:
830:
827:
825:
820:
817:
813:
811:
806:
804:
800:
795:
790:
788:
783:
779:
773:
772:
768:
764:
757:
753:
749:
745:
741:
735:
731:
727:
723:
719:
718:
717:
713:
709:
708:89.196.198.73
706:
703:
702:
701:
697:
693:
689:
684:
683:
682:
681:
677:
673:
666:
654:
650:
646:
641:
640:
639:
638:
637:
636:
635:
634:
630:
626:
622:
616:
615:Onetwothreeip
605:
604:
603:
602:
601:
600:
596:
592:
581:
577:
573:
569:
568:
567:
566:
565:
564:
559:
555:
551:
547:
543:
542:
541:
540:
537:
533:
529:
528:Onetwothreeip
525:
524:
521:
517:
513:
509:
508:
507:
506:
502:
498:
494:
489:
485:
481:
480:Onetwothreeip
471:
468:
466:
463:
461:
458:
456:
453:
451:
448:
446:
443:
442:
441:
434:
426:
421:
416:
415:
401:
400:
393:
390:
389:
386:
385:
381:
376:
371:
370:
353:
350:
347:
346:
342:
339:
337:
334:
333:
329:
326:
324:
321:
320:
316:
313:
311:
308:
307:
303:
300:
298:
295:
294:
290:
287:
285:
282:
281:
277:
274:
272:
269:
268:
264:
261:
259:
256:
255:
251:
248:
246:
243:
242:
238:
235:
233:
230:
229:
225:
222:
220:
217:
216:
210:
205:
202:
201:
197:
191:
190:
186:Section sizes
184:
183:
179:
172:
171:
168:
153:
149:
143:
140:
139:
136:
119:
115:
111:
110:
102:
96:
91:
89:
86:
82:
81:
77:
71:
68:
65:
61:
56:
52:
46:
38:
29:
28:
19:
1635:
1614:
1597:
1556:
1539:
1517:WP:NOSOLICIT
1491:
1477:
1476:
1472:
1376:
1359:
1342:
1325:
1310:
1288:
1260:
1230:
1213:Alexlatham96
1178:
1160:
1091:
1026:
981:Alexlatham96
937:
920:Alexlatham96
900:
882:
865:
862:
859:
856:
853:
850:
847:
844:
831:
828:
823:
821:
818:
814:
809:
807:
799:WP:NOSOLICIT
793:
791:
786:
784:
774:
760:
661:
611:
588:
512:Alexlatham96
488:Alexlatham96
474:
438:
419:
379:
203:Section name
167:
147:
107:
51:WikiProjects
1562:VarmtheHawk
1557:Don't split
1540:Don't split
1525:VarmtheHawk
1473:Don't split
1347:Steve Quinn
1343:Don't split
1285:26000-27999
1281:14000-14999
1225:VarmtheHawk
1115:VarmtheHawk
1070:VarmtheHawk
1055:VarmtheHawk
969:VarmtheHawk
908:VarmtheHawk
851:3. Length.
833:VarmtheHawk
763:VarmtheHawk
672:VarmtheHawk
645:VarmtheHawk
591:VarmtheHawk
123:Engineering
114:engineering
70:Engineering
1713:Categories
1692:* Pppery *
1662:N1TH Music
1643:* Pppery *
1602:N1TH Music
1521:WP:TAGTEAM
1431:Funandtrvl
1364:Funandtrvl
1265:WP:SPINOUT
1255:Discussion
1074:- simple,
1013:Funandtrvl
995:Funandtrvl
803:WP:TAGTEAM
323:References
41:List-class
1657:WP:NOTDIR
1640:WP:NOTDIR
1619:WP:LENGTH
1478:North8000
1277:8000-8999
1076:WP:TOOBIG
1051:WP:BEBOLD
926:WP:BEBOLD
392:Archive 1
1581:zsteve21
1501:zsteve21
1291:starship
1233:starship
1221:Zsteve21
1181:starship
1094:starship
1029:starship
977:Zsteve21
940:starship
916:Zsteve21
893:contribs
875:contribs
752:contribs
730:contribs
696:contribs
629:contribs
572:zsteve21
554:contribs
501:contribs
484:Zsteve21
380:Archives
354:263,763
1380:phone?
1223:, and
983:, and
924:I have
918:, and
854:4. Yes
486:, and
420:28 days
351:263,763
304:59,375
291:52,758
278:44,074
265:27,659
252:39,916
239:38,228
211:Section
150:on the
1617:given
1296:.paint
1263:- per
1238:.paint
1186:.paint
1173:, and
1099:.paint
1034:.paint
945:.paint
301:59,375
288:52,758
275:44,074
262:27,659
249:39,916
236:38,228
226:1,252
213:total
47:scale.
1615:Split
1598:Split
1446:WP:AS
1412:WP:AS
1377:Query
1360:Split
1326:Query
1311:Query
1301:exalt
1261:Split
1243:exalt
1191:exalt
1104:exalt
1039:exalt
1007:BTW,
950:exalt
348:Total
310:Notes
223:1,252
219:(Top)
208:count
1666:talk
1627:talk
1606:talk
1585:talk
1566:talk
1548:talk
1529:talk
1519:and
1505:talk
1483:talk
1454:talk
1435:talk
1421:talk
1386:talk
1368:talk
1351:talk
1334:talk
1135:talk
1119:talk
1083:and
1059:talk
1017:talk
999:talk
932:and
889:talk
871:talk
837:talk
801:and
792:2.
767:talk
748:talk
726:talk
712:talk
692:talk
676:talk
649:talk
625:talk
595:talk
576:talk
550:talk
532:talk
516:talk
497:talk
343:432
206:Byte
1690:).
1090:).
891:) (
873:) (
822:6.
808:3.
785:1.
750:) (
728:) (
694:) (
627:) (
552:) (
499:) (
340:432
330:30
317:39
142:Low
1715::
1668:)
1629:)
1621:.
1608:)
1587:)
1568:)
1550:)
1531:)
1507:)
1485:)
1456:)
1437:)
1423:)
1404::
1388:)
1370:)
1353:)
1336:)
1319::
1283:,
1279:,
1267::
1219:,
1215:,
1211:,
1207:,
1169:,
1137:)
1121:)
1061:)
1019:)
1001:)
979:,
975:,
971:,
967:,
914:,
910:,
906:,
895:)
877:)
839:)
805:.
769:)
754:)
732:)
714:)
698:)
678:)
651:)
631:)
597:)
578:)
556:)
534:)
518:)
503:)
482:,
327:30
314:39
1664:(
1625:(
1604:(
1583:(
1564:(
1546:(
1527:(
1503:(
1481:(
1452:(
1433:(
1419:(
1384:(
1366:(
1349:(
1332:(
1303:)
1299:(
1245:)
1241:(
1227::
1203:@
1193:)
1189:(
1133:(
1117:(
1106:)
1102:(
1078:(
1072::
1068:@
1057:(
1041:)
1037:(
1015:(
997:(
987::
963:@
952:)
948:(
922::
902:@
887:(
869:(
835:(
780::
776:@
765:(
746:(
724:(
710:(
690:(
674:(
667::
663:@
647:(
623:(
617::
613:@
593:(
574:(
548:(
530:(
514:(
495:(
490::
478:@
154:.
53::
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
