2195:
pic at least). I tells us the author is Annie
Dillard (linked) which is linked in the first sentence; it tells us that the book was published in the USA (linked), which is a case of overlinking in my view; it tells who published the book (not currently in the first para of the lead so potentially interesting new info but not linked); it gives an ISBN which when I click it brings me out of the page to the book sources page which is one of our more confusing pages; it gives the OCLC (linked) which when clicked takes me to Worldcat where I find out that the book lives in about eight university libraries in a 200 mile radius from where I live, and also if I click another tiny link on that page that 82 editions of the book are available (potentially interesting but knowing myself as a browser I'd be gone from Knowledge (XXG) with that link and never link back to the article). In my view, the infobox adds very little information. Annie Dillard is not a mainstream author, not a prolific author, not an author about whom much has been written, not an author who is easy to cubbyhole. This is a diary of sorts, as was
1964:(outdent) I'll grant you your latter point, I shouldn't have made our disagreement personal. Sorry about that. You also had a good point that the publisher should be noted in the lead, and that's been added. So what remains is the ISBN and the OCLC number, two sets of digits that may indeed be important to a minority of readers. But why should these be placed in a box -- which lengthens with each addition? Could these not be added to the lead or any other pertinent section? In order to rationalize the addition of a bulky template, should we also add the dewey decimal number? LOC? Number of pages? Cover artist? These are all details that are
2309:
said before. I do think that the "infobox wars" - shoving an infobox on a page during or right after TFA (and an FA that was nominated for TFA by someone else, yet you need to deal with this) and in general, runs the risk of causing editor attrition that needs to be considered. I don't think we're yet at the stage in the project where universal uniformity is required or necessary - in my view there's just still too much work to be done in the trenches and alienating people who work in the trenches, on either side of a disagreement, is unwise in my view. I'm very tempted to remove the box, but will let it stand in some sort of spirit of compromise.
586:
565:
3510:
from a decade ago that I had nothing to do with; I'm interested in improving the usefulness of an encyclopedia. And I am frustrated when people revert those efforts without explanation. If "wounds" are preventing some people from thinking clearly on this issue, perhaps they are the ones who should consider walking away from the issue if it means they cannot think objectively about the matter. Is there a counterargument to including an infobox that is related to the objective quality of the encyclopedia as opposed to subjective experiences of the editors?
2013:. "I tell you the truth, it is hard for any vested-interest editor to permit alterations to an article once it has been voted superb than for a camel to go through the eye of a needle!" Seen it all to often. It begs the question what harm does an infobox do? None, because all it is doing is containing the pertinent details from the article. All this BS from the IDL brigade only serves to show how blind and obstinate most of the editors are on this site. Meanwhile why they fight over not including information Jimbo is worth $ 25million!!
2403:
the reality is that people do become upset. We're all human. Each of us. And different things upset different people. You asked where the troops were – in reality this isn't a highly watched page but I reviewed it so it's been on my watch for a while. I didn't charge in because I'm all anti-infobox all the time. As I explained on my page, I'm anti-infobox in some cases. This is one of those cases. And somehow we have to balance how to keep the masses happy with their metadata with keeping productive contributors content. Just saying.
495:
1595:
Annie
Dillard, the sensitive young woman with folded hands on the dust jacket, who looks out of her cottage window on nature and, sure enough, starting right on schedule with January, records the seasons as they come and go at Tinker Creek in Virginia .... The author compares her life with that of an anchorite hermit. In fact, she is anything but a hairshirt recluse. She smokes cigarettes. She drives a car. Like nature, she is sometimes guilty of repetition and a certain atrocious lushness".
474:
3557:
1969:
ability to denigrate into cruft. It collects both broad facts and specialized info that only takes away from what a
Featured Article represents -- including a well-crafted lead. The infobox you first proposed is more conspicuous than others I've seen, but its blank fields invite other users to step in and add more and more specialized, trivial details that draw the eye and bog the article down. What it all comes down to, however, is that infoboxes are
1751:(edit conflict) How was my statement "factually incorrect"? Last time I checked, infoboxes were not mandatory for book articles, nor are they located in the FA criteria. Metadata and standardization sounds like worthy endeavors, but were they so important, infoboxes would be made mandatory across the board -- they're not. I agree they're great for technical articles, where lists of jargon and such are quite helpful to the reader, but what does
21:
3528:. Substantive changes are brought to the talk page to achieve consensus. Edit warring is not the way to do that, so let's open a discussion and discuss. As for mentioning previous discussions, in this case that discussion is relevant because the person who wrote this left as a result of it and it spawned an arb case. In the meantime stewartship falls to others, such as myself, who have watched the page since it was written. At this time I'm
2203:; it falls into American nature writing, sort of. Anything I know about Annie Dillard, and this from her own writing, is that she's a "sort of" type person. There isn't a reason to wrap this in a box for a "sort of" type book and author. Furthermore, I do object to these arguments coming up when the pages reach the main page. For some reason I thought an agreement had been made to wait until after they're no longer linked to the main page?
238:
297:
54:
384:
363:
3425:
394:
1067:
1044:
1030:
999:
975:
948:
938:
913:
899:
885:
854:
820:
287:
2009:. The twaddle about having to read the article's intro to get the points that could be easily read in the infobox is more stupid than my words can muster. Derrrr what is Knowledge (XXG), an exercise in English comprehension? No the problem my friend, is "they" didn't think of it. And once an article is certified as being "superb" or whatever they call it here, you can forget about change or
269:
156:
75:
3110:
against the infobox, but I do find them useful for deciding if I want to read an article, I won't turn to an image caption that includes the isbn, when it is not an article about isbn's. Infoboxes provide database utility. They serve a few purposes, and it seems unnecessary to reduce the utility of any single article for its desired appearance for an editor or group of editors.
2153:"Stewardship" is not a veto, and "no consensus" is a result rather than a state of being. Arguments against a wider consensus should explain why an exception is appropriate: such things are not unknown, but they exist, and editors wishing to argue against the broader consensus would do well to examine them so as to present better arguments against future infobox deployment.
1201:
glad for the extra push in the right direction. I think the article is "broad" in its coverage, but not entirely complete; I typically use the space between GA and PR to complete research by hunting through online databases, but now's as good a time as any. I'll see what I can add over the next couple days, and then get back to you. How does that sound? P.S.: I took an
2858:
on my desktop to decide if I want to read an article--I do on-line research, and I want to be able to gather the metadata quickly by eye before I invest in reading a paragraph. If the problem is the junky nature of infoboxes in general, though, it seems that should be taken up with the design of the infobox rather than an individual fight about this one. Nice article.
2377:
speak of site-wide norms, but just because everyone wore acid wash jeans in the 80s doesn't mean it was a good idea. Because something is the "norm" does not make it the right choice in every regard. There are quite a few FAs listed in WikiProject Books that do not have infoboxes -- almost half. Perhaps that means the norm is different for this class of articles?
669:
3165:
prohibited for any article. Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article." So here we are. Also, I don't think it's fair to dismiss objections based on aesthetics; how an article looks matters a great deal.
2037:, or to infoboxes in general, rather than to the specific instance of the infobox I added to this article. As such, you should take them to the infobox's talk page, or a wider policy page, or nominate the infobox for deletion. Though its 27K transclusions suggest that you don't have anything like consensus.
3509:
I didn't say it wasn't possible to extract the information from unstructured data. I'm talking about what is actually done, not what is possible. Google uses the information in the infoboxes and augments its search results with that information when you put it there. I am not interested in "wounds"
3490:
Chatbots like Sidney would almost certainly disagree that structured data has to be presented as structured data and can't be converted to prose. Please designe a better infobox and reinitiate the discussion in a more collaborative manner. The wounds from this page run very very deep. My advice would
3164:
have yet to be mentioned here, and they're new to me, I admit. Microformatting for external websites is an interesting notion, but I can't help but think that were it such an important initiative, infoboxes and other templates would be mandatory by now. "The use of infoboxes is neither required nor
2735:
200px would be the norm for that, methinks, and I'm going to tweak to that. Crediting the cover artist (if known) is appropriate, as are awards; even the number of pages is a reasonable factoid that some may want to know. Yet some would make this findable only via going off site to
Worldcat or Google
2194:
infobox. I'm quite frankly too tired at the moment to put forward a strong argument as
Thumperward seems to require, and too stupid right now to figure out what OAS stands for, but here are my thoughts, fwiw they're worth. The infobox adds very little in my view (though I like the one with the larger
2173:
Parroting is unimpressive. And “stewardship” is not the same thing as “retarding” article development. Half the time that OAS is trucked out it is bald faced ownership at play. “Only this one, or any other one that contributed to and chose not to include an infobox” makes it pretty clear the you are
1150:
Legler, Gretchen: "'I Am a
Transparent Eyeball': The Politics of Vision in American Nature Writing" In (pp. 243-50) Tallmadge, John (ed. and introd.); Harrington, Henry (ed. and introd.), Reading under the Sign of Nature: New Essays in Ecocriticism. Salt Lake City, UT: U of Utah P, 2000. xv, 368 pp..
3575:
At the right is a screenshot of how the article with infobox renders for me on a 13in laptop in Vector 22, which is now default for all logged out users. Given that readers have no choice but to see the default skin and given that a 13 inch laptop isn't terribly uncommon, my suggestion is to rethink
3463:
The infobox provides structured information that is easy to consume at a glance. The argument that it is redundant with the lede (as argued above) is irrelevant. That's the entire purpose of the infobox... To take the important *unstructured* information about the book (as would normally be found in
3234:
infobox. Where there is no local convention, though a project etc (as here), to include or exclude them, the views of the main editors should be given extra weight. In most humanities articles, the information is so poor (because added by infobox fans who aren't aware of the pitfalls) that any wider
3082:
says nothing on the matter; the main reason for an infobox is to "quickly summarize important points in an easy-to-read format." My proposal is that the current image caption (which currently contains author, year, ISBN, and the
Pulitzer) already summarizes important points. It's redundant to what
2857:
de-junked infoboxes. While I agree with MarĂa about the potential to go bad quickly, infoboxes provide me utility as a reader. I frequently use limited mobile devices, and the infoboxes are handy--I can scan the page quickly through the infobox without opening the window. I also use them extensively
2750:
I agree with the image resizing, but again not with the infobox. The cover artist could surely be included in the image description, or even the caption. The award is already prominently displayed in the lead. Page numbers? Really? Gah. Br'er, you opinion about my ego has already been stated.
2591:
Good point, Kaldari. I had planned to walk away and let the infobox pushers have their way, but given that four separate editors have objected to this infobox in the last 24 hours, I believe that it should truly be removed. It is obvious that there is no consensus for its inclusion on this article
2376:
Each article is different, Br'er. You've already said I'm parroting, but here I go: I'm not against infoboxes on certain types of articles, or even against infoboxes in general. When it comes to works of literature, however, I don't believe they're essential or even helpful for the most part. You
1162:
Papa, James A., Jr.: "Water-Signs: Place and
Metaphor in Dillard and Thoreau" In (pp. 70-79) Schneider, Richard J. (ed. and introd.); Buell, Lawrence (foreword), Thoreau's Sense of Place: Essays in American Environmental Writing. Iowa City, IA: U of Iowa P, 2000. x, 310 pp.. (Iowa City, IA: American
3579:
I've recommenced the discussion with a more neutrally worded section header. Furthermore, given that often these discussions generate unnecessary heat, it's best that comments are kept here on this page and don't spill out throughout the project where they can be read and factions can form. Thanks!
2402:
BR, we know that we disagree on this issue and that there's not a lot of room for swaying each other to the other's viewpoint. What quite frankly distresses me is Maria's comment above. She's showing her belly – and you know what that means. There's no reason to upset editors over these issues, but
2323:
I've already removed it twice, so I'm done. It's time for the main contributor to roll over and show her belly. In a compromise there is usually ground given by both sides in order to reach an agreement; not so much here. More is being added to the infobox in order to increase its footprint, and
2266:
books no matter the genre; it's a one size fits all template made to easily display information that is -- as I've already stated -- largely already present in a well-written lead. Redundant. Unhelpful. Again, the only information not present in the lead is the ISBN and OCLC. Were these numbers
1387:
In "Summary", the second paragraph seems a bit out of place--why a long quote from the first section without a reason for citing it, and without citing anything else? A return to those statements from a reading of the last section might give a nice circular motif, which suggests progression and can
1356:
In the lead, "although several of its chapters have been anthologized in magazines and other publications". The phrase is repeated later. Here's my question: if they "had been anthologized" before the book's publication, the "although" is warranted. But I guess that they weren't, so the implication
3199:
share our content. That's an important part of what we do, no? There is widespread consensus to emit microformat and other metadata; your "it would be mandatory by now" canard does not negate that. So, your objections are purely aesthetic. How an article looks to you is not how it looks to others.
3073:
One argument has been in favor of this infobox because of metadata, but where is this data being emitted? How does it help the average user? EauOo made some good points above about how infoboxes help him/her personally, but I'm not sure "metadata" is used correctly in his argument. Rather, what
2308:
which goes either way. Some people don't like it without the box; some don't like the box. Personally I find them to be ugly and unnecessarily intrusive on pages like this. And the box now suffers from a serious case of overlinking. I don't really know what to say; as BR said above - it's all been
1968:
pertinent to the average reader, but if they must be present somewhere, why not add an external link to WorldCat or GoodReads? Speaking more broadly, I have several reasons for why I do not believe an infobox is necessary on articles dealing with works of literature, and a big one is its inherent
1594:
Perhaps not "misleading", but something along those lines? Maddocks' point seems to be that he finds the book's message to be at odds with
Dillard's life and persona. Here's a couple more clips from the review: "At first she seems to fit into a pattern as predictable as a wildlife calendar, this
1260:
glad you're reviewing, since we seem to be on the same page. I definitely agree that some namedropping would be beneficial, so I'll be on the lookout for anything of that kind. I also know there are some less than positive reviews out there, since not everyone is a fan. I've got another article
1230:
That sounds great. I'm glad you're taking this exactly in the spirit in which I intended it: I am not trying to draw up a laundry list of must-dos. Something else came to me just now (I have my best ideas in the shower...): in the
Reception section I'd like to see a note on just how important this
1200:
Thanks for the review, and spot-on source suggestions. I do have access to both JSTOR and MLA, so I was planning on doing more research over the next week or so -- I even have several of these (Mazel and Mendelson) printed out and ready to use! I didn't expect a review so quickly, but I'm really
3124:
So, all the time you've been opposing the use of the infobox in this article, you haven't understood its function, even though described to you; haven't until now bothered to ask about it, and apparently haven't read its documentation? So on what exactly, other than personal aesthetic preference,
3109:
Typo, multitasking. The infobox is metadata when the article is machine read, and this is another utility aspect of infoboxes. In my opinion, making the caption the infobox created a junkie caption, and it does not provide database utility. I won't continue to discuss this, as you appear dead set
1578:
Summarizing Melvin Maddocks' comments as noting "a misleading undertone" is a bit facile. To me, his comments are describing a subtle, but conscious effort by Dillard to influence the reader. Dillard may be downplaying her intentions, but I don't think Maddocks is seriously trying to say that the
1141:
I skimmed this and it might well add an easy paragraph to the themes-section, on cruelty (or some such term)--or with the following essay it might form a paragraph on estrangement from nature (some OR here: our repulsion to what we call nature's cruelty and our efforts to pretend we are no longer
3194:
the description of metadata on the help page, but it was already there, in the reference to microformats. That's irrelevant to my points, though. Metadata was mentioned by me, in the very first post of this section, and has also been mentioned by others. Microformats are not merely "for external
2898:
Andy Mabbett, I've never had any interaction with you until very recently. Twice in the past week or so you've called my logic bogus and now you're making fun of my user name. Please stop. It was reverted within minutes; look at the history and figure out who has been doing the reverting here.
1889:
And I am amused that you are attempting to make a non-mandatory change to a Featured Article -- which is still linked from the mainpage -- without gaining consensus. I have no wish to edit war with you, but your persistence on your pet subject is tiresome (as are edit conflicts). Please gain
1357:
that later, separate publication lessens the idea of a single sustained narrative isn't really relevant. If the sentence is recast, "Dillard considers it..." preceding "although several of its chapters...", that implication is already less strong and the statement more factual than suggestive.
1105:
Mazel, David: "Annie Dillard and the Book of Job: Notes toward a Postnatural Ecocriticism" In (pp. 185-95) Ingram, Annie Merrill (ed. and introd.); Marshall, Ian (ed. and introd.); Philippon, Daniel J. (ed. and introd.); Sweeting, Adam W. (ed. and introd.), Coming into Contact: Explorations in
1084:
I'm using this to make some remarks--not random ones, perhaps, but less organized than they should be. You'll note that some of this indicates what you might think of as a pet peeve: coverage in journal articles. There's only one in the bibliography right now, and for a librarian they're easy
3474:
Possibly the infobox was less common practice when the talk page above was written more than a decade ago (which never actually came to a conclusion on whether an infobox should be included or not, although people seem to be interpreting it as if there had been some official decision that it
1919:
had no exclusion for FAs (indeed, a recent RfC on giving FAs some sort of special exception to our usual methods of working and polices on editing failed to gain any significant support). You appear not to have answered my question about the real reason for your objection. And it's not
2062:
I'm not taking anything beyond this talk page because, simply, I'm not concerned with 27,000 other articles. Only this one, or any other one that I contributed to and chose not to include an infobox. Until infoboxes are mandatory, this article simply does not need one.
3328:" was another argument for why infoboxes are important, which is why I added the ALT text -- which aids readers with vision impairment. Correct me if I'm wrong, but now "vision impaired" seems more disparaging and less helpful. The dangers of vague edit summaries.
2324:
I'm driven back with cries of OWN. When content creators cannot make their opinion known without being called "blind" and "obstinate", or accused of "'retarding' article development", what point is there? Thanks for your support, but consensus means nothing here.
1295:
my progress over the last few days: six additional journal article sources, and plumped up Style/Genre and Themes sections. I haven't had much luck in finding soundbites for the Legacy section, but there are still some rocks to be turned over. What do you think?
3464:
the lede) and present it in a *structured* manner so it's easier to find what you're looking for. The structured data in the infobox is also extracted by Google (etc.) so that it can be used to present information about the book directly on the search page.
2433:; it's an appeal to emotion and a fit of pique over not being given special treatment. I see this as a quite stark divide over ownership and personal preference versus what's best for articles and readers. Media of all sort use sidebars. They're ubiquitous.
2243:
Okay, thanks, brain's tired and don't know that particular piece of alphabet soup. Yeah it's all been said many times but I still have the world cat page open and find it interesting. FWIW. Not much to précis with Dillard to be honest. Over and out.
2361:
to duplicate info in the article. That's /helpful/. This is all about appropriate structure (metadata), service to readers who simply want an easy to find fact, and about site wide norms. People have added *millions* of infoboxes; that's consensus.
1180:
OK, that's enough for now. I'm not providing a list of things that should be incorporated; I'm doing this first to see what the coverage is among the critics and how the article measures up, and second to make a few suggestions for broadening. I
1239:--if I had to take a guess, I'd say that Dillard's book is of similar importance for ecopoets and ecofiction writers. Again, just a couple of lines will do--and in the upcoming FA that would be a paragraph or two, if indeed my guess is correct.
3381:
Oh he meant me! I wish he'd invent a template to render his comments into normal English. I have very high aspirations for the project, but they centre on growing the Christmas tree rather than adding more and fancier sets of fairy lights.
2115:
I strongly object to the addition of an infobox in this article, but seeing as how an anonymous, drive-by IP's opinion seems to weigh more than mine own, I doubt anything more I have to say will amount to much. I will however say that
1700:
not only is that factually incorrect, but the purpose of infoboxes is to gather and repeat such information, to present it to our readers in a standardised (literally, templated) format, and then to emit it as metadata. That is not
1863:
I see that you have again reverted me. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that your objection is not, in fact that the information - pertinent or otherwise - in the infobox "can be located in the lead section". So what is it?
755:
Preliminary remarks: I had a quick look at the article and made a few minor edits. I think this will be fine, but I may do this in a couple of sessions, so bear with me. Sometimes Real Life really gets in the way of things.
141:
35:
1325:
The lead says "the book's story takes place over the period of one year." Now, I understand it's a narrative book, but that's not exactly the same as story--perhaps "narrative" is the better word here. Or I'm picking lint.
1478:
That she was 29 when she received the Pulitzer does not strike me as very relevant. What would be nice is a quote from the jury report or something like that, something that imparts some estimation of value and judgment.
2447:
Oh FFS, we're women! Women are emotional! Agree with sidebars; don't agree with the design of the sidebars on these pages. Basically they suck. Sorry, but that's my feeling. Anyway, Maria's gone – hopefully drinking the
2493:
of the infobox? It's got a thin grey border (that matches others elements of the page) and a slightly lighter background. That's pretty subdued (which is appropriate; all the pastels and meretriciousness fools push is
3623:
1137:
Dockins, Mike: "Stalking the Bumblebee: An Exploration of 'Cruelty' in Pilgrim at Tinker Creek" Massachusetts Review: A Quarterly of Literature, the Arts and Public Affairs, (44:4), 2003-2004 Winter, 636-48. (2003)
3083:
is already in the lead (other than the ISBN), but it's easily picked out and condensed for readability. If that's what our main goal is, I believe the current image caption does so. So what about the metadata?
3613:
2828:, and does not affect the footprint of the infobox. A larger image not only displays the book's cover to our readers more prominently, but actually reduces the length of the infobox, by reducing line-wrapping.
2520:– that comment was poorly written. But I do understand that she's stressed. I've been stalking your edits and like the main page redesign – a lot. The colors we have are hideous. Nice to see the cleaner look.
3608:
2005:. Forget about the fact that you are right, any article on a book does need a infobox for quick reference: author, publisher, ISBN etc. But that is all to quite obvious to those who are affected by
2617:
Perhaps a compromise can be found. I have just reduced the size of the image in an attempt to reduce the size and dominance of the infobox. It certainly looks better on my monitor now. — Martin
1735:
First: thank you for not introducing the infobox on the day of Main page appearance. Then: I agree with the author. This box contains nothing which is not available in one glance in the lead. --
2486:
Oh, we canz swear? The appeal to emotion is a fucking cheat. It's bullshite. MarĂa's “gone”, what a bully I must be. “Basically they suck.” is about as purely subjective opinion as you can get.
1256:
OMG, this article only gets 40 hits a day! Why am I even bothering?! Seriously though, it's one of my favorites, so I'm just glad I finally got around to improving its Wiki coverage; and I'm
3471:
is used on more than 51,000 pages. Pages where it is not used are generally low-quality articles where no one has bothered to go through the effort of creating it... Not "Featured Articles".
1147:
Kraus, Carolyn Wells: "On Hurting People's Feelings: Journalism, Guilt, and Autobiography" Biography: An Interdisciplinary Quarterly, (26:2), 2003 Spring, 283-97 (English summary.). (2003)
160:
122:
60:
2634:
The image was originally (pre-infobox) 200px; I think I tried 150px and it was just too small. It's difficult to read the print (title and author) in its current state, IMHO. Also, if
2559:
for example), and they seem to be doing fine without them. Not everything in the universe needs to be boxed and categorized to death. Knowledge (XXG) is an encyclopedia, not a database.
2553:
I also oppose the inclusion of the infobox, as it is a cruft magnet and not especially useful for literature articles, IMO. We have other featured literature articles without infoboxes (
1973:
mandatory. It's true that they're also not prohibited, but who is going from article to article and removing them without consensus? If someone is, I'd be the first to denounce it.
674:
1171:
Radaker, Kevin: "Caribou, Electrons, and the Angel: Stalking the Sacred in Annie Dillard's Pilgrim at Tinker Creek". Christianity and Literature, (46:2), 1997 Winter, 123-43. (1997)
1391:
I initially attended the quote to be a blockquote, but changed my mind at some point; it's back to being a blockquote so it introduces the summary (which still may be expanded).
1185:
the coverage is probably enough for GA, but I'm not done with my library search. Considering your list of FAs, you might as well look ahead with this one! Now back to life.
2124:
been reached here. Case in point, cribbing directly from Br'er Rabbit: infoboxes on books are not mandatory and should not be simply added based on the preference of one.
707:
3235:
grand project based on using the metadata is doomed to be useless in these areas. If you want to add metadata better to add it in a horizontal hidden bar at the bottom.
1418:
The bibliography lists the 1999 edition, and mention is made of the "Harper Perennial Modern Classics edition". If that is the 1999 edition, add the year to the phrase.
636:
2262:
Truthkeeper, I agree with you that this is a strange little book, not easily categorized. The obvious comeback to that, however, is that the book infobox encompasses
1093:
I think the coverage could be a bit broader. I'm browsing through the MLA and JSTOR, and there is ample indication that the genre-section could do with a paragraph on
1834:
I'm amused that a librarian doesn't think an ISBN is pertinent to an article about the book it identifies. Nonetheless, I've restored the infobox, with additional
697:
3673:
626:
1624:
Sorry, I got caught up in the discussion below and forgot about this. I re-read Maddocks and now see what you mean. I've reworded per your suggestion, thanks!
547:
1118:
Killingsworth, M. Jimmie: "The Case of Cotton Mather's Dog: Reflection and Resonance in American Ecopoetics" College English, (73:5), 2011 May, 498-517. (2011)
1159:
Mendelson, Donna: "Tinker Creek and the Waters of Walden: Thoreauvian Currents in Annie Dillard's Pilgrim" The Concord Saunterer, (3), 1995 Fall, 50-62. (1995)
3376:
3317:
2957:
2510:
2442:
2371:
2238:
2183:
3156:, so now my previous comment is incorrect. Most of this lengthy section has been centered (I thought) on whether or not infoboxes are helpful to readers.
679:
456:
3683:
3658:
537:
602:
177:
3014:
You put the after her username, not her argument, which seemed to imply that you thought it ("Truthkeeper") faulty in some way. It wasn't very funny.
1448:"it has been anthologized in over thirty collections"--"it" is unclear, since you had mentioned individual chapters having been anthologized. Rephrase.
3405:
2745:
2586:
1231:
book is for later 'eco-writers'. Some verified namedropping would already help. I'm thinking for instance of that all-important book by Rachel Carson,
3643:
3367:
That was not referring to accessibility, it was a comment on low aspirations for the project (which are unhelpful;). “One despairs, one really does.”
446:
2097:
by the editor who took this to FA. Infoboxes on books are quite normal and standard and should not be simply removed based on the preference of one.
3668:
3663:
1755:
contain that the lead doesn't? The ISBN? That's located in the "References" section, albeit for the edition that was actually used for citations.
3603:
2519:
infobox. And yeah I can swear; will match you any day on that. No, I'm sorry, wasn't suggesting that you drove Maria away Mr. Bully <joke: -->
3648:
187:
593:
570:
422:
317:
3653:
3618:
788:
2555:
2014:
1241:
Good luck with the work, let me know if I can help, and thanks for your contributions, even if the Foundation thinks this trivial, haha.
3678:
3638:
3633:
3341:
3297:
3216:
3178:
3141:
3096:
3055:
3027:
3005:
2978:
2932:
2889:
2844:
2803:
2764:
2714:
2669:
The number of pages does seem a trivial detail to include in the infobox. Regarding the awards, this is currently under discussion, see
2657:
2605:
2390:
2337:
2292:
2137:
2076:
2053:
1986:
1944:
1903:
1880:
1854:
1822:
1796:
1768:
1725:
1658:
1637:
1608:
1544:
1499:
1464:
1434:
1404:
1373:
1342:
1309:
1274:
1218:
773:
1022:
503:
479:
321:
2498:
2305:
794:
702:
905:
407:
368:
725:
103:
3628:
2222:
2109:
249:
3475:
shouldn't be), but there's no reason other than stubbornness/ownership to exclude the infobox for this one particular book.
311:
274:
30:
2790:
stay (despite it not being mandatory, etc., etc.) it looks far better with a smaller footprint and less redundancy. IMHO.
2731:
I set 250px, as that is commonly used in infoboxes. However, this is a portrait image and so I've no problem with smaller.
2989:
The use of "" has nothing to do with fun-making. I didn't say your logic was bogus; I said that the reason you gave was.
2272:
746:
2913:
TK, I hadn't thought of simply adding the proposed infobox info to the image caption. It'll probably be reverted, but
826:
3391:
3348:
2771:
2529:
2461:
2412:
2397:
2253:
2144:
3262:
2644:
remove empty/extremely redundant fields (cover artist, pages, awards) so as to discourage the infobox from growing.
53:
2670:
2640:, making it appear smaller won't really matter. Perhaps a fairer compromise would be to reduce the image (175px?)
871:
846:
585:
564:
1516:
Thanks again for your good work--addressing these issues will ensure speedy promotion, as far as I'm concerned.
721:
516:. If you would like to participate, go to the project page to see a list of related articles needing attention.
237:
20:
2018:
255:
40:
3401:
3372:
3313:
2953:
2741:
2582:
2506:
2438:
2367:
2234:
2179:
2105:
1662:
3585:
3537:
3496:
3358:
3336:
3293:
3212:
3173:
3137:
3091:
3051:
3022:
3001:
2974:
2927:
2904:
2885:
2840:
2798:
2759:
2736:(via an ISBN lost at the bottom of the page;). That's not a reader-centred approach, it's about editor ego.
2710:
2652:
2600:
2525:
2457:
2408:
2385:
2332:
2314:
2287:
2249:
2225:. It's about metadata, a précis, a convenience to readers who scan, who want just key facts. All been said,
2208:
2132:
2071:
2049:
1981:
1940:
1898:
1876:
1850:
1817:
1792:
1763:
1721:
1677:
1632:
1603:
1539:
1494:
1459:
1429:
1399:
1368:
1337:
1304:
1269:
1213:
768:
193:
3436:
I've just fully protected this page for one days because of the edit warring over the infobox. Please stop
2592:
at this time. Perhaps that will change later on, but it's obvious that the infobox does little good here.
1740:
1482:
To be fair, 29 is rather young to win a Pulitzer -- but I see what you mean. I've added a soundbite from
2094:
3556:
3515:
3480:
3449:
2158:
2031:
601:
on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
598:
513:
421:
on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
170:
2698:" no it isn't; it does do good, by summarising key points and emitting metadata, as explained above.
1154:
Here's another one for the eco-thing, and dropping Emerson in such an article is always a good thing.
1101:(I just made that a redirect to a terribly underdeveloped article--Maria, get on it!). For instance:
325:
3437:
2276:
44:
494:
473:
155:
74:
3467:
An infobox is not required, but it's quite obviously the *standard practice* for books in 2023...
1696:
rm infobox as completely unnecessary; all pertinent information can be located in the lead section
1012:
834:
3581:
3533:
3492:
3397:
3368:
3354:
3330:
3309:
3284:
3203:
3167:
3128:
3085:
3042:
3016:
2992:
2965:
2949:
2921:
2900:
2876:
2831:
2792:
2753:
2737:
2701:
2646:
2594:
2578:
2521:
2502:
2453:
2434:
2404:
2379:
2363:
2326:
2310:
2281:
2245:
2230:
2204:
2175:
2126:
2101:
2065:
2040:
1975:
1931:
1892:
1867:
1841:
1811:
1783:
1757:
1712:
1673:
1626:
1597:
1533:
1488:
1453:
1423:
1393:
1362:
1331:
1298:
1263:
1207:
762:
3525:
1916:
329:
2919:. Not too bad, although granted I didn't add the OCLC nor publisher. No overlinking, either.
3387:
3240:
2873:
Unfortunately, Truthkeeper has just removed the infobox, citing a bogus reason for doing so.
2564:
1736:
1584:
2824:
key information. The Pulitzer Prize is clearly a key piece of information. Linking text is a
2430:
2226:
2010:
1666:
961:
830:
798:
3511:
3476:
3445:
2154:
1563:
1521:
1261:
that is heading to PR-then-FAC before this one, so no rush on this. I'll report back soon!
1246:
1190:
1129:, and could be of use to sketch the context of American ecopoetry in which Dillard produced
740:
3564:
It has been proposed that an infobox be added to this article. The addition of an infobox,
3256:
2218:
2117:
2006:
2002:
1588:
1036:
842:
838:
3115:
2863:
2452:
I left for her – (and jeez, you like that infobox! instant headache, before the alcohol).
1166:
For beefing up the Thoreau comment in the second paragraph of the Style and genre section.
399:
3532:
to adding an infobox - especially not with the tiny text column V22 gives us for a lead.
3441:
3273:". Until then, please feel free to point out which information in the infobox I added to
3161:
1692:
Earlier today, I added an infobox to this article. It was removed with the edit summary:
891:
3396:
No, I wasn't thinking of you, although you've demonstrated lack of vision often enough.
3429:
2825:
2680:
2624:
1106:
Ecocritical Theory and Practice. Athens, GA: U of Georgia P, 2007. ix, 278 pp.. (2007)
3597:
2196:
205:
760:
No worries. I wasn't expecting a review so quickly, so thanks! Take your time. :)
296:
3589:
3541:
3519:
3500:
3484:
3453:
3383:
3362:
3301:
3244:
3236:
3220:
3185:
3145:
3119:
3103:
3079:
3059:
3034:
3009:
2982:
2939:
2908:
2893:
2867:
2848:
2810:
2718:
2685:
2664:
2629:
2612:
2568:
2560:
2344:
2318:
2299:
2212:
2162:
2083:
2057:
2022:
1993:
1948:
1910:
1884:
1858:
1829:
1800:
1775:
1744:
1729:
1681:
1644:
1615:
1580:
1567:
1551:
1525:
1506:
1471:
1441:
1411:
1380:
1349:
1316:
1281:
1250:
1225:
1194:
780:
750:
302:
1174:
Can you get this easily? Looks very interesting, considering the note on theodicy.
2001:
Adding my penny worth...all this pettiness simply comes down to squirming out of
3424:
1559:
1517:
1242:
1186:
736:
1915:
Very few changes on Knowledge (XXG) are mandatory, and the last time I looked,
383:
362:
3111:
2859:
1657:
Wanted to sort bibliography: Marshall after Maddocks, and Parrish after Papa.
1098:
509:
412:
389:
292:
1486:, which gives the jury's nomination statement. Very good suggestion, thanks
2676:
2620:
2516:
2449:
1202:
164:
3308:
That's pure ownership, and a disservice to readers by the vision impaired.
728:. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
286:
268:
2271:
an infobox on this article change? Perhaps it would simply boil down to
417:
3157:
2751:
No need to repeat yourself -- I'm doing enough of that for both of us.
1113:
because I'm fascinated by the role of Job in American literary culture.
3269:", I look forward to your RfC on prohibiting infoboxes added to them "
316:. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can
2200:
200:
3555:
3423:
3624:
Knowledge (XXG) Did you know articles that are featured articles
2174:
the one with the personal preference regarding “your” articles.
3353:
I suspect he's referring to me. I told him I have bad vision.
2944:
Yup, that should be reverted; no metadata, much else omitted,
2816:
The redundancy argument remains a red herring, given that the
231:
1322:
Well, I think you have done an excellent job. A few remarks:
1890:
consensus on this issue before re-adding your box. Thanks.
3614:
Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
3524:
That's nice. As for arguments, the first one for an FA is
2429:
And you know that I view all the “Belly” stuff as so much
2027:
Most if not all of your comments seem to be objections to
2786:
I would much rather remove the box completely, but if it
1205:
class in grad school. That article is just... *shudder*
3253:" (whatever that might mean) are not given extra weight
2357:
Except for the images, the information in an infobox is
2267:
to be added to the lead section, how would the argument
411:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
59:
This article appeared on Knowledge (XXG)'s Main Page as
3569:
3565:
3324:
3152:
2915:
2782:
2636:
1752:
1292:
134:
115:
96:
3459:
There is no good argument against including an infobox
3609:
Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
2577:
It's both, and you should know that, given your job.
3281:", in your opinion, that I should not have done so.
597:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
2696:
it's obvious that the infobox does little good here
1109:Can't access this right now, and I am listing this
1809:information can be located in the lead section."
508:, a collaborative effort to increase coverage of
3271:by infobox fans who aren't aware of the pitfalls
3432:of the article has been successfully protected.
1694:
328:. To improve this article, please refer to the
8:
1021:(images are tagged and non-free images have
43:. Even so, if you can update or improve it,
39:as one of the best articles produced by the
33:; it (or a previous version of it) has been
1780:Thank you for answering your own question.
3572:should be done as the result of consensus.
2946:per your personal animus towards infoboxes
2637:more redundant fields continue to be added
2501:? (mocking TFA w/the box and huge star;).
657:
559:
468:
357:
324:. To use this banner, please refer to the
263:
68:
15:
1838:information, also not found in the lede.
1235:, and more recently Sandra Steingraber's
611:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Women writers
2118:ownership is not the same as stewardship
322:discuss matters related to book articles
235:
1558:I think we're finished here. Congrats!
688:
660:
561:
470:
359:
330:relevant guideline for the type of work
265:
3125:have you been basing your objections?
522:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Appalachia
3674:Mid-importance Women writers articles
3560:13in laptop, 1440 x 900 display, 100%
7:
3153:you've changed the Help:Infobox page
2556:A Vindication of the Rights of Woman
1142:cruel is an estrangement, methinks):
591:This article is within the scope of
500:This article is within the scope of
431:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Virginia
405:This article is within the scope of
308:This article is within the scope of
2499:what the main page should look like
2155:Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward)
254:It is of interest to the following
3684:WikiProject Women writers articles
3659:Mid-importance Appalachia articles
1709:. The infobox should be restored.
1329:"narrative" sounds good, changed.
1016:, where possible and appropriate.
614:Template:WikiProject Women writers
14:
3604:Knowledge (XXG) featured articles
2671:Template talk:Infobox book#Awards
338:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Books
3644:Mid-importance Virginia articles
1065:
1042:
1028:
997:
973:
970:Fair representation without bias
946:
936:
911:
897:
883:
852:
818:
726:Talk:Pilgrim at Tinker Creek/GA1
584:
563:
493:
472:
392:
382:
361:
295:
285:
267:
236:
154:
73:
52:
19:
3669:FA-Class Women writers articles
3664:WikiProject Appalachia articles
2223:Organization of American States
1388:support the idea of narrative.
797:for what the criteria are, and
631:This article has been rated as
542:This article has been rated as
525:Template:WikiProject Appalachia
451:This article has been rated as
3454:13:14, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
3406:01:02, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
3392:23:56, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
3377:23:02, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
3363:22:54, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
3349:22:30, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
3318:20:52, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
3302:17:44, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
3245:17:49, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
3221:16:12, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
3186:15:49, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
3146:15:17, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
3120:13:27, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
3104:13:01, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
3074:readers see is data, not data
3060:15:05, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
3035:12:52, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
3010:12:32, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
2983:12:32, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
2958:02:05, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
2940:00:44, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
2909:00:13, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
2894:22:52, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
2868:22:06, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
2849:22:31, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
2811:20:51, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
2772:20:40, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
2746:20:21, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
2719:15:32, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
2686:13:16, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
2665:13:04, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
2630:12:33, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
2613:12:29, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
2587:07:00, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
2569:04:50, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
2530:02:52, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
2511:02:47, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
2462:01:17, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
2443:01:08, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
2413:00:46, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
2398:00:40, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
2372:00:28, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
2345:00:32, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
2319:00:00, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
2300:23:19, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
2254:21:08, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
2239:21:04, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
2213:20:39, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
2184:19:58, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
2163:19:54, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
2145:19:25, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
2110:18:51, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
2084:19:31, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
2058:19:03, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
2023:17:00, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
1994:15:46, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
1949:14:59, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
1911:14:50, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
1885:14:48, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
1859:14:44, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
1830:14:40, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
1801:14:28, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
1776:14:16, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
1745:14:09, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
1730:13:55, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
1682:23:41, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
1667:23:09, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
1645:13:12, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
1616:12:41, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
1589:05:41, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
1163:Land and Life Series). (2000)
163:appeared on Knowledge (XXG)'s
1:
3649:WikiProject Virginia articles
3590:15:52, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
3542:04:54, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
3520:04:46, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
3501:04:33, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
3485:04:26, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
1924:infobox, just as this is not
1672:Done. Thanks for mentioning.
605:and see a list of open tasks.
434:Template:WikiProject Virginia
425:and see a list of open tasks.
3654:FA-Class Appalachia articles
3619:Old requests for peer review
2783:In the spirit of compromise.
1568:16:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
1552:16:07, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
1526:15:25, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
1507:16:07, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
1472:16:07, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
1442:16:07, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
1412:16:07, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
1381:16:07, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
1350:16:07, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
1317:18:11, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
1282:21:38, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
1251:17:40, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
1226:17:13, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
1195:16:54, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
1066:
1043:
1029:
998:
974:
947:
937:
912:
898:
884:
853:
819:
781:16:03, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
751:15:53, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
3491:to walk away and leave it.
2826:convenience for our readers
1121:Contains a (brief) note on
184:The text of the entry was:
3700:
3679:WikiProject Women articles
3639:FA-Class Virginia articles
3634:WikiProject Books articles
1484:The Pulitzer Prize Archive
637:project's importance scale
548:project's importance scale
457:project's importance scale
341:Template:WikiProject Books
211:based her master's thesis?
186:Did you know ... that the
142:Featured article candidate
3322:Sorry, Br'er, I thought "
3195:websites", but about how
2093:IP's right; this is pure
630:
594:WikiProject Women writers
579:
541:
488:
450:
377:
280:
262:
218:
204:, a work on which author
151:
71:
67:
41:Knowledge (XXG) community
3267:most humanities articles
61:Today's featured article
3325:fix the vision impaired
2306:WP:I just don't like it
1652:
808:reasonably well written
194:Pilgrim at Tinker Creek
27:Pilgrim at Tinker Creek
3629:FA-Class Book articles
3561:
3433:
1707:completely unnecessary
1698:
1579:book is "misleading".
1035:(appropriate use with
801:for what they are not)
617:Women writers articles
504:WikiProject Appalachia
244:This article is rated
161:fact from this article
63:on September 17, 2012.
3559:
3427:
1573:
1010:It is illustrated by
962:neutral point of view
926:broad in its coverage
514:Appalachian Mountains
248:on Knowledge (XXG)'s
198:is often compared to
2962:Ridiculous; per BR.
2120:, and consensus has
408:WikiProject Virginia
104:Good article nominee
3263:applies to projects
2820:of infoboxes is to
2273:WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS
1023:fair use rationales
528:Appalachia articles
3562:
3552:Infobox discussion
3442:dispute resolution
3434:
2916:see what you think
994:No edit wars, etc.
867:factually accurate
250:content assessment
79:Article milestones
3347:
3184:
3102:
3039:I wasn't joking.
3033:
2938:
2809:
2770:
2684:
2663:
2628:
2611:
2396:
2343:
2298:
2143:
2082:
1992:
1909:
1828:
1774:
1653:Why can't I edit?
1643:
1614:
1550:
1505:
1470:
1440:
1410:
1379:
1348:
1315:
1280:
1237:Living Downstream
1224:
1037:suitable captions
779:
716:
715:
651:
650:
647:
646:
643:
642:
558:
557:
554:
553:
467:
466:
463:
462:
437:Virginia articles
356:
355:
352:
351:
312:WikiProject Books
230:
229:
226:
225:
178:December 11, 2011
116:February 26, 2012
3691:
3444:steps instead.
3344:
3339:
3334:
3333:
3327:
3300:
3291:
3287:
3219:
3210:
3206:
3181:
3176:
3171:
3170:
3155:
3144:
3135:
3131:
3099:
3094:
3089:
3088:
3058:
3049:
3045:
3030:
3025:
3020:
3019:
3008:
2999:
2995:
2981:
2972:
2968:
2935:
2930:
2925:
2924:
2918:
2892:
2883:
2879:
2847:
2838:
2834:
2806:
2801:
2796:
2795:
2785:
2767:
2762:
2757:
2756:
2717:
2708:
2704:
2674:
2660:
2655:
2650:
2649:
2639:
2618:
2608:
2603:
2598:
2597:
2497:Seen my idea of
2393:
2388:
2383:
2382:
2340:
2335:
2330:
2329:
2295:
2290:
2285:
2284:
2140:
2135:
2130:
2129:
2079:
2074:
2069:
2068:
2056:
2047:
2043:
2036:
2030:
1989:
1984:
1979:
1978:
1947:
1938:
1934:
1906:
1901:
1896:
1895:
1883:
1874:
1870:
1857:
1848:
1844:
1825:
1820:
1815:
1814:
1799:
1790:
1786:
1771:
1766:
1761:
1760:
1728:
1719:
1715:
1640:
1635:
1630:
1629:
1611:
1606:
1601:
1600:
1574:Maddocks' review
1547:
1542:
1537:
1536:
1502:
1497:
1492:
1491:
1467:
1462:
1457:
1456:
1437:
1432:
1427:
1426:
1407:
1402:
1397:
1396:
1376:
1371:
1366:
1365:
1345:
1340:
1335:
1334:
1312:
1307:
1302:
1301:
1277:
1272:
1267:
1266:
1221:
1216:
1211:
1210:
1069:
1068:
1046:
1045:
1032:
1031:
1001:
1000:
977:
976:
950:
949:
940:
939:
915:
914:
901:
900:
892:reliable sources
887:
886:
856:
855:
822:
821:
776:
771:
766:
765:
670:Copyvio detector
658:
619:
618:
615:
612:
609:
588:
581:
580:
575:
567:
560:
530:
529:
526:
523:
520:
497:
490:
489:
484:
476:
469:
439:
438:
435:
432:
429:
402:
397:
396:
395:
386:
379:
378:
373:
365:
358:
346:
345:
342:
339:
336:
318:join the project
305:
300:
299:
289:
282:
281:
271:
264:
247:
241:
240:
232:
221:Featured article
219:Current status:
158:
137:
118:
99:
97:December 8, 2011
78:
77:
69:
56:
31:featured article
23:
16:
3699:
3698:
3694:
3693:
3692:
3690:
3689:
3688:
3594:
3593:
3554:
3461:
3422:
3342:
3337:
3329:
3323:
3289:
3283:
3282:
3208:
3202:
3201:
3179:
3174:
3166:
3151:
3133:
3127:
3126:
3097:
3092:
3084:
3047:
3041:
3040:
3028:
3023:
3015:
2997:
2991:
2990:
2970:
2964:
2963:
2933:
2928:
2920:
2914:
2881:
2875:
2874:
2836:
2830:
2829:
2804:
2799:
2791:
2781:
2765:
2760:
2752:
2734:
2706:
2700:
2699:
2658:
2653:
2645:
2635:
2606:
2601:
2593:
2550:
2391:
2386:
2378:
2338:
2333:
2325:
2293:
2288:
2280:
2138:
2133:
2125:
2077:
2072:
2064:
2045:
2039:
2038:
2034:
2028:
1987:
1982:
1974:
1936:
1930:
1929:
1904:
1899:
1891:
1872:
1866:
1865:
1846:
1840:
1839:
1823:
1818:
1810:
1788:
1782:
1781:
1769:
1764:
1756:
1717:
1711:
1710:
1690:
1655:
1638:
1633:
1625:
1609:
1604:
1596:
1576:
1545:
1540:
1532:
1500:
1495:
1487:
1465:
1460:
1452:
1435:
1430:
1422:
1405:
1400:
1392:
1374:
1369:
1361:
1343:
1338:
1330:
1310:
1305:
1297:
1275:
1270:
1262:
1219:
1214:
1206:
1091:
1082:
959:It follows the
933:(major aspects)
774:
769:
761:
720:This review is
712:
684:
656:
616:
613:
610:
607:
606:
573:
527:
524:
521:
518:
517:
482:
436:
433:
430:
427:
426:
400:Virginia portal
398:
393:
391:
371:
343:
340:
337:
334:
333:
301:
294:
245:
214:
213:
182:
133:
114:
95:
72:
12:
11:
5:
3697:
3695:
3687:
3686:
3681:
3676:
3671:
3666:
3661:
3656:
3651:
3646:
3641:
3636:
3631:
3626:
3621:
3616:
3611:
3606:
3596:
3595:
3553:
3550:
3549:
3548:
3547:
3546:
3545:
3544:
3504:
3503:
3460:
3457:
3421:
3418:
3417:
3416:
3415:
3414:
3413:
3412:
3411:
3410:
3409:
3408:
3365:
3306:
3305:
3304:
3249:The views of "
3228:
3227:
3226:
3225:
3224:
3223:
3122:
3071:
3070:
3069:
3068:
3067:
3066:
3065:
3064:
3063:
3062:
2987:
2986:
2985:
2960:
2852:
2851:
2779:
2778:
2777:
2776:
2775:
2774:
2732:
2726:
2725:
2724:
2723:
2722:
2721:
2692:
2691:
2690:
2689:
2688:
2589:
2572:
2571:
2549:
2546:
2545:
2544:
2543:
2542:
2541:
2540:
2539:
2538:
2537:
2536:
2535:
2534:
2533:
2532:
2495:
2487:
2473:
2472:
2471:
2470:
2469:
2468:
2467:
2466:
2465:
2464:
2420:
2419:
2418:
2417:
2416:
2415:
2400:
2352:
2351:
2350:
2349:
2348:
2347:
2259:
2258:
2257:
2256:
2189:
2188:
2187:
2186:
2168:
2167:
2166:
2165:
2148:
2147:
2091:
2090:
2089:
2088:
2087:
2086:
2025:
2015:109.150.239.53
1962:
1961:
1960:
1959:
1958:
1957:
1956:
1955:
1954:
1953:
1952:
1951:
1887:
1748:
1747:
1689:
1686:
1685:
1684:
1654:
1651:
1650:
1649:
1648:
1647:
1619:
1618:
1575:
1572:
1571:
1570:
1555:
1554:
1514:
1513:
1512:
1511:
1510:
1509:
1476:
1475:
1474:
1446:
1445:
1444:
1416:
1415:
1414:
1385:
1384:
1383:
1354:
1353:
1352:
1289:
1288:
1287:
1286:
1285:
1284:
1178:
1177:
1176:
1175:
1169:
1168:
1167:
1160:
1157:
1156:
1155:
1148:
1145:
1144:
1143:
1135:
1134:
1133:
1116:
1115:
1114:
1090:
1087:
1081:
1078:
1077:
1076:
1075:
1074:
1073:
1072:
1053:
1052:
1051:
1050:
1049:
1008:
1007:
1006:
1005:
1004:
984:
983:
982:
981:
980:
957:
956:
955:
954:
953:
922:
921:
920:
919:
918:
890:(citations to
863:
862:
861:
860:
859:
803:
802:
784:
783:
731:
730:
714:
713:
711:
710:
705:
700:
694:
691:
690:
686:
685:
683:
682:
680:External links
677:
672:
666:
663:
662:
655:
652:
649:
648:
645:
644:
641:
640:
633:Mid-importance
629:
623:
622:
620:
603:the discussion
589:
577:
576:
574:Mid‑importance
568:
556:
555:
552:
551:
544:Mid-importance
540:
534:
533:
531:
498:
486:
485:
483:Mid‑importance
477:
465:
464:
461:
460:
453:Mid-importance
449:
443:
442:
440:
423:the discussion
404:
403:
387:
375:
374:
372:Mid‑importance
366:
354:
353:
350:
349:
347:
307:
306:
290:
278:
277:
272:
260:
259:
253:
242:
228:
227:
224:
223:
216:
215:
190:-winning book
188:Pulitzer Prize
183:
153:
152:
149:
148:
145:
138:
135:March 24, 2012
130:
129:
126:
119:
111:
110:
107:
100:
92:
91:
88:
85:
81:
80:
65:
64:
57:
49:
48:
24:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
3696:
3685:
3682:
3680:
3677:
3675:
3672:
3670:
3667:
3665:
3662:
3660:
3657:
3655:
3652:
3650:
3647:
3645:
3642:
3640:
3637:
3635:
3632:
3630:
3627:
3625:
3622:
3620:
3617:
3615:
3612:
3610:
3607:
3605:
3602:
3601:
3599:
3592:
3591:
3587:
3583:
3577:
3573:
3571:
3567:
3558:
3551:
3543:
3539:
3535:
3531:
3527:
3523:
3522:
3521:
3517:
3513:
3508:
3507:
3506:
3505:
3502:
3498:
3494:
3489:
3488:
3487:
3486:
3482:
3478:
3472:
3470:
3465:
3458:
3456:
3455:
3451:
3447:
3443:
3439:
3431:
3430:wrong version
3426:
3419:
3407:
3403:
3399:
3395:
3394:
3393:
3389:
3385:
3380:
3379:
3378:
3374:
3370:
3366:
3364:
3360:
3356:
3352:
3351:
3350:
3345:
3340:
3332:
3326:
3321:
3320:
3319:
3315:
3311:
3307:
3303:
3299:
3295:
3290:Pigsonthewing
3286:
3280:
3277:article was "
3276:
3272:
3268:
3264:
3260:
3259:
3258:
3252:
3248:
3247:
3246:
3242:
3238:
3233:
3230:
3229:
3222:
3218:
3214:
3209:Pigsonthewing
3205:
3198:
3193:
3189:
3188:
3187:
3182:
3177:
3169:
3163:
3159:
3154:
3149:
3148:
3147:
3143:
3139:
3134:Pigsonthewing
3130:
3123:
3121:
3117:
3113:
3108:
3107:
3106:
3105:
3100:
3095:
3087:
3081:
3077:
3061:
3057:
3053:
3048:Pigsonthewing
3044:
3038:
3037:
3036:
3031:
3026:
3018:
3013:
3012:
3011:
3007:
3003:
2998:Pigsonthewing
2994:
2988:
2984:
2980:
2976:
2971:Pigsonthewing
2967:
2961:
2959:
2955:
2951:
2947:
2943:
2942:
2941:
2936:
2931:
2923:
2917:
2912:
2911:
2910:
2906:
2902:
2897:
2896:
2895:
2891:
2887:
2882:Pigsonthewing
2878:
2872:
2871:
2870:
2869:
2865:
2861:
2856:
2850:
2846:
2842:
2837:Pigsonthewing
2833:
2827:
2823:
2819:
2815:
2814:
2813:
2812:
2807:
2802:
2794:
2789:
2784:
2773:
2768:
2763:
2755:
2749:
2748:
2747:
2743:
2739:
2730:
2729:
2728:
2727:
2720:
2716:
2712:
2707:Pigsonthewing
2703:
2697:
2693:
2687:
2682:
2678:
2672:
2668:
2667:
2666:
2661:
2656:
2648:
2643:
2638:
2633:
2632:
2631:
2626:
2622:
2616:
2615:
2614:
2609:
2604:
2596:
2590:
2588:
2584:
2580:
2576:
2575:
2574:
2573:
2570:
2566:
2562:
2558:
2557:
2552:
2551:
2547:
2531:
2527:
2523:
2518:
2514:
2513:
2512:
2508:
2504:
2500:
2496:
2492:
2488:
2485:
2484:
2483:
2482:
2481:
2480:
2479:
2478:
2477:
2476:
2475:
2474:
2463:
2459:
2455:
2451:
2446:
2445:
2444:
2440:
2436:
2432:
2428:
2427:
2426:
2425:
2424:
2423:
2422:
2421:
2414:
2410:
2406:
2401:
2399:
2394:
2389:
2381:
2375:
2374:
2373:
2369:
2365:
2360:
2356:
2355:
2354:
2353:
2346:
2341:
2336:
2328:
2322:
2321:
2320:
2316:
2312:
2307:
2303:
2302:
2301:
2296:
2291:
2283:
2278:
2274:
2270:
2265:
2261:
2260:
2255:
2251:
2247:
2242:
2241:
2240:
2236:
2232:
2228:
2224:
2220:
2217:
2216:
2215:
2214:
2210:
2206:
2202:
2198:
2197:David Thoreau
2193:
2185:
2181:
2177:
2172:
2171:
2170:
2169:
2164:
2160:
2156:
2152:
2151:
2150:
2149:
2146:
2141:
2136:
2128:
2123:
2119:
2114:
2113:
2112:
2111:
2107:
2103:
2100:
2096:
2085:
2080:
2075:
2067:
2061:
2060:
2059:
2055:
2051:
2046:Pigsonthewing
2042:
2033:
2026:
2024:
2020:
2016:
2012:
2008:
2004:
2000:
1999:
1998:
1997:
1996:
1995:
1990:
1985:
1977:
1972:
1967:
1950:
1946:
1942:
1937:Pigsonthewing
1933:
1927:
1923:
1918:
1914:
1913:
1912:
1907:
1902:
1894:
1888:
1886:
1882:
1878:
1873:Pigsonthewing
1869:
1862:
1861:
1860:
1856:
1852:
1847:Pigsonthewing
1843:
1837:
1833:
1832:
1831:
1826:
1821:
1813:
1808:
1804:
1803:
1802:
1798:
1794:
1789:Pigsonthewing
1785:
1779:
1778:
1777:
1772:
1767:
1759:
1754:
1750:
1749:
1746:
1742:
1738:
1734:
1733:
1732:
1731:
1727:
1723:
1718:Pigsonthewing
1714:
1708:
1704:
1697:
1693:
1687:
1683:
1679:
1675:
1671:
1670:
1669:
1668:
1664:
1660:
1659:69.111.140.26
1646:
1641:
1636:
1628:
1623:
1622:
1621:
1620:
1617:
1612:
1607:
1599:
1593:
1592:
1591:
1590:
1586:
1582:
1569:
1565:
1561:
1557:
1556:
1553:
1548:
1543:
1535:
1530:
1529:
1528:
1527:
1523:
1519:
1508:
1503:
1498:
1490:
1485:
1481:
1480:
1477:
1473:
1468:
1463:
1455:
1450:
1449:
1447:
1443:
1438:
1433:
1425:
1420:
1419:
1417:
1413:
1408:
1403:
1395:
1390:
1389:
1386:
1382:
1377:
1372:
1364:
1359:
1358:
1355:
1351:
1346:
1341:
1333:
1328:
1327:
1324:
1323:
1321:
1320:
1319:
1318:
1313:
1308:
1300:
1294:
1283:
1278:
1273:
1265:
1259:
1255:
1254:
1253:
1252:
1248:
1244:
1238:
1234:
1233:Silent Spring
1229:
1228:
1227:
1222:
1217:
1209:
1204:
1199:
1198:
1197:
1196:
1192:
1188:
1184:
1173:
1172:
1170:
1165:
1164:
1161:
1158:
1153:
1152:
1149:
1146:
1140:
1139:
1136:
1132:
1128:
1124:
1120:
1119:
1117:
1112:
1108:
1107:
1104:
1103:
1102:
1100:
1096:
1088:
1086:
1079:
1071:
1070:
1063:
1060:
1059:
1057:
1054:
1048:
1047:
1040:
1038:
1026:
1024:
1018:
1017:
1015:
1014:
1009:
1003:
1002:
995:
992:
991:
989:
985:
979:
978:
971:
968:
967:
965:
963:
958:
952:
951:
944:
934:
930:
929:
927:
923:
917:
916:
909:
907:
895:
893:
881:
877:
876:
874:
873:
868:
864:
858:
857:
850:
848:
844:
840:
836:
832:
828:
816:
812:
811:
809:
805:
804:
800:
796:
792:
790:
786:
785:
782:
777:
772:
764:
759:
758:
757:
753:
752:
748:
745:
742:
738:
735:
729:
727:
723:
718:
717:
709:
706:
704:
701:
699:
696:
695:
693:
692:
687:
681:
678:
676:
673:
671:
668:
667:
665:
664:
659:
653:
638:
634:
628:
625:
624:
621:
608:Women writers
604:
600:
599:women writers
596:
595:
590:
587:
583:
582:
578:
572:
571:Women writers
569:
566:
562:
549:
545:
539:
536:
535:
532:
515:
511:
507:
506:
505:
499:
496:
492:
491:
487:
481:
478:
475:
471:
458:
454:
448:
445:
444:
441:
424:
420:
419:
414:
410:
409:
401:
390:
388:
385:
381:
380:
376:
370:
367:
364:
360:
348:
344:Book articles
331:
327:
326:documentation
323:
319:
315:
314:
313:
304:
298:
293:
291:
288:
284:
283:
279:
276:
273:
270:
266:
261:
257:
251:
243:
239:
234:
233:
222:
217:
212:
208:
207:
206:Annie Dillard
202:
199:
196:
195:
191:
189:
180:
179:
174:
172:
171:Did you know?
166:
162:
157:
150:
146:
144:
143:
139:
136:
132:
131:
127:
125:
124:
120:
117:
113:
112:
108:
106:
105:
101:
98:
94:
93:
89:
86:
83:
82:
76:
70:
66:
62:
58:
55:
51:
50:
46:
42:
38:
37:
32:
28:
25:
22:
18:
17:
3578:
3574:
3563:
3529:
3473:
3469:Infobox book
3468:
3466:
3462:
3438:edit warring
3435:
3398:Br'er Rabbit
3369:Br'er Rabbit
3310:Br'er Rabbit
3298:Andy's edits
3294:Talk to Andy
3285:Andy Mabbett
3278:
3274:
3270:
3266:
3255:
3254:
3251:main editors
3250:
3231:
3217:Andy's edits
3213:Talk to Andy
3204:Andy Mabbett
3196:
3191:
3142:Andy's edits
3138:Talk to Andy
3129:Andy Mabbett
3080:Help:Infobox
3075:
3072:
3056:Andy's edits
3052:Talk to Andy
3043:Andy Mabbett
3006:Andy's edits
3002:Talk to Andy
2993:Andy Mabbett
2979:Andy's edits
2975:Talk to Andy
2966:Andy Mabbett
2950:Br'er Rabbit
2945:
2890:Andy's edits
2886:Talk to Andy
2877:Andy Mabbett
2854:
2853:
2845:Andy's edits
2841:Talk to Andy
2832:Andy Mabbett
2821:
2817:
2787:
2780:
2738:Br'er Rabbit
2715:Andy's edits
2711:Talk to Andy
2702:Andy Mabbett
2695:
2641:
2579:Br'er Rabbit
2554:
2515:I meant the
2503:Br'er Rabbit
2490:
2435:Br'er Rabbit
2364:Br'er Rabbit
2358:
2268:
2263:
2231:Br'er Rabbit
2191:
2190:
2176:Br'er Rabbit
2121:
2102:Br'er Rabbit
2098:
2095:wp:ownership
2092:
2054:Andy's edits
2050:Talk to Andy
2041:Andy Mabbett
2032:Infobox book
1970:
1965:
1963:
1945:Andy's edits
1941:Talk to Andy
1932:Andy Mabbett
1925:
1921:
1881:Andy's edits
1877:Talk to Andy
1868:Andy Mabbett
1855:Andy's edits
1851:Talk to Andy
1842:Andy Mabbett
1835:
1806:
1797:Andy's edits
1793:Talk to Andy
1784:Andy Mabbett
1753:your infobox
1737:Gerda Arendt
1726:Andy's edits
1722:Talk to Andy
1713:Andy Mabbett
1706:
1705:, let alone
1702:
1699:
1695:
1691:
1656:
1577:
1515:
1483:
1290:
1257:
1240:
1236:
1232:
1182:
1179:
1130:
1126:
1122:
1110:
1094:
1092:
1083:
1061:
1055:
1034:
1020:
1011:
993:
987:
969:
960:
942:
932:
925:
903:
889:
880:(references)
879:
870:
866:
824:
814:
807:
787:
754:
743:
733:
732:
719:
708:Instructions
632:
592:
543:
502:
501:
452:
416:
406:
310:
309:
303:Books portal
256:WikiProjects
220:
210:
203:
197:
192:
185:
176:
168:
140:
121:
102:
45:please do so
34:
26:
3576:the layout.
3512:Bueller 007
3477:Bueller 007
3446:Mark Arsten
3440:, consider
3355:Truthkeeper
3261:. The same
2901:Truthkeeper
2673:. — Martin
2522:Truthkeeper
2454:Truthkeeper
2405:Truthkeeper
2311:Truthkeeper
2246:Truthkeeper
2205:Truthkeeper
1703:unnecessary
1674:Truthkeeper
839:word choice
722:transcluded
123:Peer review
3598:Categories
3568:and again
3566:added here
3420:Protection
2642:as well as
2277:WP:ILIKEIT
2227:many times
1531:All done!
1360:Reworded.
1099:ecopoetics
1085:picking.
872:verifiable
675:Authorship
661:GA toolbox
519:Appalachia
510:Appalachia
480:Appalachia
413:U.S. state
209:(pictured)
175:column on
36:identified
3343:submarine
3265:. As to "
3257:by policy
3192:clarified
3180:submarine
3098:submarine
3029:submarine
2934:submarine
2805:submarine
2766:submarine
2659:submarine
2607:submarine
2517:Margarita
2450:Margarita
2392:submarine
2339:submarine
2294:submarine
2139:submarine
2099:Restored.
2078:submarine
1988:submarine
1928:article.
1905:submarine
1836:pertinent
1824:submarine
1807:pertinent
1770:submarine
1639:submarine
1610:submarine
1546:submarine
1501:submarine
1466:submarine
1436:submarine
1406:submarine
1375:submarine
1344:submarine
1311:submarine
1276:submarine
1220:submarine
1203:ecopoetry
1062:Pass/Fail
943:(focused)
775:submarine
734:Reviewer:
698:Templates
689:Reviewing
654:GA Review
165:Main Page
3582:Victoria
3534:Victoria
3526:WP:FAOWN
3493:Victoria
2359:supposed
1917:WP:DNRNC
1111:not just
1089:Coverage
747:contribs
703:Criteria
512:and the
428:Virginia
418:Virginia
369:Virginia
246:FA-class
147:Promoted
128:Reviewed
3530:opposed
3384:Johnbod
3279:so poor
3237:Johnbod
3158:DBpedia
3078:data.
2855:Support
2818:purpose
2561:Kaldari
2011:WP:BOLD
1688:Infobox
1581:Kaldari
1293:here is
1151:(2000)
1131:Pilgrim
1123:Pilgrim
1095:Pilgrim
1056:Overall
843:fiction
815:(prose)
635:on the
546:on the
455:on the
167:in the
87:Process
3232:Oppose
3150:I see
2822:repeat
2221:, not
2219:WP:OAS
2201:Walden
2192:Oppose
2007:WP:OWN
2003:WP:IDL
1560:Drmies
1518:Drmies
1451:Done.
1421:Done.
1291:Okay,
1243:Drmies
1187:Drmies
1127:Walden
1013:images
988:stable
986:It is
964:policy
924:It is
865:It is
845:, and
835:layout
806:It is
791:review
737:Drmies
252:scale.
201:Walden
109:Listed
90:Result
3331:MarĂa
3190:I've
3168:MarĂa
3162:WP:UF
3086:MarĂa
3076:about
3017:MarĂa
2922:MarĂa
2793:MarĂa
2754:MarĂa
2733:180px
2647:MarĂa
2595:MarĂa
2548:Break
2494:not).
2380:MarĂa
2327:MarĂa
2282:MarĂa
2127:MarĂa
2066:MarĂa
1976:MarĂa
1893:MarĂa
1812:MarĂa
1805:"All
1758:MarĂa
1627:MarĂa
1598:MarĂa
1534:MarĂa
1489:MarĂa
1454:MarĂa
1424:MarĂa
1394:MarĂa
1363:MarĂa
1332:MarĂa
1299:MarĂa
1264:MarĂa
1208:MarĂa
1183:think
1080:Notes
847:lists
793:(see
763:MarĂa
724:from
335:Books
275:Books
29:is a
3570:here
3516:talk
3481:talk
3450:talk
3428:The
3402:talk
3388:talk
3373:talk
3359:talk
3338:yllo
3314:talk
3275:this
3241:talk
3175:yllo
3160:and
3116:talk
3093:yllo
3024:yllo
2954:talk
2929:yllo
2905:talk
2864:talk
2800:yllo
2788:must
2761:yllo
2742:talk
2681:talk
2677:MSGJ
2654:yllo
2625:talk
2621:MSGJ
2602:yllo
2583:talk
2565:talk
2526:talk
2507:talk
2491:look
2489:The
2458:talk
2439:talk
2431:DIVA
2409:talk
2387:yllo
2368:talk
2334:yllo
2315:talk
2289:yllo
2275:and
2250:talk
2235:talk
2209:talk
2180:talk
2159:talk
2134:yllo
2106:talk
2073:yllo
2019:talk
1983:yllo
1926:your
1900:yllo
1819:yllo
1765:yllo
1741:talk
1678:talk
1663:talk
1634:yllo
1605:yllo
1585:talk
1564:talk
1541:yllo
1522:talk
1496:yllo
1461:yllo
1431:yllo
1401:yllo
1370:yllo
1339:yllo
1306:yllo
1271:yllo
1258:very
1247:talk
1215:yllo
1191:talk
1125:and
869:and
831:lead
829:for
799:here
795:here
770:yllo
741:talk
320:and
84:Date
3292:);
3211:);
3136:);
3112:Eau
3050:);
3000:);
2973:);
2884:);
2860:Eau
2839:);
2709:);
2304:Or
2269:for
2264:all
2199:'s
2122:not
2048:);
1971:not
1966:not
1939:);
1875:);
1849:);
1791:);
1720:);
1097:as
827:MoS
627:Mid
538:Mid
447:Mid
415:of
3600::
3588:)
3586:tk
3540:)
3538:tk
3518:)
3499:)
3497:tk
3483:)
3452:)
3404:)
3390:)
3375:)
3361:)
3316:)
3296:;
3243:)
3215:;
3197:we
3140:;
3118:)
3054:;
3004:;
2977:;
2956:)
2948:.
2907:)
2888:;
2866:)
2843:;
2744:)
2713:;
2679:·
2623:·
2585:)
2567:)
2528:)
2509:)
2460:)
2441:)
2411:)
2370:)
2317:)
2279:.
2252:)
2237:)
2229:.
2211:)
2182:)
2161:)
2108:)
2052:;
2035:}}
2029:{{
2021:)
1943:;
1922:my
1879:;
1853:;
1795:;
1743:)
1724:;
1680:)
1665:)
1587:)
1566:)
1524:)
1249:)
1193:)
1064::
1058::
1041::
1033:b
1027::
1019:a
996::
990:.
972::
966:.
945::
941:b
935::
931:a
928:.
910::
906:OR
902:c
896::
888:b
882::
878:a
875:.
851::
841:,
837:,
833:,
823:b
817::
813:a
810:.
789:GA
749:)
159:A
3584:(
3536:(
3514:(
3495:(
3479:(
3448:(
3400:(
3386:(
3371:(
3357:(
3346:)
3335:(
3312:(
3288:(
3239:(
3207:(
3183:)
3172:(
3132:(
3114:(
3101:)
3090:(
3046:(
3032:)
3021:(
2996:(
2969:(
2952:(
2937:)
2926:(
2903:(
2880:(
2862:(
2835:(
2808:)
2797:(
2769:)
2758:(
2740:(
2705:(
2694:"
2683:)
2675:(
2662:)
2651:(
2627:)
2619:(
2610:)
2599:(
2581:(
2563:(
2524:(
2505:(
2456:(
2437:(
2407:(
2395:)
2384:(
2366:(
2342:)
2331:(
2313:(
2297:)
2286:(
2248:(
2233:(
2207:(
2178:(
2157:(
2142:)
2131:(
2104:(
2081:)
2070:(
2044:(
2017:(
1991:)
1980:(
1935:(
1908:)
1897:(
1871:(
1845:(
1827:)
1816:(
1787:(
1773:)
1762:(
1739:(
1716:(
1676:(
1661:(
1642:)
1631:(
1613:)
1602:(
1583:(
1562:(
1549:)
1538:(
1520:(
1504:)
1493:(
1469:)
1458:(
1439:)
1428:(
1409:)
1398:(
1378:)
1367:(
1347:)
1336:(
1314:)
1303:(
1279:)
1268:(
1245:(
1223:)
1212:(
1189:(
1039:)
1025:)
908:)
904:(
894:)
849:)
825:(
778:)
767:(
744:·
739:(
639:.
550:.
459:.
332:.
258::
181:.
173:"
169:"
47:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.