485:. The sections I attempted to merge may have a nuance of difference, but to have some duplicated by-elections within paragraphs of each other for reasons rahter subtle even for a UK audience seems wasteful. I know WP is not paper but it's not a dump for every curiosity either. I began the "clean up" to sortable tables, but if I kept spending time doing the whole article I'd never sleep! What I think is needed, from all of us working on this, is an honest appriasial of its nature, and a good sweep up and clean. You've been working really hard, so I hope you appriciate that this isn't a slight against you, I'm just concerned about how the article currently looks, and how we could bring some sections together to stick within guide lines.
208:
187:
923:
been "killed in action" during the Irish Civil War, as he was on duty in an ambushed convoy as
Commander-in-Chief of the Irish National Army when he was killed by IRA opponents of Treaty whereby the Irish Free State was agreed. His Knowledge biography infobox gives the years he held the Westminster Cork South seat as 1918-1921, indicating he relinquished the seat in the year before his death on establishment of the Irish Free State.
127:
109:
459:
quite nuanced and open to debate. e.g. Disputes/principles. Which one was
Lincoln 1973? It appears on both lists, for some reason. Are these categories for practical purposes indistinguishable, or are there only partisan answers to the question? They will usually be a bit of both, I would have thought. Should these categories therefore be merged into "Disputes or assertions of principle"? Davis is a case in point
78:
49:
21:
898:
The inclusion of Ellen
Wilkinson in the list of By-Elections caused by suicide is legally wrong. Although her overdose was said to be triggered by a relationship with married Herbert Morrison, according to The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography her death was declared accidental at inquest. The
875:
In both cases, i say we should remain conservative. Saving a deposit if you're not already in the
Commons is a notable achievement, so keeping all the records make sense to me. In terms of candidates, I agree that 10 is no longer as unusual as it was, but again, it is a notable number. I'd be willing
813:
I think less is more. Most of the 'nationally-significant' by-elections can only be seen as such in retrospect, sometimes years later. I don't think routine gains and losses fall into the category, really. Preferably we should use reliable scholarly sources where others have opined that a by-election
697:
We seem to have a disagreement over the inclusion of
Manchester Central in Misc. Notable Results near the bottom of the page. I don't see how this is a "miscellaneous" result as the fall in LD share is covered elsewhere. This section is not intended for large falls in major party shares, as there's a
440:
The reverted edit undoes a slight "merge" I made, which brought togehter two sections with serious overlap. For example, I think there are 3 by-elections listed for almost the exact same reason. It seems highly "hair splitting" to list by-elections won by "first timers" AND "minor parties", as though
642:
That was me. I think it's clear now who stood in each by-election. With fresh eyes on it, I see "12 - Croydon North West", and then nothing until "11 - Bromley and
Chislehurst". I can't make any other conclusion that the gap reflects the "tie" you often get in a chart, then everything between top to
335:
Would argue
Walsall North 1976 is not really relevant to incumbant did not contest and potentially misleading. Stonehouse was just having a laugh by joining the English National "Party". It was a safe Labour seat contested by both major parties.--I think the common understanding of incumbent is "the
308:
Do you think we should divide the records in some way between current (post-1945) and historical? I think we need to provide a meaningful benchmark by which contemporary results can be judged, and the pre-1945 results are in the most part not really analogous to the present day for a host of reasons
458:
conversely there are examples which do fall into more than one category, and some duplication may be necessary. I created the initial structure, but as examples are added I can see some will cross boundaries. Perhaps the structure does need altering. Can we discuss these things here first? Some are
672:
I understand that a sortable table could be good, though it is already effectively sorted into number of candidates, and then into a form of chronological order. Having "11" and "10" and the rest repeated numerous times would look a bit messy, in my opinion. It falls down on personal prejudices, I
319:
I think that would be unnecessary. The introduction you have written explains the situation clearly. While for some sections, things which have been rare in recent year were formerly common, and so a cut-off date will be required, it'd seem strange to me to divide everything in this manner. For
1197:
Table sorting is currently inconsistently applied in this article, with some tables being sortable and others not being sortable. It seems this is a useful feature to enable sorting by winning party, losing party, year of election and so on, so it would make sense to add this to all tables in the
922:
is stated, among the list of Sinn Fein MPs who did not take the
Westminster seats to which they had been elected in 1918, to have been "assassinated on 22 August 1922". Irish readers and users may strongly disagree with this description because he is officially considered in the Republic to have
1176:
However it's likely to be beaten by an earlier
Parliament in the days when they lasted longer, there were more mid term departures for various incompatible posts (government boards, judges, colonial officials etc...) and the requirement for newly appointed ministers to recontest would have also
899:
medication was being taken while ill with multiple respiratory ailments. It surely puts her on the same footing as her partisan Dr
Richard Clitheroe who was found to have taken an accidental overdose while 'run down and jaded', likewise triggering a by-election in his own seat in the same year.
834:
Have just added another UKIP performance to the "minor parties strong performances table". It seems there are at least three different ways results for individual parties are ordered - chronologically, alphabetically and by vote share. Which one is best to use - my preference is chronological.
1296:
Perhaps, but these things are usually seen in retrospect. Suggest we wait to see the outcome of the next UK general election, and the impact that any anticipated Labour revival in Scotland has on the overall UK result. If Labour win by a country mile on English seats, for example, the Scottish
1281:, it had been hailed as major milestone in both UK and Scottish politics, more so as a strong sign of Labour making a comeback to Scotland ahead of the next general election. Should that be classed as something with "national significance"? I believe so, but I'd like to hear what others think.
942:
My removal of Clacton, Rochester and Strood and Paisley (1961) from the "highest vote share increases" table was not vandalism. It is because where a party has not contested a previous election, they are not considered to have an "increase". This is the precedent that we tend to stick to in UK
419:
it is convention that swing is really only meaningful between Labour and Con, and was defined solely in terms of those two parties. However, in common parlance it is often used between any two parties. Perhaps a separate table could be inserted, but I'd prefer that the original definition is
814:
was significant, because it led to a change of policy or leadership, or presaged a fundamental change in the dynamics of British politics. I don't think any you mention really meet those conditions - yet, although some of them, but not all, are indeed remarkable results...
1113:
I note the section Lowest share of the vote for major parties has a 2% threshold. Where does this arbitrary figure come from? Surely 5%, the lost deposit threshold, would be more appropriate, especially given the rarity in which major parties poll this low?
588:
In fairness, during the early 1990s, the Tories were regularly contesting seats in Northern Ireland, although usually with little success. The Liberals/Lib Dems have also come fifth in Scottish and Welsh by-elections on several occasions, and sixth at the
746:
Does anyone have any thoughts on this section? It strikes me that 'national significance' is something of a matter of opinion. Although most of the by-elections on that list were historically significant for some reason or another, I'm not sure that the
1133:
The header section (which I've split) stated that most of the records were post-1945. However there are a lot of records, which I've started to remove, from prior to this. Some sections, seemingly arbitrarily, explicitly switch this scope to post-1918.
841:
On a similar issue, would it be better to restrict the "most candidates" table to those with 12+, perhaps with notes about City of London & Westminster South and Lambeth Central? 10 candidates is hardly notable now in a by-election.
698:
section for that on the page - this section covers mainly changes in position of the main parties and a few other oddments. In this case, the LD position didn't change, so I don't see that it really qualifies. Any thoughts?
31:
59:
1217:
The recent Southend West by-election was notable for having 1084 rejected papers, or 6.8% of the valid votes. I have been unable to find out whether this is a record. Are there any data on this available?
657:
I agree that the chart can be interpreted as it stands, but what's the problem with adding the numbers? That makes it easier to interpret, to my eyes. That would also allow the table to be made sortable.
1321:
should appear four times in the table, representing the times he won a by-election having been previously lost his seat somewhere else at a general election (not including his first by-election victory).
1399:
258:
248:
1323:
1394:
224:
1361:, the figure is calculable. Actually most of the by-elections near the top of this list are where the winning party did not stand at the previous general election e.g. Lincoln, Clacton.
784:- this result was widely expected, but it's significant as the first gain by Labour from the Conservatives since 1997, in a key swing seat that they lost at the previous general election.
364:
And 1945 isn't some magical cutoff date, although it was a significant change and represents a natural boundary. Multi-member constituencies persisted for a Parliament, as an example.
1389:
756:
1384:
838:
Also, this table is getting quite unwieldy now - would it be better off keeping it to parties polling over 10%, though I appreciate this would miss out some interesting results.
726:
OK, no problem with that. It just seemed that various editors were trying to suppress the fact, both in the vote-share table and elsewhere. Agree it shoudn't be mentioned twice!
404:
How is the Bermondsey by-election not the largest ever swing? It had a far larger shift in the vote than Liverpool Wavertree. Can someone good with wikipedia please update this?
522:
Yes it's record for Labour, and for a government in an English by-election. For a "major" party, it equals the Liberals ranking at Walsall North, 1976. I'll update in a moment
215:
192:
1234:
673:
accept, so not sure how to resolve this! I prefer having a table which can't be sorted because for the information it provides, sorting doesn't give much more info
152:
134:
114:
477:
Hey, thanks for the reply. To be honest I am a great fan of this article but going across the whole thing objectively we are in danger of completely going against
1055:
1051:
1037:
778:- another one in which an apparently safe Labour seat proved unexpectedly vulnerable, raising questions about the reliability of their support among Asian voters.
1278:
950:
There is a separate section for parties that won having not contested the previous election further down the page, which Clacton and R&S are included in.
627:
Is there any reason my edit was reverted, without explanation? It seems an obvious improvement, making it clear how many people stood in each by-election.
598:
290:
798:
I'm not going to add these myself, but I was just wondering what others think about what recent by-elections have been 'nationally significant'.
772:- a surprising loss to the SNP showed Labour's vulnerability in their Scottish heartlands, confirmed by the Scottish Parliament election in 2011.
989:
1141:
207:
186:
1237:, another contest sat out by significant parties. But normally data on rejected papers is not reported and figures are all over the place.
752:
1255:
Thanks. That was on a much higher turnout though - it was only 5.5% of the valid votes. This result could still be a significant one.
1007:
944:
594:
405:
1327:
973:
794:- OK, it's a little early to have historical perspective here, but the 2nd place achieved by UKIP in both seats seems pretty notable.
858:
714:
590:
791:
775:
919:
769:
748:
220:
1158:
Just curious as to whether anyone knows which parliament would have had the most by-elections over the course of the term?
1098:
763:
557:
89:
787:
385:
1242:
1182:
565:
543:
1137:
We should have a discussion as to what the scope should be, and then apply this consistently across the article.
55:
27:
1054:
to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
1203:
1174:
409:
1089:
990:
http://web.archive.org/web/20070928094928/http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/notes/snpc-01493.pdf
981:
781:
1366:
1358:
1119:
643:
bottom is the same thing. I think the implication that the gaps represent the same number is clear enough
1199:
1238:
1178:
1073:
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
1061:
663:
632:
606:
561:
539:
351:
325:
298:
95:
980:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
1008:
http://www.tuv.org.uk/press-releases/view/1765/mid-ulster-tuv-chair-signs-lutton%27s-nomination-papers
766:- large swing from Labour to Liberal Democrats demonstrated anger at the government over the Iraq war.
1163:
1028:
993:
955:
928:
904:
854:
846:
710:
702:
48:
20:
1342:
1302:
881:
819:
731:
678:
648:
579:
527:
490:
464:
448:
425:
1370:
1346:
1331:
1306:
1290:
1264:
1246:
1227:
1207:
1186:
1167:
1148:
1123:
1103:
959:
932:
908:
885:
862:
823:
807:
735:
718:
682:
667:
652:
636:
610:
583:
569:
547:
531:
516:
494:
468:
452:
429:
413:
394:
372:
355:
340:
329:
313:
302:
284:
223:
on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
1001:
803:
1058:
before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template
1074:
138:, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to
1362:
1260:
1223:
1115:
346:
Come to think of it, this would probably best be handled by demoting it to a brief footnote.
1318:
1286:
659:
628:
602:
369:
347:
321:
294:
146:
1198:
article. I will do so, unless anyone can put forward any good reason to omit this feature.
1081:
574:
I know, but hardly comparable. The mainland parties do not regularly contest the province.
1159:
951:
924:
900:
850:
706:
1337:
Yes, I completed the table back to 1945, with just a sprinkle of notables prior to that.
538:
It's not UK wide - it's joint with the Conservatives' performance in North Down in 1995.
1357:
The recent by-election in Rochdale should be included in the list of large swings, see
1338:
1298:
1040:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by
877:
815:
727:
674:
644:
575:
523:
512:
486:
478:
460:
444:
421:
391:
337:
320:
example, the situations in 1929-31 and 1945-50 were in many respects quite comparable.
310:
281:
1080:
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
759:, here are a few other recent ones that could be considered 'nationally significant':
126:
108:
1378:
1145:
799:
482:
1256:
1219:
943:
election articles; hence use of "N/A" in election boxes, for example the Greens in
1282:
1047:
365:
1046:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
150:
and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit
508:
1177:
thrown in a big chunk especially if the government changed mid Parliament.
140:
994:
http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/notes/snpc-01493.pdf
381:
Similar page now up; please update in the same spirit as this page
1313:
Arthur Henderson: Former MPs making a comeback at a by-election
1144:/end of First World War seems the better cutoff point to me. --
938:
Vote share increases where parties had previously not contested
441:
both of these are clear and absolute different considerations.
71:
43:
15:
1013:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the
984:
for additional information. I made the following changes:
597:. I've got more details of results along these lines at
280:
Just thought it would be nice to have a records page....
977:
1400:
Mid-importance Politics of the United Kingdom articles
1173:
Since the war it's the 1959-1946 Parliament with 61.
751:
belongs there. The only one since then listed is the
233:
Knowledge:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom
219:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
1050:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
507:Is Henley a record? Can't see a relevant section.
236:
Template:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom
1395:List-Class Politics of the United Kingdom articles
757:List of United Kingdom by-elections (1979–present)
1235:April 1981 Fermanagh and South Tyrone by-election
162:Knowledge:WikiProject Elections and Referendums
1390:WikiProject Elections and Referendums articles
1036:This message was posted before February 2018.
165:Template:WikiProject Elections and Referendums
1385:List-Class Elections and Referendums articles
8:
556:Having checked again they did even worse in
972:I have just modified one external link on
918:Under the sub-section "Seats Left Vacant"
693:Manchester Central - Misc. Notable Results
216:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom
181:
103:
77:
75:
1154:Most by-elections in a parliamentary term
742:By-elections having national significance
599:User:Warofdreams/Major party by-elections
291:User:Warofdreams/Major party by-elections
1273:Rutherglen and Hamilton West by-election
1109:Lowest share of the vote (major parties)
1324:2A00:23C6:148A:9B01:E9E9:BDE1:3130:BFAB
503:Government coming 5th - is it a record?
336:party which won the previous election"
239:Politics of the United Kingdom articles
183:
105:
30:on 30 August 2010 (UTC). The result of
1233:It's not. There were over 3000 in the
830:Minor Parties and Number of Candidates
1142:Representation of the People Act 1918
1025:to let others know (documentation at
135:WikiProject Elections and Referendums
7:
753:Crewe and Nantwich by-election, 2008
213:This article is within the scope of
132:This article is within the scope of
945:Bootle (UK Parliament constituency)
595:Glasgow Camlachie by-election, 1948
94:It is of interest to the following
974:United Kingdom by-election records
168:Elections and Referendums articles
14:
976:. Please take a moment to review
591:Hamilton South by-election, 1999
206:
185:
125:
107:
76:
47:
19:
792:Middlesbrough by-election, 2012
776:Bradford West by-election, 2012
253:This article has been rated as
54:This article was nominated for
26:This article was nominated for
920:Michael Collins (Irish leader)
770:Glasgow East by-election, 2008
749:Wirral South by-election, 1997
230:Politics of the United Kingdom
221:Politics of the United Kingdom
193:Politics of the United Kingdom
1:
1347:18:07, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
1332:18:00, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
886:10:37, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
863:03:27, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
824:16:24, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
808:14:38, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
736:09:55, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
719:03:40, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
373:10:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
356:02:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
341:20:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
330:23:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
314:14:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
303:03:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
285:14:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
227:and see a list of open tasks.
1265:16:07, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
1247:14:30, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
1228:13:58, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
1124:05:07, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
960:01:38, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
764:Brent East by-election, 2003
683:15:39, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
668:14:12, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
653:10:01, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
637:09:55, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
1307:13:42, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
1291:12:18, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
1187:13:11, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
1168:11:42, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
909:20:49, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
788:Rotherham by-election, 2012
436:Minor parties section merge
386:Uk_general_election_records
58:on 24062021. The result of
1416:
1067:(last update: 5 June 2024)
969:Hello fellow Wikipedians,
395:01:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
259:project's importance scale
1208:17:37, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
1149:14:20, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
1104:22:43, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
933:15:48, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
611:19:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
584:16:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
570:14:21, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
548:14:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
532:07:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
517:06:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
495:04:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
469:22:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
453:18:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
430:18:25, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
414:11:19, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
252:
201:
159:Elections and Referendums
120:
115:Elections and Referendums
102:
1371:18:02, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
1297:dimension becomes moot.
1279:that recent by-election
965:External links modified
782:Corby by-election, 2012
481:(esp. section 4.3) and
309:which I need not list.
1359:swing (United Kingdom)
876:to review that though
293:might be of some use.
84:This article is rated
1213:Most rejected papers?
1048:regular verification
1038:After February 2018
1017:parameter below to
623:Numbers on each row
1092:InternetArchiveBot
1043:InternetArchiveBot
558:Upper Bann in 1990
90:content assessment
1068:
866:
849:comment added by
755:. Going down the
722:
705:comment added by
273:
272:
269:
268:
265:
264:
180:
179:
176:
175:
70:
69:
42:
41:
1407:
1319:Arthur Henderson
1239:Timrollpickering
1179:Timrollpickering
1140:Personally, the
1102:
1093:
1066:
1065:
1044:
1032:
1005:
865:
843:
721:
699:
562:Timrollpickering
540:Timrollpickering
241:
240:
237:
234:
231:
210:
203:
202:
197:
189:
182:
170:
169:
166:
163:
160:
153:our project page
147:electoral reform
129:
122:
121:
111:
104:
87:
81:
80:
79:
72:
51:
44:
23:
16:
1415:
1414:
1410:
1409:
1408:
1406:
1405:
1404:
1375:
1374:
1355:
1315:
1275:
1215:
1195:
1193:Sortable tables
1156:
1131:
1111:
1096:
1091:
1059:
1052:have permission
1042:
1026:
999:
982:this simple FaQ
967:
940:
916:
914:Michael Collins
896:
894:Ellen Wilkinson
884:
844:
832:
744:
700:
695:
681:
651:
625:
505:
493:
451:
438:
278:
276:UK records page
238:
235:
232:
229:
228:
195:
167:
164:
161:
158:
157:
88:on Knowledge's
85:
12:
11:
5:
1413:
1411:
1403:
1402:
1397:
1392:
1387:
1377:
1376:
1354:
1351:
1350:
1349:
1314:
1311:
1310:
1309:
1274:
1271:
1270:
1269:
1268:
1267:
1250:
1249:
1214:
1211:
1200:Suttonpubcrawl
1194:
1191:
1190:
1189:
1155:
1152:
1130:
1129:Temporal scope
1127:
1110:
1107:
1086:
1085:
1078:
1011:
1010:
996:
988:Added archive
966:
963:
939:
936:
915:
912:
895:
892:
891:
890:
889:
888:
880:
869:
831:
828:
827:
826:
796:
795:
785:
779:
773:
767:
743:
740:
739:
738:
694:
691:
690:
689:
688:
687:
686:
685:
677:
647:
624:
621:
620:
619:
618:
617:
616:
615:
614:
613:
551:
550:
535:
534:
504:
501:
500:
499:
498:
497:
489:
472:
471:
447:
437:
434:
433:
432:
403:
400:
398:
397:
383:
382:
378:
377:
376:
375:
359:
358:
333:
332:
306:
305:
277:
274:
271:
270:
267:
266:
263:
262:
255:Mid-importance
251:
245:
244:
242:
225:the discussion
211:
199:
198:
196:Mid‑importance
190:
178:
177:
174:
173:
171:
130:
118:
117:
112:
100:
99:
93:
82:
68:
67:
60:the discussion
52:
40:
39:
32:the discussion
24:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1412:
1401:
1398:
1396:
1393:
1391:
1388:
1386:
1383:
1382:
1380:
1373:
1372:
1368:
1364:
1360:
1352:
1348:
1344:
1340:
1336:
1335:
1334:
1333:
1329:
1325:
1320:
1312:
1308:
1304:
1300:
1295:
1294:
1293:
1292:
1288:
1284:
1280:
1272:
1266:
1262:
1258:
1254:
1253:
1252:
1251:
1248:
1244:
1240:
1236:
1232:
1231:
1230:
1229:
1225:
1221:
1212:
1210:
1209:
1205:
1201:
1192:
1188:
1184:
1180:
1175:
1172:
1171:
1170:
1169:
1165:
1161:
1153:
1151:
1150:
1147:
1143:
1138:
1135:
1128:
1126:
1125:
1121:
1117:
1108:
1106:
1105:
1100:
1095:
1094:
1083:
1079:
1076:
1072:
1071:
1070:
1063:
1057:
1053:
1049:
1045:
1039:
1034:
1030:
1024:
1020:
1016:
1009:
1003:
997:
995:
991:
987:
986:
985:
983:
979:
975:
970:
964:
962:
961:
957:
953:
948:
946:
937:
935:
934:
930:
926:
921:
913:
911:
910:
906:
902:
893:
887:
883:
879:
874:
873:
872:
871:
870:
867:
864:
860:
856:
852:
848:
839:
836:
829:
825:
821:
817:
812:
811:
810:
809:
805:
801:
793:
789:
786:
783:
780:
777:
774:
771:
768:
765:
762:
761:
760:
758:
754:
750:
741:
737:
733:
729:
725:
724:
723:
720:
716:
712:
708:
704:
692:
684:
680:
676:
671:
670:
669:
666:
665:
661:
656:
655:
654:
650:
646:
641:
640:
639:
638:
635:
634:
630:
622:
612:
609:
608:
604:
600:
596:
592:
587:
586:
585:
581:
577:
573:
572:
571:
567:
563:
559:
555:
554:
553:
552:
549:
545:
541:
537:
536:
533:
529:
525:
521:
520:
519:
518:
514:
510:
502:
496:
492:
488:
484:
480:
476:
475:
474:
473:
470:
466:
462:
457:
456:
455:
454:
450:
446:
442:
435:
431:
427:
423:
418:
417:
416:
415:
411:
407:
406:91.85.170.214
401:
396:
393:
390:
389:
388:
387:
380:
379:
374:
371:
367:
363:
362:
361:
360:
357:
354:
353:
349:
345:
344:
343:
342:
339:
331:
328:
327:
323:
318:
317:
316:
315:
312:
304:
301:
300:
296:
292:
289:
288:
287:
286:
283:
275:
260:
256:
250:
247:
246:
243:
226:
222:
218:
217:
212:
209:
205:
204:
200:
194:
191:
188:
184:
172:
155:
154:
149:
148:
143:
142:
137:
136:
131:
128:
124:
123:
119:
116:
113:
110:
106:
101:
97:
91:
83:
74:
73:
65:
61:
57:
53:
50:
46:
45:
37:
33:
29:
25:
22:
18:
17:
1363:PatGallacher
1356:
1316:
1276:
1216:
1196:
1157:
1139:
1136:
1132:
1116:AusLondonder
1112:
1090:
1087:
1062:source check
1041:
1035:
1022:
1018:
1014:
1012:
971:
968:
949:
941:
917:
897:
868:
845:— Preceding
840:
837:
833:
797:
745:
701:— Preceding
696:
662:
631:
626:
605:
506:
443:
439:
420:maintained.
402:
399:
384:
350:
334:
324:
307:
297:
279:
254:
214:
151:
145:
139:
133:
96:WikiProjects
63:
35:
1317:Presumably
1029:Sourcecheck
660:Warofdreams
629:Warofdreams
603:Warofdreams
348:Warofdreams
322:Warofdreams
295:Warofdreams
64:speedy keep
1379:Categories
1160:Guyb123321
1099:Report bug
952:Frinton100
947:in 2015.
925:Cloptonson
901:Cloptonson
851:Frinton100
707:Frinton100
483:WP:NOT#DIR
86:List-class
1339:RodCrosby
1299:RodCrosby
1082:this tool
1075:this tool
1002:dead link
816:RodCrosby
728:RodCrosby
576:RodCrosby
524:RodCrosby
461:RodCrosby
422:RodCrosby
392:RodCrosby
338:RodCrosby
311:RodCrosby
282:RodCrosby
141:elections
1353:Rochdale
1146:LukeSurl
1088:Cheers.—
859:contribs
847:unsigned
800:Robofish
715:contribs
703:unsigned
593:and the
56:deletion
28:deletion
1257:GDBarry
1220:GDBarry
1015:checked
1006:tag to
978:my edit
878:doktorb
675:doktorb
645:doktorb
487:doktorb
479:WP:List
445:doktorb
257:on the
1283:Bryn89
1277:Since
1023:failed
998:Added
366:Morwen
92:scale.
882:words
679:words
649:words
491:words
449:words
1367:talk
1343:talk
1328:talk
1303:talk
1287:talk
1261:talk
1243:talk
1224:talk
1204:talk
1183:talk
1164:talk
1120:talk
1019:true
956:talk
929:talk
905:talk
855:talk
820:talk
804:talk
790:and
732:talk
711:talk
664:talk
633:talk
607:talk
580:talk
566:talk
544:talk
528:talk
513:talk
509:PamD
465:talk
426:talk
410:talk
370:Talk
352:talk
326:talk
299:talk
62:was
36:keep
34:was
1056:RfC
1033:).
1021:or
992:to
249:Mid
1381::
1369:)
1345:)
1330:)
1305:)
1289:)
1263:)
1245:)
1226:)
1206:)
1185:)
1166:)
1122:)
1069:.
1064:}}
1060:{{
1031:}}
1027:{{
1004:}}
1000:{{
958:)
931:)
907:)
861:)
857:•
822:)
806:)
734:)
717:)
713:•
601:.
582:)
568:)
560:.
546:)
530:)
515:)
467:)
428:)
412:)
368:-
144:,
1365:(
1341:(
1326:(
1301:(
1285:(
1259:(
1241:(
1222:(
1202:(
1181:(
1162:(
1118:(
1101:)
1097:(
1084:.
1077:.
954:(
927:(
903:(
853:(
818:(
802:(
730:(
709:(
578:(
564:(
542:(
526:(
511:(
463:(
424:(
408:(
261:.
156:.
98::
66:.
38:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
