304:"Since there is already an article on Special Relativity, which includes an introduction, why do we also need a separate article on "Introduction to Special Relativity"? This article is almost entirely unsourced. It seems to be just a place where people can come to present their own personal ideas about special relativity. I don't think there's anything in this article that isn't already in the article on special relativity (other than some things that don't belong in Knowledge (XXG) at all). Shouldn't this article be proposed for deletion?"
258:"...in the case of special relativity, there happens to be a demand for jump-in-introductions. So we find many in the literature. Unfortunaly, most are just rubbish and merely present the author's misconceptions and misunderstandings about the subject. The more correct you want the treatment of an advanced subject to be, the less accessible it will be for the lay person. That is why, in my opinion, this article should not be here. It will never serve its purpose."
943:. These intro articles were a bit of a fad in the sciences in 2005-6ish. They're difficult to write and most look like they haven't been maintained all that well. It may be that they've outlived their usefulness with better resources available on other projects aimed at the same audience. I wanted to vote keep on this one, but on reading the article I don't think this is salvageable, even if the topic might be. Time for
55:. There is no consensus for any specific outcome (delete, redirect, merge or keep), but there is consensus for the view that we should not have a separate article about this. So I'm closing this as a redirect as the least destructive "not keep" option, allowing any content deemed worthwhile by editorial consensus to be merged from the history to elsewhere.
1355:. As noted by multiple people, this article is still too technical to be legitimately called an "introduction". However, this means that the article needs work, not deletion. These separate "Introduction to..." articles are not forbidden on Knowledge (XXG) (just type "Introduction to" in the Knowledge (XXG) search box). In fact,
290:"The article currently veers between elementary examples (eg passengers on a train) and mathematical proofs. While these two styles are suited to text books, though for widely separated age/competency classes, they are insufficient in style and gradation to satisfy the needs of an encyclopedic article."
601:
It is completely encyclopedic in its writing style, explaining the essence of the theory in non-mathematical fashion using simple explanations aided by well-chosen figures and insightful analogies that have long been standard in popular expositions of this subject, supported by 49 inline citations to
217:
This article was started in March, 2005 with noble intentions. It was to be a mostly non-mathematical, introductory text written on a level comparable to a science article that one might find in the science section of the New York Times, that an educated "general reader" without a current background
1145:
For a general audience it's appropriate to use high school algebra accompanied by ample discourse and explanation. This is what the article tries to do. I know it is possible for this to succeed, because I learned special relativity while I was taking algebra in high school, before I knew basically
1130:
essays making up the core of this article inconsistently jump between elementary examples and algebraic proofs. The use of algebra makes this article unsuitable for poets and middle schoolers, while the avoidance of math in explaining, for example, the
Galilean and Lorentz transformations makes the
1087:
I could answer a lot of these objections (e.g. "Minkowski space" is defined and thoroughly expounded on in the article, as are the differences between
Galilean and Lorentz transformations, etc.) but really, there is no policy-based objection here. At worst, even if these objections were valid, they
1072:
The article only manages to avoid math by throwing a lot of undefined terms at the reader. What does a rotation in
Minkowski space mean? What really is a "transformation"? What are the differences between Galilean and Lorentz transformations? What are Maxwell's equations and Dirac's equation about?
1048:
Since by definition rotations must keep the distance same, passing to a different reference frame must keep the spacetime interval between two events unchanged. This requirement can be used to derive an explicit mathematical form for the transformation that must be applied to the laws of physics
1005:
does not adequately do. Contrary to the nominator's assertions, special relativity is not that hard to understand, and the article does not do a bad job of explaining it. To delete this, and leave only the main article which delves immediately into technical terminology, would be a mistake. As
460:
is currently hopelessly muddled because it is trying to be simultaneously a textbook and an encyclopedia article, I believe that when freed from the constraints of being an encyclopedia article, it could shape up in a few years as worthwhile alternative to the introductory text part of the
332:"I removed the link to the intro article from the main article because right now the main article is far more accessible to the general reader. The intro is too technical and too incoherent. It's more like a garbled intro to advanced physics students, which makes this article pointless."
1272:
An article on
Knowledge (XXG) should be an introduction in no small amount (by definition of an encyclopedia article), and the lead of an article an introduction to the article-proper. The deletion-leaning persons above convince me that this article cannot be saved. However, I think a
1196:- if this is not encyclopedic, then I don't know what we are doing here. The Knowledge (XXG) Foundation might as well just close down. This is exactly the sort of thing that Jimbo Wales was talking about when he co-founded this website. It's not so bad as to require
814:
I understand your reluctance. Removing this article will remove
Knowledge (XXG)'s only real attempt at approaching special relativity from a modern pedagogical viewpoint. We have to look to Wikibooks for that, and as I've stated before, I'm not totally happy at the
610:
sections 1 through 10) are supported by inline citations, and the (rather unsuccessful) pedagogical tactics used to explain
Minkowski spacetime are not ones that I recognize from any of my other reading. So far as I can tell, these ten core essays represent
1057:
are the mathematical statement of the principle of
Galilean relativity in classical mechanics, the Lorentz transformations are the mathematical form of Einstein's principle of relativity. Laws of physics must stay the same under Lorentz transformations.
1039:
is perfectly understandable to me and to you, because we are already familiar with the subject. However, if we put ourselves in the place of an intelligent reader unfamiliar with physics, we would find much that is mystifying. Consider the following
869:
introductions to special relativity, and sourced as such. Introductions to special relativity are nowhere mentioned. So it is not an article about introductions to special relativity. It is a personal essay, and thus a schoolbook example of
793:
come to mind. But the mission of this article was never clear, and it suffered deeply because of this confusion. An example of what this article could have been is visible in our sister project, the Simple
English Knowledge (XXG), where the
221:
Unfortunately, the nature of the subject makes such a idealized elementary treatment virtually impossible, and bitter complaints about the article can be found even in the earliest archived Talk pages. Here are some recent criticisms:
172:
1359:
is an FA. Also, as mentioned by some others who have commented here, the nom has not produced any policy-based reasons to delete the article, and I am not satisfied by the reasons put forth by DVdm. The main reason mentioned (i.e.,
346:"It's been about 1 1/2 years since I last looked at this article, and it hasn't improved any. It is far too technical for poets and middle schoolers, and it offers nothing that is not covered better in the main article on
973:
to the
Wikibooks project. My original thought was that, once transferred to a project that welcomes tutorial submissions, I could do a bold rewrite of the article, completely reworking the explanations (which did have a
599:
798:
does not shirk from using the necessary math. The Simple
English article explains the meaning of events, observers, and transformations, presents the Lorentz Transformations, then presents a few main results.
1073:
What does it mean that they don't transform correctly under Galilean transformations? This article provides the naive reader a bunch of vocabulary words without providing understanding of their meanings.
1131:
article unsuitable for a reader interested in any sort of genuine understanding. Ten years of editing have given us an article which can't figure out what target audience it is supposed to be aimed at.
537:
is a featured article, extremely well executed and doing an excellent job fulfilling its mission to provide a non-technical introduction to the subject. Only two equations appear in the entire text:
781:, I would never have put forth my nomination. There are, after all, a number of articles on Knowledge (XXG) that have a significant textbook aspect, particularly in high school mathematics:
640:
a pedagogical goal, but in the end it doubles the efforts of an existing article. The usual thing would be "merge and redirect," but the nominator has discussed the implausibility of that.
166:
1088:
would be reasons for clarifying some of the text. The idea that special relativity is just too hard for ordinary people to understand and we should give up is unreasonably fatalistic. --
98:
93:
102:
85:
125:
1066:
satisfy this property, and hence they are relativistically correct laws (but classically incorrect, since they don't transform correctly under Galilean transformations).
658:
203:
This article is attempting the impossible: To provide a non-technical introduction to Special Relativity accessible to the general reader that still maintains rigor.
132:
723:
would be a duplicate in content. Perhaps it's convoluted reasoning, but it's what has been argued by the talk page, per above. More tellingly, it's a flaw in the
318:"It's an essay, which has some virtues and some of its material should be incorporated into the main article. But the essay is completely unencyclopedic."
1173:
brought up an interesting possibility. If the consensus goes towards delete, would there be any objection to converting the article to a redirect to the
980:
good points) and adding solved exercises. Thinking it over, I was overestimating my own capabilities and the time that I have available. So blow it up.
1049:(compare with the application of Galilean transformations to classical laws) when shifting reference frames. These transformations are called the
879:
372:
89:
187:
154:
1146:
anything about physics. Your criticisms have to do with your perception of the quality of the article, and are not a reason for deleting. --
1102:
I never claimed that special relativity is too hard for ordinary people to understand. It is easy to explain what special relativity is all
512:
900:
This is wikilawyery. By that logic, "list of foo" articles should not list foos, but instead should be about "lists of foo" as a topic.
333:
544:
1391:
1345:
1308:
1290:
1265:
1239:
1209:
1186:
1155:
1140:
1097:
1082:
1036:
1027:
989:
956:
931:
909:
895:
853:
828:
800:
772:
754:
736:
698:
670:
649:
624:
603:
534:
530:
526:
516:
490:
480:
457:
416:
408:
389:
378:
359:
341:
327:
313:
299:
285:
277:
267:
253:
226:"I think this article is close-to-useless "as an accessible, non-technical introduction to the subject." It mentions concepts such as
212:
81:
73:
67:
17:
148:
1182:
1136:
1078:
985:
824:
620:
476:
355:
208:
914:
Not the same logic, and no wikilawyery. List articles usually do not draw conclusions from various sources and don't clash with
703:
Yes, not a textbook, but I also thought one of the prime reasons for deletion was duplication of existing articles. If you have
144:
365:
The time has come for us to admit that the goal of this article is an impossible one. The main article on Special Relativity
243:
602:
high quality secondary and tertiary sources. On the other hand, only three sentences in the ten core essays at the heart of
636:: Mission creep, really, and duplication. Wikiversity and other projects are better suited for educational endeavors. This
272:"There is too much jargon in this article for it to be considered introductory. Where is RobotRollCall when you need her?
234:
that even most undergraduate students have no idea of, and say incredibly little of how special relativity came to be." --
194:
1317:
1248:
1410:
1011:
808:
420:
40:
1178:
1132:
1074:
981:
820:
616:
472:
351:
204:
1001:. This article is important as it provides an introduction to the topic suitable for a lay reader, which the article
952:
905:
790:
160:
1054:
508:
1361:
1126:
919:
883:
686:
397:
396:
were unacceptable for merging, since they were written in a non-encyclopedic, textbook style in violation of
369:
includes an introduction which is every bit as accessible as this article, as well as being more concise. In
337:
1356:
1050:
682:
497:
and others for some of the science topics. If yes I'm gonna quote "AfD is not for cleanup" and !vote keep.
816:
462:
448:
441:
295:
281:
970:
1406:
948:
901:
849:
750:
732:
694:
645:
494:
36:
708:
612:
1059:
1382:
1336:
1174:
795:
786:
1147:
1089:
1019:
1151:
1093:
1023:
504:
323:
180:
1235:
1278:
1219:
1109:
1002:
782:
720:
712:
393:
382:
347:
309:
247:
51:
915:
875:
1063:
1304:
1205:
666:
291:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1405:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1170:
1007:
862:
845:
746:
728:
690:
641:
419:
be submitted to Wikibooks in the Science section as a "Freshly started book" with the title
1197:
1015:
966:
944:
1373:
1327:
1369:
1122:
871:
1286:
1228:
927:
891:
319:
263:
58:
704:
489:
Are "introduction to" articles a recognized/accepted kind of things on ENWP? We have
305:
236:
1300:
1201:
969:, I have decided to strike out my suggestion #2 that the article could usefully be
711:, then one's gotta go, assuming they cover the same biographical subject. Well, if
662:
231:
227:
119:
1364:) does not seem to be valid, since the point of these "Introduction to" articles
1018:
argument is really a stretch, as the article is perfectly readable right now. --
1258:
811:, in which case the appropriate level of mathematics would have been evident.
1282:
923:
887:
685:
per #14: "Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia"? Specifically
444:
is divided into two sections, an introductory text and a more advanced text.
273:
259:
719:
sister projects cover the pedagogical element, then either this article or
1281:
should have no negative consequence, given the age of the article. --
1010:
points out, there is also no policy-based reason for deletion, and
594:{\displaystyle \mathbf {G} ={\tfrac {8\pi G}{c^{4}}}\mathbf {T} .}
437:
Wikibooks already has a Featured Book titled "Special Relativity"
1399:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
922:. This article does. See the article and the merge analysis. -
878:. And it is rather poorly written, as abundantly evidenced at
377:, I performed a detailed paragraph-by-paragraph comparison of
1320:
to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
1251:
to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
1175:
Simple English Knowledge (XXG) version of Special Relativity
796:
Simple English Knowledge (XXG) version of Special Relativity
115:
111:
107:
880:
Talk:Introduction_to_special_relativity#Merge_analysis
557:
373:
Talk:Introduction_to_special_relativity#Merge_analysis
179:
547:
218:
in math or technology should be able to understand.
1368:to inform via simplification. As far as I'm aware,
1326:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
1257:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
1120:of special relativity without math. The unsourced,
193:
593:
1108:as evidenced by the excellent lede paragraphs of
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1413:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1299:after re-reading the discussion. I get it now.
882:. And of course, more policy-based reasons at
385:to see what would be salvageable in a merge.
844:No policy-based reason given for deletion. --
8:
1372:is not a stand-alone reason for deletion. --
659:list of Science-related deletion discussions
657:Note: This debate has been included in the
388:My conclusion was that the only sections of
656:
451:, and think it could use some competition.
1200:. No good reason to delete is proffered.
583:
574:
556:
548:
546:
865:): An article with this title should be
727:of the page and not just its execution.
274:http://www.reddit.com/user/robotrollcall
1112:. What is impossible is to explain the
525:There is are major differences between
745:from Knowledge (XXG) for that reason.
447:I am not all that impressed with the
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
817:Wikibooks introductory presentation
1037:Introduction to special relativity
801:Introduction to special relativity
773:Introduction to special relativity
604:Introduction to special relativity
535:Introduction to general relativity
531:Introduction to special relativity
527:Introduction to general relativity
491:Introduction to general relativity
458:Introduction to special relativity
417:Introduction to special relativity
409:Introduction to special relativity
390:Introduction to special relativity
379:Introduction to special relativity
82:Introduction to special relativity
74:Introduction to special relativity
24:
861:(strong policy-based reasons for
809:Introduction to spacetime physics
421:Introduction to Spacetime Physics
965:After reading your comments and
584:
549:
1:
463:"Special Relativity" Wikibook
449:"Special Relativity" Wikibook
442:"Special Relativity" Wikibook
342:07:11, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
328:12:39, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
314:23:51, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
392:that were not duplicated in
300:21:07, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
254:22:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
681:: Just to be clear, is the
541:and the Einstein equation,
268:09:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
1430:
807:been named something like
791:System of linear equations
715:covers the "introduction"
1291:16:12, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
1266:22:58, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
1240:21:22, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
1210:14:23, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
1187:01:56, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
1156:03:24, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
1141:01:02, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
1098:00:17, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
1083:00:05, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
1028:22:58, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
990:12:00, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
957:07:32, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
932:07:40, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
910:07:32, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
896:18:34, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
854:17:36, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
829:22:55, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
755:19:40, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
737:17:47, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
699:17:19, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
671:15:45, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
650:13:57, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
625:03:56, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
517:06:14, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
481:04:10, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
213:04:05, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
1402:Please do not modify it.
1392:21:20, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
1346:21:20, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
1309:15:34, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
1226:the article history. ~
1055:Galilean transformations
360:23:11, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
286:05:50, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
68:21:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
32:Please do not modify it.
1051:Lorentz transformations
1179:Stigmatella aurantiaca
1133:Stigmatella aurantiaca
1075:Stigmatella aurantiaca
982:Stigmatella aurantiaca
821:Stigmatella aurantiaca
617:Stigmatella aurantiaca
595:
473:Stigmatella aurantiaca
352:Stigmatella aurantiaca
205:Stigmatella aurantiaca
1295:I changed my mind to
1169:My conversation with
596:
495:Introduction to virus
787:Loss of significance
545:
1060:Maxwell's equations
1279:special relativity
1220:Special relativity
1110:special relativity
1012:WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP
1003:special relativity
783:Quadratic equation
721:special relativity
713:special relativity
591:
581:
415:Recommending that
394:Special relativity
383:Special relativity
348:special relativity
52:Special relativity
1348:
1268:
1264:
1238:
1067:
709:John Ernest Smith
673:
580:
515:
252:
66:
1421:
1404:
1389:
1380:
1343:
1334:
1325:
1323:
1321:
1263:
1261:
1256:
1254:
1252:
1234:
1231:
1064:Dirac's equation
1053:. Just like the
1047:
949:Opabinia regalis
902:Opabinia regalis
600:
598:
597:
592:
587:
582:
579:
578:
569:
558:
552:
503:
501:
240:
239:
198:
197:
183:
135:
123:
105:
65:
63:
56:
34:
1429:
1428:
1424:
1423:
1422:
1420:
1419:
1418:
1417:
1411:deletion review
1400:
1383:
1374:
1349:
1337:
1328:
1316:
1314:
1269:
1259:
1247:
1245:
1236:problem solving
1229:
570:
559:
543:
542:
499:
235:
140:
131:
96:
80:
77:
59:
57:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1427:
1425:
1416:
1415:
1395:
1394:
1362:WP:NOTTEXTBOOK
1324:
1313:
1312:
1311:
1293:
1255:
1244:
1243:
1242:
1213:
1167:
1166:
1165:
1164:
1163:
1162:
1161:
1160:
1159:
1158:
1127:WP:NOTTEXTBOOK
1070:
1069:
1068:
1042:
1041:
1031:
1030:
995:
994:
993:
992:
960:
959:
938:
937:
936:
935:
934:
920:WP:NOTTEXTBOOK
884:WP:NOTTEXTBOOK
856:
838:
837:
836:
835:
834:
833:
832:
831:
812:
775:been executed
762:
761:
760:
759:
758:
757:
687:WP:NOTTEXTBOOK
675:
674:
653:
652:
630:
629:
628:
627:
590:
586:
577:
573:
568:
565:
562:
555:
551:
520:
519:
470:
469:
468:
467:
452:
445:
438:
425:
424:
412:
398:WP:NOTTEXTBOOK
363:
362:
344:
330:
316:
302:
288:
270:
256:
201:
200:
137:
76:
71:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1426:
1414:
1412:
1408:
1403:
1397:
1396:
1393:
1390:
1388:
1387:
1381:
1379:
1378:
1371:
1367:
1363:
1358:
1354:
1351:
1350:
1347:
1344:
1342:
1341:
1335:
1333:
1332:
1322:
1319:
1310:
1306:
1302:
1298:
1294:
1292:
1288:
1284:
1280:
1276:
1271:
1270:
1267:
1262:
1253:
1250:
1241:
1237:
1233:
1232:
1225:
1221:
1217:
1214:
1212:
1211:
1207:
1203:
1199:
1195:
1191:
1190:
1189:
1188:
1184:
1180:
1176:
1172:
1157:
1153:
1149:
1144:
1143:
1142:
1138:
1134:
1129:
1128:
1124:
1119:
1115:
1111:
1107:
1106:
1101:
1100:
1099:
1095:
1091:
1086:
1085:
1084:
1080:
1076:
1071:
1065:
1061:
1056:
1052:
1046:
1045:
1044:
1043:
1038:
1035:
1034:
1033:
1032:
1029:
1025:
1021:
1017:
1013:
1009:
1004:
1000:
997:
996:
991:
987:
983:
979:
978:
972:
968:
964:
963:
962:
961:
958:
954:
950:
946:
942:
939:
933:
929:
925:
921:
917:
913:
912:
911:
907:
903:
899:
898:
897:
893:
889:
885:
881:
877:
873:
868:
864:
860:
857:
855:
851:
847:
843:
840:
839:
830:
826:
822:
818:
813:
810:
806:
802:
797:
792:
788:
784:
780:
779:
774:
770:
769:
768:
767:
766:
765:
764:
763:
756:
752:
748:
744:
740:
739:
738:
734:
730:
726:
722:
718:
714:
710:
706:
705:John E. Smith
702:
701:
700:
696:
692:
688:
684:
683:WP:DEL-REASON
680:
677:
676:
672:
668:
664:
660:
655:
654:
651:
647:
643:
639:
635:
632:
631:
626:
622:
618:
614:
609:
605:
588:
575:
571:
566:
563:
560:
553:
540:
536:
532:
528:
524:
523:
522:
521:
518:
514:
510:
506:
502:
496:
492:
488:
485:
484:
483:
482:
478:
474:
466:
464:
459:
454:
453:
450:
446:
443:
439:
436:
434:
433:
431:
430:
428:
427:
423:
422:
418:
413:
410:
406:
405:
404:
401:
399:
395:
391:
386:
384:
380:
376:
375:
374:
368:
361:
357:
353:
349:
345:
343:
339:
335:
334:109.186.38.41
331:
329:
325:
321:
317:
315:
311:
307:
303:
301:
297:
293:
289:
287:
283:
279:
275:
271:
269:
265:
261:
257:
255:
250:
249:
245:
238:
233:
232:fibre bundles
229:
228:affine spaces
225:
224:
223:
219:
215:
214:
210:
206:
196:
192:
189:
186:
182:
178:
174:
171:
168:
165:
162:
159:
156:
153:
150:
146:
143:
142:Find sources:
138:
134:
130:
127:
121:
117:
113:
109:
104:
100:
95:
91:
87:
83:
79:
78:
75:
72:
70:
69:
64:
62:
54:
53:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1401:
1398:
1385:
1384:
1376:
1375:
1365:
1352:
1339:
1338:
1330:
1329:
1315:
1296:
1274:
1246:
1227:
1224:don't delete
1223:
1215:
1193:
1192:
1168:
1121:
1117:
1113:
1104:
1103:
998:
976:
975:
940:
866:
858:
841:
804:
777:
776:
742:
724:
716:
678:
637:
633:
607:
538:
498:
486:
471:
455:
435:
432:
429:
426:
414:
411:for deletion
402:
387:
371:
370:
366:
364:
292:LookingGlass
278:93.172.56.90
242:
220:
216:
202:
190:
184:
176:
169:
163:
157:
151:
141:
128:
60:
50:redirect to
49:
47:
31:
28:
1194:Strong keep
1171:Praemonitus
1008:Mark viking
971:transwikied
863:Mark viking
846:Mark viking
805:should have
747:Praemonitus
729:Hithladaeus
691:Praemonitus
642:Hithladaeus
613:WP:ORIGINAL
407:Nominating
403:I am thus
167:free images
1040:paragraph:
819:, either.
741:Reluctant
61:Sandstein
1407:talk page
1230:ONUnicorn
1148:Sammy1339
1090:Sammy1339
1020:Sammy1339
663:ā¢ Gene93k
456:Although
320:CecilWard
37:talk page
1409:or in a
1318:Relisted
1297:redirect
1275:redirect
1249:Relisted
1216:Redirect
1116:and the
916:wp:SYNTH
876:wp:SYNTH
638:attempts
487:Question
306:Urgent01
237:Army1987
126:View log
39:or in a
1301:Bearian
1202:Bearian
803:really
725:concept
679:Comment
367:already
173:WPĀ refs
161:scholar
99:protect
94:history
1377:Biblio
1331:Biblio
1222:, but
1198:WP:TNT
1105:about,
1016:WP:TNT
1014:. The
967:WP:TNT
945:WP:TNT
941:Delete
859:Delete
743:delete
634:Delete
539:EĀ =Ā mc
500:éē¼é¢ć²ćć
246:,Ā not
145:Google
103:delete
1370:WP:OR
1260:slakr
1123:WP:OR
872:wp:OR
867:about
381:with
248:words
244:Deeds
188:JSTOR
149:books
133:Stats
120:views
112:watch
108:links
16:<
1386:worm
1353:Keep
1340:worm
1305:talk
1287:talk
1283:Izno
1206:talk
1183:talk
1152:talk
1137:talk
1094:talk
1079:talk
1062:and
1024:talk
999:Keep
986:talk
953:talk
928:talk
924:DVdm
918:and
906:talk
892:talk
888:DVdm
886:. -
874:and
850:talk
842:Keep
825:talk
778:well
771:Had
751:talk
733:talk
707:and
695:talk
667:talk
646:talk
621:talk
608:i.e.
529:and
477:talk
440:The
356:talk
338:talk
324:talk
310:talk
296:talk
282:talk
264:talk
260:DVdm
230:and
209:talk
181:FENS
155:news
116:logs
90:talk
86:edit
1357:one
1277:to
1218:to
1118:why
1114:how
977:few
717:and
350:."
195:TWL
124:ā (
1366:is
1307:)
1289:)
1208:)
1185:)
1177:?
1154:)
1139:)
1125:,
1096:)
1081:)
1026:)
988:)
955:)
947:.
930:)
908:)
894:)
852:)
827:)
789:,
785:,
753:)
735:)
697:)
689:?
669:)
661:.
648:)
623:)
615:.
564:Ļ
533:.
493:,
479:)
400:.
358:)
340:)
326:)
312:)
298:)
284:)
276:"
266:)
241:ā
211:)
175:)
118:|
114:|
110:|
106:|
101:|
97:|
92:|
88:|
1303:(
1285:(
1204:(
1181:(
1150:(
1135:(
1092:(
1077:(
1022:(
984:(
951:(
926:(
904:(
890:(
848:(
823:(
749:(
731:(
693:(
665:(
644:(
619:(
606:(
589:.
585:T
576:4
572:c
567:G
561:8
554:=
550:G
513:c
511:/
509:t
507:/
505:u
475:(
465:.
354:(
336:(
322:(
308:(
294:(
280:(
262:(
251:.
207:(
199:)
191:Ā·
185:Ā·
177:Ā·
170:Ā·
164:Ā·
158:Ā·
152:Ā·
147:(
139:(
136:)
129:Ā·
122:)
84:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.