857:
names, and we have, what, 24? That equates to being woefully incomplete, while pages for
Iberian noblemen (almost by definition military commanders) are being added faster than names are being added to this list, which means it is unmanageable (or at least unmanaged). And what would be the point of listing all those names, as a list that long is unusable. We are literally talking about tens of thousands of Knowledge (XXG) pages in a list that was anywhere close to complete (just in terms of those with WP pages), maybe even 100,000 or more. Recently, an attempt has been made to limit it to commanders someone or other thinks were important - that is both unmanageable and subjective - I have seen such limits placed on short lists work, but only when there was a clearly defined set of criteria and a small body of interested souls to police the list regularly, but this list has no defined criteria, and covering 4000 years of history across every continent but Antarctica (but then, Shackleton and Ross were military commanders there too) is too broad for anyone to police in this manner. Such a list can never be anything but a problem - incomplete, POV, and arbitrary.
1285:. In other words, one editor can feel that something does not belong in the list and another editor feel that it does and both are right because there is no standard against which to decide. The primary basis for notability of an individual should be in the lead paragraph of the Knowledge (XXG) article, so that is where editors can figure out whether their importance/significance primarily stems from their command of a military unit. Military commanders over all time in all countries too vague for editors to agree on what can and cannot be included. Something has to be revised. "Commander" has several meanings.
996:
the merely notable. We also need to decide whether to include purely political leaders during a war. There also needs to be a consistent format; the point of a list is that it can give more information than a category, but too many of the entries in the list are still a bare list of names. INDISCRIMINATE or NOTDIRECTORY never holds for a list composed of those subjects who have BLP articles, and a list and a category are not exclusive--most should have both. There are no other actual arguments for deletion.
1105:. But the very large lists can be subdivided into lists of lists or organized under headings. Would a reader search for "military commander?" I think they might, and this article, if changed into a list of lists, some of which could also be lists of lists, could get readers exploring and finding interesting stuff they would never have thought of looking for.
1374:: The editors above who are saying "Keep but Split" and "Keep as Index to other Lists"... could you explain how such an "index of lists" page is in any way different from categories? (And given the categories don't have to be maintained by hand and are harder to vandalize, what worth do you think such a list of lists page would actually have?) —
52:. After discounting the two "keep" opinions that are simply votes because they don't address the reasons why the article should be kept or deleted, consensus is that the list has an unmanageably broad scope. That being so, editors who want to split it into more manageable pieces are free to request userfication for that purpose.
1242:
is a compilaton of commissioned officers whose importance/significance primarily stems from their command of a military unit. -- might help inform editors of who can be added to the list. That may run into problems in determining whether ancient commanders or commanders in a variety of countries were
1100:
I sense consensus that this list in its current state is far too big, arbitrary, etc. to be useful, and that if the title is to be kept, it should be converted to a "list of lists". I don't mind helping with that. Lists of names alone are not much use - they should have some additional information,
1081:
Also it would look hilarious if someone for example would add all thousands of
British (or US) generals, admirals and air force generals. Would totally dwarf the rest of list in its current form. But there would be no basis for removal of any entries in such case, and only way to restore some sort of
856:
A while back I more than quadrupled the number of listings for Iberia by only adding just the most prominent of names from one of the six
Christian states for just a 300 year period. Just listing all of the Iberians military commanders who currently have pages would probably include several thousand
763:
The list is more useful than a category, since it shows more information, so you know what articles would be of interest to you. This is a list of all military commanders that have their own
Knowledge (XXG) article. If you want to make separate list for just some leaders, that's fine too, no reason
687:
and it was quite clear what the idea was - to have a list of major military leaders like
Alexander, Napoleon and Rommel. The list has been expanded by good effort since then and it still conforms reasonably well to this goal. There's still more to be done but this will not be assisted by deletion.
898:
if that were an option. The list is far to big to be useful, the selection of people is random, the information given is inconsistent and the organization is confused. The list should define better inclusion criteria to eliminate platoon leaders who went on to create fast food chains. Focused lists
470:
It only list those notable enough to have their own
Knowledge (XXG) article. Obviously when you have a list of something, it means "notable", even without having that word in the title. These are people famous for being military commanders. It is not indiscriminate. For those of you not familiar
231:
and SUBJECTIVE are also relevant: it's not an adjective, but what constitutes a "military commander"–political leadership or generalship; unit commanders (of whatever size) or individual soldiers displaying leadership; figureheads such as Joan of Arc...–is at the moment entirely arbitrary: There are
995:
I agree with Dr. B that there need to be more defined qualifications, . The current list is a very broad list, and I would perhaps that should be supplemented by a more exclusive one for which the basic qualification would be "famous". I'd suggest a general "famous" list and then divided lists for
938:
I agree that constructive restructuring would be sensible. What I found when I started cleaning up the list was that there were multiple half-baked tables which were quite confusing and hard to work with. That approach hasn't worked out and so I reverted to make the original structure of the list
1200:
There is no possible reason to list every single person who ever had the rank of general. The start of the article establishes the inclusion criteria. Are you flooding the article to be sarcastic? You obviously know there is no possible way to list every single general who ever existed in every
1175:
You can, but see the comment of
Staberinde above. The question is whether it is valuable to repeat the information in this manner (and hence double the upkeep). The bigger question is whether such an unfocussed list, covering all commanders from all countries from all periods in history, one that
943:
which is given as a sub-list. That has all the same problems of scope because there were millions of officers in WWII and many of them have sufficiently notability to warrant articles on
Knowledge (XXG). The sub-list can be left to deal with that problem of scale while this list can give some of
740:
Ariobarzanes gave
Alexander the Great a hard fight and so he was not some lowly corporal. How is his presence in this list a problem? How is it a problem if our readership should want to find and read more about him? The 10-year history of this article does not indicate that there have been any
903:
would be much more useful. I would support a move to split this list into smaller country- or region-specific lists, assuming it survives this discussion, and leave this one as an index to the smaller lists. With a country-specific article it may be possible to find some way to organize the list
1261:
In concept this is fine, but in practice, do we really leave it up to editors to decide the primary basis for notability of an individual? Might this exclude, say, Eisenhower, who arguably could be said to be of primary importance as
President of the USA, yet whose military exploits cannot be
1394:
This is a list of military commanders. These include the "great captains" of history, as they were styled by military historian Liddell Hart; the major leaders of the armies in the most decisive battles of world history. Also included are those who were notoriously flamboyant, incompetent or
261:
Deeply indiscriminate list which could conceivably encompass every soldier in Knowledge (XXG) above the rank of corporal—assuming the army/navy/etc. in question even had ranks with names. And of course as the nominator says, there's any number of civilians who could be tossed into the mix.
922:
Agreed, much better to be comprehensive and focused, I'd use this article as an index/navigation base and create separate lists with more focus. Throughout the entirety of history and all empires and nations is an awful lot to try to cover in one. I mean, you wouldn't have a
1288:
Pick one and use that to create the statement of scope and inclusion criteria of the list. Otherwise, the list would not seem to exclude something like the chief officer of a commandery in the medieval orders of Knights Hospitalers, Knights Templars, and others noted at
615:
Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own non-redirect article in the English Knowledge (XXG). Red-linked entries are acceptable if the entry is verifiably a member of the listed group, and it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the
575:
Yeah, when did "having a Knowledge (XXG) article or not" become a test for discrimination? There are loads of people who were corporals, sergeants, or even lieutenants in wartime, but whose significance is based on something else entirely
85:
186:
1401:
This is not really an improvement, nor can it be improved with such a weak title and such vague adjectives involved. Any attempts to maintain a shallow list without much more narrowly-tailored wording is going to run into
1028:
754 pages etc. etc. (most of those previous cases could have gotten another few hundred from sub categories). There is nothing stopping from pushing this list into massive 10,000+ entries except extreme tediousness of the
1243:"commissioned," but it is a move forward. Without "commissioned" in the scope, you run into the problem of whether non-commissioned officers (corporal and sergeant in some countries) are to be included in the list. --
1101:
sequence and structure. There remains a question over whether some of the sub-lists would also be too big to be manageable. A list of 1,646+ United States Army generals would indeed be large. There were a lot of
1406:
issues. What this article covers really is as broad as a major metacategory & what it started as and some editors above think they can have really needs to be rebuilt from scratch at another namespace like
1280:
As Spartaz is making clear above, without a statement of scope and inclusion criteria of the list, it will be very hard to get editors on the same page as to what can and cannot be included in the list. See
232:
no criteria for inclusion provided & no rational ones could exist that connect mythological Chinese emperors, medieval knights, and Ehud Barak in his role as civilian commander of the Israeli military.
837:
Please give some evidence to support your contention. For example, what entries are missing and why would their absence be a policy-based reason to delete the list, rather than developing it further?
944:
the major examples like Monty, Patton, Rommel and Zhukov and then refer to the sub-list. Having a tree of hierarchic lists is a common way of managing such data. For a well-developed example, see
451:
as indiscriminate. It's either a list that can encompass every leader in every little skirmish in history, or you set some arbitrary standard to keep it to a manageable scope. Neither works for me.
240:
236:
80:
1398:
means we're still including the (a) inarguably great, the (b) 'major' leaders at the 'most decisive' battles (whatever our editors decide those are), and the (c) everyone else with a page.
696:
and so the category system is doing a worse job than the list in this case. How is our coverage of great commanders assisted by deletion in this case? What have you got to offer instead?
321:
718:
really qualify? The criteria are just too ill-defined, even including the "notoriously flamboyant, incompetent or otherwise famous". I suppose it could be salvaged if it were renamed
180:
139:
146:
301:
796:
692:. That person is not well known in the west but was a great conqueror in India - in the same league as Napoleon. That person is not in any military category - just
515:? There are thousands upon thousands of senior but obscure officers who've commanded in battle and have articles about them. Yikes, look at the hordes listed for the
112:
107:
116:
551:
for those. Do you want to delete those too? Do you want to leave readers with no way of navigating and browsing our thousands upon thousands of articles?
99:
1262:
overlooked. Likewise this focus on commissions effectively removes every commander prior to the formalization of ranks and commissions - most of history.
904:
systematically, including redlinks. But just because this article is a mess does not mean it should be deleted. It needs work, e.g. splitting, is all.
1060:
396:
is an essay which does not represent policy. The fact that this list is large tells us that a lot of work has gone into it and so it would be blatant
970:, to have no people at all in the main index list, which should be strictly a list of lists. But that is a discussion for the article's talk page.
719:
1420:
1383:
1364:
1342:
1325:
1302:
1271:
1252:
1224:
1185:
1166:
1153:
1131:
1114:
1091:
1072:
1038:
1007:
979:
957:
933:
913:
886:
866:
847:
828:
808:
787:
750:
731:
705:
674:
657:
627:
594:
560:
528:
494:
460:
441:
419:
368:
354:
333:
313:
292:
271:
252:
64:
1141:
1124:
1048:
548:
241:
The points made by the original noms have been borne out; those made by the opposition have proven to have been incorrect or overly-optimistic
639:
having a Knowledge (XXG) article isn't discriminate enough. This would be better handled by a bunch of little lists rather than one big one
741:
significant disputes about such matters. We should not be deleting substantial content for the sake of hypothetical or imaginary concerns.
1013:
201:
168:
1282:
1234:- The term "commander" seems be causing the problem. At some level, all military personnel exercise authority, so everyone listed in
17:
1333:-Notable topic. The article needs CE in some parts. Inserting one or more templates to lighten the article would be a good idea.--
1051:, which have many entries. But the numbers involved are still orders of magnitude less than some of our list structures such as
880:
but the criteria for inclusion needs to be made clearer, as it could include commanders of low-level units throughout history!.♦
103:
228:
1017:
900:
722:, with proper sourcing for each entry, which would leave out our friend Ariobarzanes and a whole lot of others on this list.
715:
162:
393:
222:
1411:(with the criterion that they be currently studied at major military academies or even at all major military academies). —
618:" This list is mostly blue links and the corresponding articles are mostly kings and generals, just as one would expect.
939:
clear. Sub-lists would be a sensible way of dealing with cases where there might be many entries. For example, there's
1338:
1021:
158:
1439:
40:
1235:
1025:
95:
70:
280:
940:
646:
583:
208:
1408:
1068:
953:
843:
746:
701:
623:
556:
415:
1334:
819:- it will always be unmanageably broad, arbitrarily subjective or massively incomplete, probably all three.
651:
588:
504:
425:
397:
389:
218:
727:
693:
524:
456:
174:
1435:
1056:
928:
881:
641:
578:
364:
359:
I am willing to revise my opinion, as long as some reasonable criteria for inclusion are agreed upon. -
350:
36:
508:
924:
1412:
1375:
1356:
1321:
1316:, without a shadow of a doubt. It's bloated, indiscriminate, and seems to possess no singular focus.
1298:
1248:
1087:
1034:
544:
512:
433:
288:
244:
1267:
1238:
and its subcategiories can be included in the article. Revising the lead to read something like --
1181:
1162:
So? If they are commanders, and generals are clearly commanders, why can't I add them to the list?
1149:
1064:
949:
862:
839:
824:
804:
742:
697:
619:
552:
411:
194:
1391:: There have been more 'keep' votes since the new lede came in, but I would like to point out that
345:(or userfy if somebody wants to check the list and convert it into the appropriate categories). -
1110:
975:
909:
401:
723:
520:
452:
329:
309:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1434:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1403:
380:
The claim that this would be better done by category is false and explicitly contradicted by
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1202:
967:
765:
670:
516:
472:
360:
346:
267:
1348:
610:
609:. It is quite normal for list entries to be expected to have Knowledge (XXG) articles per
381:
1317:
1294:
1244:
1083:
1052:
1030:
945:
284:
225:. This list is massively overbroad, better dealt with via catagories, and badly handled.
386:
Therefore, the "category camp" should not delete or dismantle Knowledge (XXG)'s lists...
1290:
1286:
1263:
1177:
1145:
1063:
for the lengths that some will go to. Lists of generals are comparatively manageable.
858:
820:
800:
55:
1106:
1102:
1003:
971:
905:
239:. The page has had years to hit its stride, make sense, or fork sensibly. It hasn't.
927:
in one article, you'd break it down by empire/nation and in specific time periods.♦
1163:
1128:
689:
406:
325:
305:
714:
Here's the problem. Who decides who is a "major" or "great" military leader? Does
133:
666:
605:
The list is not full of corporals and sergeants though, is it? So that's just a
500:
263:
606:
471:
with how Knowledge (XXG) lists work, look at any of the thousands of them.
665:
Much too broad a topic to have any workable inclusion/exclusion criteria.
400:
to delete this. And should anyone doubt the notability of the topic, per
1176:
currently lists in that section 1000+ Brits and 1 from China, is useful.
1140:
Yeah, all 68 bleedin' pages of them. The whole benefit of having a page
998:
1283:
Knowledge (XXG):Manual_of_Style/Lists#Lead_sections_in_stand-alone_lists
86:
Articles for deletion/List of military commanders (2nd nomination)
1428:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
1082:
balance would be doing exactly same for all other countries.--
720:
List of military commanders considered among the greatest ever
1347:
Not for nothing, but the article needs CE in no parts, per
392:
is irrelevant as that's talking about sales catalogs. And
1144:
is so you don't have to list them all on the main page.
1352:
684:
129:
125:
121:
1127:
and I'll find some sailors and pilots to add in next.
193:
543:
Ernst-Felix Krüder was a naval commander and we have
322:
list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions
1059:. We even have some lists of infinite scope - see
207:
764:why you can't have entries on more than one list.
341:This would be better covered by categories. Weak
81:Articles for deletion/List of military commanders
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1442:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1061:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/1 metre
688:For example, there's currently a redlink for
424:Well, that's one hell of a strawman. Go read
302:list of Military-related deletion discussions
8:
797:list of History-related deletion discussions
795:Note: This debate has been included in the
320:Note: This debate has been included in the
300:Note: This debate has been included in the
279:just silly, this is always guaranteed to be
1355:establishing BC/AD as the page's format. —
794:
319:
299:
1395:otherwise famous, such as General Custer.
1142:List of British generals and brigadiers
1125:List_of_British_generals_and_brigadiers
1049:List of British generals and brigadiers
901:List of Costa Rican military commanders
78:
1047:There are corresponding lists such as
1012:. Just to put things in perspective,
432:talking only about sales catalogs. —
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
1014:Category:United States Army generals
1123:Keep, I added all the entries from
77:
24:
410:- just one of many such surveys.
966:I would say it is best, as with
229:WP:OVERCATEGORIZATION#ARBITRARY
1018:Category:British Army generals
716:Ariobarzanes, Satrap of Persis
1:
1421:22:51, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
1384:22:43, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
1365:22:33, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
1343:18:04, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
1326:10:58, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
1303:18:27, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
1272:17:03, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
1253:15:49, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
1225:08:38, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
1186:17:03, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
1167:15:52, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
1154:15:37, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
1132:14:30, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
1115:01:34, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
1092:17:30, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
1073:18:04, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
1039:17:23, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
1008:17:20, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
980:17:15, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
958:17:02, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
934:16:44, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
914:16:39, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
887:13:42, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
867:23:52, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
848:16:14, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
829:03:10, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
809:03:05, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
788:00:47, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
751:14:33, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
732:00:10, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
706:17:03, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
675:09:46, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
658:02:51, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
628:08:52, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
595:02:51, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
561:08:52, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
529:01:38, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
495:00:22, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
461:23:57, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
442:22:40, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
420:20:25, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
404:, please see sources such as
369:17:52, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
355:18:17, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
334:16:07, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
314:16:06, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
293:16:04, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
272:15:33, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
253:14:05, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
65:20:19, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
1022:Category:Royal Navy admirals
685:started nearly ten years ago
1240:List of military commanders
1236:Category:Military personnel
1026:Category:Wehrmacht generals
96:List of military commanders
71:List of military commanders
1459:
941:Commanders of World War II
1409:famed military tacticians
1291:dictionary.reference.com/
1431:Please do not modify it.
683:Nonsense. The list was
32:Please do not modify it.
1201:army around the world.
505:Battle of Beirut (1941)
1397:
694:category:Indian people
76:AfDs for this article:
1392:
1057:list of minor planets
545:List of sea captains
513:Action of 8 May 1941
394:WP:OVERLISTIFICATION
223:WP:OVERLISTIFICATION
407:Military Commanders
237:original nomination
1335:Knight of Infinity
509:Ernst-Felix Krüder
48:The result was
1020:has 1,487 pages,
1016:has 1,646 pages,
811:
549:Lists of admirals
336:
316:
281:WP:INDISCRIMINATE
63:
1450:
1433:
1418:
1417:
1381:
1380:
1362:
1361:
1221:
1218:
1215:
1212:
1209:
1206:
968:lists of writers
931:
925:list of soldiers
894:. I would vote
884:
784:
781:
778:
775:
772:
769:
656:
654:
649:
644:
593:
591:
586:
581:
517:Battle of Pteria
491:
488:
485:
482:
479:
476:
439:
438:
250:
249:
212:
211:
197:
149:
137:
119:
62:
60:
53:
34:
1458:
1457:
1453:
1452:
1451:
1449:
1448:
1447:
1446:
1440:deletion review
1429:
1415:
1413:
1378:
1376:
1359:
1357:
1219:
1216:
1213:
1210:
1207:
1204:
1053:list of species
946:list of writers
929:
882:
782:
779:
776:
773:
770:
767:
652:
647:
642:
640:
589:
584:
579:
577:
489:
486:
483:
480:
477:
474:
436:
434:
247:
245:
154:
145:
110:
94:
91:
74:
56:
54:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1456:
1454:
1445:
1444:
1424:
1423:
1400:
1399:
1386:
1369:
1368:
1367:
1328:
1310:
1309:
1308:
1307:
1306:
1305:
1275:
1274:
1256:
1255:
1229:
1228:
1227:
1195:
1194:
1193:
1192:
1191:
1190:
1189:
1188:
1170:
1169:
1157:
1156:
1135:
1134:
1120:
1119:
1118:
1117:
1103:General Smiths
1095:
1094:
1078:
1077:
1076:
1075:
1042:
1041:
1010:
989:
988:
987:
986:
985:
984:
983:
982:
961:
960:
917:
916:
889:
874:
873:
872:
871:
870:
869:
851:
850:
832:
831:
813:
812:
791:
790:
760:
759:
758:
757:
756:
755:
754:
753:
735:
734:
709:
708:
678:
677:
660:
633:
632:
631:
630:
600:
599:
598:
597:
570:
569:
568:
567:
566:
565:
564:
563:
534:
533:
532:
531:
464:
463:
446:
445:
444:
374:
373:
372:
371:
338:
337:
317:
296:
295:
274:
215:
214:
151:
90:
89:
88:
83:
75:
73:
68:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1455:
1443:
1441:
1437:
1432:
1426:
1425:
1422:
1419:
1410:
1405:
1396:
1390:
1387:
1385:
1382:
1373:
1370:
1366:
1363:
1354:
1350:
1346:
1345:
1344:
1340:
1336:
1332:
1329:
1327:
1323:
1319:
1315:
1312:
1311:
1304:
1300:
1296:
1292:
1287:
1284:
1279:
1278:
1277:
1276:
1273:
1269:
1265:
1260:
1259:
1258:
1257:
1254:
1250:
1246:
1241:
1237:
1233:
1230:
1226:
1223:
1222:
1199:
1198:
1197:
1196:
1187:
1183:
1179:
1174:
1173:
1172:
1171:
1168:
1165:
1161:
1160:
1159:
1158:
1155:
1151:
1147:
1143:
1139:
1138:
1137:
1136:
1133:
1130:
1126:
1122:
1121:
1116:
1112:
1108:
1104:
1099:
1098:
1097:
1096:
1093:
1089:
1085:
1080:
1079:
1074:
1070:
1066:
1062:
1058:
1054:
1050:
1046:
1045:
1044:
1043:
1040:
1036:
1032:
1027:
1024:1,128 pages,
1023:
1019:
1015:
1011:
1009:
1005:
1001:
1000:
994:
991:
990:
981:
977:
973:
969:
965:
964:
963:
962:
959:
955:
951:
947:
942:
937:
936:
935:
932:
930:Dr. ☠ Blofeld
926:
921:
920:
919:
918:
915:
911:
907:
902:
897:
893:
890:
888:
885:
883:Dr. ☠ Blofeld
879:
876:
875:
868:
864:
860:
855:
854:
853:
852:
849:
845:
841:
836:
835:
834:
833:
830:
826:
822:
818:
815:
814:
810:
806:
802:
798:
793:
792:
789:
786:
785:
762:
761:
752:
748:
744:
739:
738:
737:
736:
733:
729:
725:
721:
717:
713:
712:
711:
710:
707:
703:
699:
695:
691:
686:
682:
681:
680:
679:
676:
672:
668:
664:
661:
659:
655:
650:
645:
638:
635:
634:
629:
625:
621:
617:
612:
608:
604:
603:
602:
601:
596:
592:
587:
582:
574:
573:
572:
571:
562:
558:
554:
550:
546:
542:
541:
540:
539:
538:
537:
536:
535:
530:
526:
522:
518:
514:
510:
506:
502:
498:
497:
496:
493:
492:
469:
466:
465:
462:
458:
454:
450:
447:
443:
440:
431:
428:again: it is
427:
426:WP:NOTCATALOG
423:
422:
421:
417:
413:
409:
408:
403:
399:
398:WP:DISRUPTION
395:
391:
390:WP:NOTCATALOG
387:
383:
379:
376:
375:
370:
366:
362:
358:
357:
356:
352:
348:
344:
340:
339:
335:
331:
327:
323:
318:
315:
311:
307:
303:
298:
297:
294:
290:
286:
282:
278:
275:
273:
269:
265:
260:
257:
256:
255:
254:
251:
242:
238:
233:
230:
226:
224:
220:
219:WP:NOTCATALOG
210:
206:
203:
200:
196:
192:
188:
185:
182:
179:
176:
173:
170:
167:
164:
160:
157:
156:Find sources:
152:
148:
144:
141:
135:
131:
127:
123:
118:
114:
109:
105:
101:
97:
93:
92:
87:
84:
82:
79:
72:
69:
67:
66:
61:
59:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1430:
1427:
1393:
1388:
1371:
1330:
1313:
1239:
1231:
1203:
997:
992:
895:
891:
877:
816:
766:
724:Clarityfiend
690:Samudragupta
662:
636:
614:
521:Clarityfiend
499:Famous like
473:
467:
453:Clarityfiend
448:
429:
405:
385:
377:
342:
276:
258:
234:
227:
216:
204:
198:
190:
183:
177:
171:
165:
155:
142:
57:
49:
47:
31:
28:
501:Henri Dentz
361:Mike Rosoft
347:Mike Rosoft
181:free images
1318:MezzoMezzo
1295:Uzma Gamal
1245:Uzma Gamal
1084:Staberinde
1031:Staberinde
285:Staberinde
58:Sandstein
1436:talk page
1353:this edit
1264:Agricolae
1178:Agricolae
1146:Agricolae
892:Weak keep
859:Agricolae
821:Agricolae
801:Agricolae
607:straw man
326:• Gene93k
306:• Gene93k
235:Also, as
37:talk page
1438:or in a
1414:Llywelyn
1377:Llywelyn
1358:Llywelyn
1107:Aymatth2
972:Aymatth2
906:Aymatth2
435:Llywelyn
402:WP:LISTN
246:Llywelyn
140:View log
39:or in a
1404:WP:BIAS
1389:Comment
1372:Comment
1232:Comment
1164:Spartaz
1129:Spartaz
1029:task.--
637:Delete:
616:future.
519:alone.
511:in the
503:in the
187:WP refs
175:scholar
113:protect
108:history
1349:WP:ERA
1314:Delete
1065:Warden
950:Warden
840:Warden
817:Delete
743:Warden
698:Warden
667:Nick-D
663:Delete
620:Warden
611:WP:CSC
553:Warden
449:Delete
412:Warden
382:WP:CLN
343:delete
277:Delete
264:Mangoe
259:delete
221:&
159:Google
117:delete
50:delete
1293:. --
1220:Focus
1004:talk
899:like
896:Split
783:Focus
490:Focus
202:JSTOR
163:books
147:Stats
134:views
126:watch
122:links
16:<
1351:and
1339:talk
1331:Keep
1322:talk
1299:talk
1268:talk
1249:talk
1182:talk
1150:talk
1111:talk
1088:talk
1069:talk
1035:talk
993:Keep
976:talk
954:talk
910:talk
878:Keep
863:talk
844:talk
825:talk
805:talk
747:talk
728:talk
702:talk
671:talk
624:talk
557:talk
547:and
525:talk
468:Keep
457:talk
416:talk
388:".
378:Keep
365:talk
351:talk
330:talk
310:talk
289:talk
268:talk
243:. —
217:Per
195:FENS
169:news
130:logs
104:talk
100:edit
1055:or
999:DGG
613:, "
507:or
430:not
384:, "
283:.--
209:TWL
138:– (
1416:II
1379:II
1360:II
1341:)
1324:)
1301:)
1270:)
1251:)
1184:)
1152:)
1113:)
1090:)
1071:)
1037:)
1006:)
978:)
956:)
948:.
912:)
865:)
846:)
827:)
807:)
799:.
749:)
730:)
704:)
673:)
626:)
559:)
527:)
459:)
437:II
418:)
367:)
353:)
332:)
324:.
312:)
304:.
291:)
270:)
248:II
189:)
132:|
128:|
124:|
120:|
115:|
111:|
106:|
102:|
1337:(
1320:(
1297:(
1266:(
1247:(
1217:m
1214:a
1211:e
1208:r
1205:D
1180:(
1148:(
1109:(
1086:(
1067:(
1033:(
1002:(
974:(
952:(
908:(
861:(
842:(
823:(
803:(
780:m
777:a
774:e
771:r
768:D
745:(
726:(
700:(
669:(
653:p
648:b
643:p
622:(
590:p
585:b
580:p
555:(
523:(
487:m
484:a
481:e
478:r
475:D
455:(
414:(
363:(
349:(
328:(
308:(
287:(
266:(
213:)
205:·
199:·
191:·
184:·
178:·
172:·
166:·
161:(
153:(
150:)
143:·
136:)
98:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.