420:"... Knowledge (XXG) articles are not: ... Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as (but not limited to) quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional). If you want to enter lists of quotations, put them into our sister project Wikiquote. Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic..."
1113:. A list of such notable tall/small folk is highly objective and encyclopaedic. The list helps structure such information for our readership in a helpful way since it can rank the heights for comparison. Such lists based upon measurements of length, weight, speed, size, etc are commonplace in works of reference, as demonstrated above. Since they are routinely reported by such authorities as the
496:
list of
African-American men because someone might not want to be "reminded" of his skin color? The comments that there is "no objective standard" have to be reconciled with the fact that the list arranges people by their height. Perhaps this should be called "List of adult males who are 5'3" tall or less", but I don't think that would make any of you less uncomfortable.
1247:
sourcing will not work. That one person once calls some "short" does not make it so. If I find a
Washington Post columnist that once opined "George Bush seems like a very little man when you meet him" - can I put him on the list. I've got a source that says Napoleon was not exceptionally small - so
1104:
You called me 'little'! No matter, all your insults are a small matter :). A person's height is not subjective - it is a quite precise measurement that, for example, might be officially recorded on their passport. As a personal characteristic, it is less subjective than eye-colour, say. Whether
873:
This would help anyone exploring any aspect of extreme tallness or shortness and works better than a category because the researcher or browser might well want to look at those who are, for instance, very short or maybe somewhat short. If you want to know about human height and how humans deal with
307:
all subjective lists. Besides which, despite a year passing since this narrowly escaped deletion there is no improvement in the sourcing, and frankly I don't see that changing. There's no way a definition can be agreed which isn't ultimately subjecting and reflecting someone's cultural perspective.
1396:
This article is as important as articles on height in general, however, I think it should have some more info on it (eg. "This section and so on is the top 99.99 percentile if human height). Also, I'd just like to point out that this has been nominated for deletion 4 times, with no consensus, and
138:
Indiscriminate collection of information. The definition of tall or short is very subjective and highly POV. What is short for an
American or a Norwegian might not be the same for a Pygmy or an Asian. Neither is Knowledge (XXG) an authority, nor can consensus be used to define and set a particular
906:
Actually, we're not here to establish what the truth is, we're here to establish what reliable sources say is the truth (that comes from Jimbo and from policy), and we can do that by reporting subjective as well as objective statements. In fact, we have to do that all the time. Journalists do the
495:
I think the only problem is the TITLE of the list, and the feeling that it's offensive to note that someone's height is 5 feet 3 inches or less. However, I think that the idea that a man should be "ashamed" of his adult height (so let's not mention it) is even more offensive. Should we delete a
1345:
Perhaps with a change in titles to avoid offending those of a PC bent. Stature is a psychologically and socially significant aspect of human life, however regretfully some might regard this reality. Better citation, perhaps? But lack of citation is reason for improvement, not deletion. WP can,
1473:
The PC urge to protect the sensibilities of persons who are in some group is really a covert way for the PCist to assert his superiority over the members of that group and to assert domination over others. He says to the group members, "You are too weak to protect your own sensibilities, and
1130:
A problem is this was never limited to "tallest" or "shortest." I proposed that a few times, but never got much interest from editors and received some opposition. People at or over 7 foot 2 inches (218 cm) or at and under 4 foot (122 cm) are often going to be among the world's smallest or
1304:
That someone has a particular height can be sourced, but how do you define "tall" and how do you define "short"? That is plain subjective. Knowledge (XXG) is not supposed to be an authority, we need verifiable and authoritative sources; and this is not an ethnocentric or a nation-centric
707:
The objections above are insubstantial. These lists are easily maintained and are currently quite good, as the blue links show. If you want a test then it should obviously be the existence of secondary sources in which the shortness/tallness of the person is cited as notable feature.
611:
5 foot 3 is below average male height in all nations I could find. Once upon a time I had it start at 153 cm or 5 ft ¼ inch, which I believe put all names in the "short stature" percentile in most nations. However some joker didn't like that and it's apparently a vandal attractor. Sad
1437:
do not cover this list. The closest it gets is "sprawling lists of statistics" but this list doesn't sprawl in a confusing way - it just lists notable examples of short people in order of height. This is not indiscriminate but rather is highly discriminating.
139:
point of view as to what is short and what is tall. As is quite obvious from the history of all the articles, they are prone to long-term edit-warring, aggravated and heated debates. It's time we get rid of these dregs of balderdash from our encyclopedia. —
1283:
That someone has a particular height is source-able, and that's all that is actually needed for WP:V. If the information is uncertain is can be so specified. No policy problem--the setting of specific heights makes it a discriminating and defensible list.
1058:
I'm sorry that you're choosing to dismiss serious concerns about policy and guideline violations with snotty little "you don't like it you notorious person you" attitude. The point still stands, you can point at whatever list you want and say "what about
374:
per my rationale last time. The definition of tall varies by country, nationality, time and other criteria. Effoirts have eben made to make these lists other than POV, but in my view they will always fail because a tall
Japanese is a short Dutchman.
878:
You can always find sources saying someone is unusually tall or short; if you can't, they don't belong on the list. I actually prefer a more subjective standard, because it focuses on what sources say is remarkably tall or short and it's really the
1522:
the subjective nature of these articles is not a reason to delete them. The fact that they represent lists of different spans of men/women, which is a non-encyclopedic topic, is a good reason, as is the indiscriminate form they have assumed.
1237:
Unusual height is height that is reported as such by independent, reliable sources. This is our usual method and this is really no different. If you don't like the word 'unusual' then some synonym like 'exceptional' might be used instead.
896:
Yes, but the problem is that just because one source says x is a small man, doesn't mean he is. So, unless this is a list of "everyone ever called small" then you are making a subjective judgment as to whether the source is correct.
1367:
grounds) then I would oppose a change of titles. The current titles are accurate descriptions and would be what readers would search for if they wanted this information. Political correctness is not a
Knowledge (XXG) policy.
77:
1261:. His height is clearly notable but its exact value is unclear and so would best appear in a 'disputed/uncertain' section of the list. Not a problem and nothing that we aren't doing already in the main article
1040:
demonstrate the encyclopaedic nature of such lists. The main objection made above is that this is some sort of slur but that is obvious nonsense in the case of tall men, for example. This is not reason but
1215:. This would rank the people by height and only include them if they were noted for this. The existing four lists could then be redirects. This would simplify maintenance and make the tone more neutral
1192:
The lists cited above use the superlative form but they contain more than one entry and so are, in fact, list of massive, fast, large things. It's the content that matters, not the exact name and usage.
1474:
unusually vulnerable emotionally to unintended slights. I, who am stronger, must protect you." This condescending urge, and it's concomitant baseless assertion of superiority, must be resisted.
1311:
1067:
pass the relevant policies and guidelines. The main objections to the lists include: there is no objective definition of what constitutes "tall" or "short" so the list suffers from
145:
1305:
encyclopedia. There is no way we are getting authoritative sources that define what is short and what is tall across cultures, races and nations. These lists are indiscriminate. —
131:
550:
What exactly is the definition for "tall" or "short"? I have a friend that I consider short, but then there's people who he considers short. There's no real reason for this list.
72:
649:
I took off all males above 4'11". I'm still not sure it should be kept, but presumably there is few to no nations with an average male height that's near that short.--
1105:
their height should appear in one of these lists is a matter of notability - a test that is routinely applied by you and other editors. In the case of someone like
584:-These articles are rather irrelevant and difficult to verify because there always discussion about starting the tall men list with 6'4" or 6'6" or 6'7" and so on.
966:
1397:
reimplemented after a deletion. That is quite enough of this article being nominated for deletion. Hell, with a bit of work, this could be a featured list.
962:
1306:
1016:
140:
1020:
1012:
269:
264:
565:
1455:
are not exhaustive. And even if they were and these lists didn't fall under one of them, it still fails numerous other policies and guidelines.
273:
223:
218:
1011:
A difficulty is that we, well you all I don't consider myself a
Wikipedian, have featured lists that refer to height or length extremes. See
227:
104:
99:
1037:
256:
177:
172:
108:
210:
181:
1541:
1529:
1508:
1491:
1478:
1459:
1442:
1421:
1401:
1387:
1383:
1350:
1333:
1316:
1295:
1265:
1252:
1242:
1232:
1219:
1197:
1187:
1174:
1135:
1121:
1095:
1049:
1027:
1002:
981:
949:
929:
911:
901:
887:
860:
831:
819:
794:
781:
764:
748:
732:
712:
699:
687:
653:
639:
616:
602:
588:
572:
542:
526:
513:
500:
487:
471:
455:
438:
400:
388:
366:
354:
329:
312:
150:
91:
56:
596:. On what viewpoint does the list based from? 5'3" might be short on some areas of the world while they are average on some areas. --
17:
164:
961:
The PC basis for this proposal can be seen by considering other lists which are likewise based upon an extreme dimension such as:
321:
There may also be BLP issues here. Whilst we may record someone's height, for us to decree them 'short' may be problematic. I hear
1487:
Your screed against political correctness in no way addresses the policy and guideline issues raised in the course of this AFD.
1091:
concerns. It's just a bit more serious than your flip attempt to dismiss it with "I don't like it" seems to take into account.
874:
it, you want to search out articles on people who are notable for their height, and this would be an excellent place to start.
725:
522:
argument. Nobody has said that it's offensive to note someone's height or that anyone should be ashamed of their height.
1151:
1033:
995:
1413:
as inherently subjective lists, with entirely arbitrary criteria for inclusion: these lists are the very definition of '
721:
1559:
36:
341:- subjective, unsourced, doesn't even use the same units throughout. Who is Knowledge (XXG) to call someone short? --
941:
It is definitely not snowing. This is not a vote and there are serious objections being made to deletion. This is
479:- no possible objective standard of what constitutes being "tall" or "short" so by definition this is unsalvageable
970:
348:
1558:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
680:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1042:
757:
260:
214:
448:
95:
1371:
168:
1379:
1114:
974:
1398:
1249:
1229:
1228:
No. That's even more POV - define 'unusual'- usual for what and says who. Delete all subjective lists.--
898:
630:
326:
309:
926:
585:
1538:
1524:
1439:
1418:
1262:
1239:
1216:
1194:
1118:
1046:
978:
946:
709:
674:
252:
1501:
1475:
1088:
206:
1154:
was a valid reason for keeping an article your examples would still be irrelevant. "List of high
883:-- what somebody else thought was significant about the person's height -- that is of use here.
1375:
1330:
1171:
1023:. If these had limited themselves to tallest or shortest people they might have done better.--
761:
553:
523:
435:
87:
62:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1068:
828:
160:
1452:
1434:
1414:
1364:
1326:
1084:
1080:
1076:
429:
409:
1184:
1132:
1024:
815:
729:
650:
613:
397:
1110:
1072:
480:
778:
745:
539:
509:
whatever height you set as the maximum or minimum for inclusion, it's still arbitrary.
497:
426:
By that policy we should only have lists of people who are famous for being tall/short.
345:
1322:
1505:
1488:
1456:
1291:
1092:
999:
845:
634:
597:
510:
484:
468:
383:
377:
908:
884:
626:
452:
1258:
396:: subjective criteria of inclusion, more a trivia list than an encyclopedia list.
290:
244:
198:
125:
791:
50:
720:
I worked hard to keep these, but I don't think they've gotten any better. Also
538:
The time tested "straw man" argument. This one has P.C. written all over it.
1106:
811:
363:
322:
1346:
encyclopedically, include this information. Refactor to reduce PC objection.
1183:
If this is deleted could "tallest men" or "shortest men" lists be allowed?--
519:
342:
1211:
An option which might be considered is to merge all four lists into one of
1286:
840:
696:
1347:
998:
does not serve as a basis or justification for keeping this article.
1325:, but that's not the only Knowledge (XXG) policy. It still fails on
362:
unfair list, combining dwarfism with people who happen to be short.
308:
Indeed biologically height has varied over time and between races.--
973:. Such lists seem highly encyclopaedic as the evergreen reference
1552:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
994:
by any reasonable reading of the debate. Further, the fact that
1166:
massive stars" could only be quoted in support of "List of tall
695:
this idea may be salvageable in some form but this isn't it.
1063:?" and it does not make a whit of difference as to whether
1537:
This article is clearly the best, and it should be kept.
790:
This is
Knowledge (XXG), not Martha Stewart's book club.
1248:
can I remove him. THere's no way to be objective here.--
78:
Articles for deletion/List of short men (2nd nomination)
1363:
If these lists are to be kept (which I still oppose on
728:
probably cover the most relevant entries well enough.--
286:
282:
278:
240:
236:
232:
194:
190:
186:
121:
117:
113:
1045:
about which you seem to be notoriously unreasonable.
633:
00:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC) (Cookie expired on me! --
629:
suggests that 5'3" is average in our country though--
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
156:I am also nominating the following related pages:
1562:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1257:The article on Napoleon discusses the matter at
925:per all, all, all of the above. It's snowing.
1071:problems; the list suffers from impermissible
839:for the same reasons noted above by others. —
827:. Arbitrary criteria and indiscriminate info.
1162:optical refracting telescopes", and "List of
967:List of largest optical refracting telescopes
625:I'm ok if most countries view that as short.
8:
1158:points in the United Kingdom", "List of larg
963:List of highest points in the United Kingdom
1500:Plus this comment is the only contribution
1017:List of tallest buildings in San Francisco
760:is not a valid reason to keep an article.
582:Delete all lists of tall and short humans!
1435:indiscriminate collections of information
1415:indiscriminate collections of information
1021:List of longest suspension bridge spans
1013:List of tallest buildings in Providence
846:
467:per obvious. Never going to be NPOV. --
73:Articles for deletion/List of short men
70:
430:WP:BLP#Presumption in favor of privacy
1312:
810:irrelevant collection of information.
146:
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
1504:has ever made to Knowledge (XXG). --
1117:no original research is required.
69:
1109:, their notability is evident and
24:
1321:Yes, this may well comply with
876:Maintenance & verification:
1:
1542:20:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
1530:07:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
1509:07:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
1492:03:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
1479:20:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
1460:03:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
1443:23:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
1422:05:44, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
1402:00:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
1388:09:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
1351:07:14, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
744:, and that's a good thing! •
726:List of people with gigantism
671:- these are totally useless.
57:20:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
1334:20:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
1317:18:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
1296:16:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
1266:23:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
1253:23:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
1243:23:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
1233:21:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
1220:19:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
1198:22:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
1188:10:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
1175:14:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
1136:00:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
1122:23:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
1096:20:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
1050:19:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
1028:23:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
1003:19:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
982:19:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
950:18:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
930:17:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
912:05:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
902:17:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
888:15:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
861:12:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
832:05:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
820:04:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
795:02:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
782:01:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
765:00:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
749:00:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
733:23:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
722:List of people with dwarfism
713:22:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
700:21:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
688:20:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
654:04:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
640:00:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
617:23:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
603:20:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
589:20:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
573:17:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
543:23:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
527:18:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
514:18:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
501:17:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
488:16:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
472:14:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
456:14:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
439:14:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
401:14:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
389:12:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
367:11:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
355:11:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
330:11:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
313:11:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
151:11:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
1036:. Such common examples as
1579:
977:consists of little else.
971:List of most massive stars
1213:People of unusual stature
325:has lawyer on standby .--
1555:Please do not modify it.
1115:Guinness Book of Records
975:Guinness Book of Records
447:This AfD nomination was
32:Please do not modify it.
1353:(got logged off somehow
1451:The examples noted at
68:AfDs for this article:
1535:Keep List of tall men
1075:issues; the list has
871:Encyclopedic purpose:
1308:Nearly Headless Nick
1038:List of fastest cars
451:. It is listed now.
142:Nearly Headless Nick
1433:The definitions of
1152:WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS
996:WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS
253:List of short women
1032:This is more than
207:List of tall women
1390:
1374:comment added by
1073:original research
818:
773:I know. But it's
481:original research
387:
353:
88:List of short men
63:List of short men
1570:
1557:
1527:
1369:
1314:
1309:
858:
857:
853:
849:
843:
814:
777:a good thing. •
683:
677:
637:
600:
562:
559:
556:
381:
351:
294:
276:
248:
230:
202:
184:
161:List of tall men
148:
143:
129:
111:
53:
34:
1578:
1577:
1573:
1572:
1571:
1569:
1568:
1567:
1566:
1560:deletion review
1553:
1525:
1307:
1111:reported widely
1043:I don't like it
1034:many precedents
959:Further comment
927:Henrik Ebeltoft
855:
851:
847:
841:
740:- Because it's
681:
675:
635:
598:
569:
560:
557:
554:
267:
251:
221:
205:
175:
159:
141:
102:
86:
83:
66:
51:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1576:
1574:
1565:
1564:
1547:
1545:
1544:
1539:Freddy Krueger
1532:
1516:
1515:
1514:
1513:
1512:
1511:
1495:
1494:
1482:
1481:
1467:
1466:
1465:
1464:
1463:
1462:
1446:
1445:
1440:Colonel Warden
1425:
1424:
1407:
1406:
1405:
1404:
1391:
1355:
1354:
1339:
1338:
1337:
1336:
1319:
1299:
1298:
1277:
1276:
1275:
1274:
1273:
1272:
1271:
1270:
1269:
1268:
1263:Colonel Warden
1240:Colonel Warden
1223:
1222:
1217:Colonel Warden
1205:
1204:
1203:
1202:
1201:
1200:
1195:Colonel Warden
1190:
1178:
1177:
1147:
1146:
1145:
1144:
1143:
1142:
1141:
1140:
1139:
1138:
1125:
1124:
1119:Colonel Warden
1099:
1098:
1079:implications;
1053:
1052:
1047:Colonel Warden
1030:
1006:
1005:
985:
984:
979:Colonel Warden
955:
954:
953:
952:
947:Colonel Warden
933:
932:
919:
918:
917:
916:
915:
914:
891:
890:
864:
863:
834:
822:
804:
803:
802:
801:
800:
799:
798:
797:
785:
784:
768:
767:
758:WP:INTERESTING
752:
751:
735:
715:
710:Colonel Warden
702:
690:
665:
664:
663:
662:
661:
660:
659:
658:
657:
656:
644:
643:
620:
619:
606:
605:
591:
576:
575:
564:
545:
532:
531:
530:
529:
516:
504:
503:
490:
474:
461:
460:
459:
458:
442:
441:
433:
427:
424:
423:
422:
414:
413:
403:
391:
369:
357:
335:
334:
333:
332:
316:
315:
300:
298:
297:
296:
295:
249:
203:
136:
135:
82:
81:
80:
75:
67:
65:
60:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1575:
1563:
1561:
1556:
1550:
1549:
1548:
1543:
1540:
1536:
1533:
1531:
1528:
1521:
1518:
1517:
1510:
1507:
1503:
1499:
1498:
1497:
1496:
1493:
1490:
1486:
1485:
1484:
1483:
1480:
1477:
1472:
1469:
1468:
1461:
1458:
1454:
1450:
1449:
1448:
1447:
1444:
1441:
1436:
1432:
1429:
1428:
1427:
1426:
1423:
1420:
1416:
1412:
1409:
1408:
1403:
1400:
1399:96.225.64.203
1395:
1392:
1389:
1385:
1381:
1377:
1373:
1366:
1362:
1359:
1358:
1357:
1356:
1352:
1349:
1344:
1341:
1340:
1335:
1332:
1328:
1324:
1320:
1318:
1315:
1310:
1303:
1302:
1301:
1300:
1297:
1293:
1289:
1288:
1282:
1279:
1278:
1267:
1264:
1260:
1256:
1255:
1254:
1251:
1246:
1245:
1244:
1241:
1236:
1235:
1234:
1231:
1227:
1226:
1225:
1224:
1221:
1218:
1214:
1210:
1207:
1206:
1199:
1196:
1191:
1189:
1186:
1182:
1181:
1180:
1179:
1176:
1173:
1169:
1165:
1161:
1157:
1153:
1149:
1148:
1137:
1134:
1129:
1128:
1127:
1126:
1123:
1120:
1116:
1112:
1108:
1103:
1102:
1101:
1100:
1097:
1094:
1090:
1086:
1082:
1078:
1074:
1070:
1066:
1062:
1057:
1056:
1055:
1054:
1051:
1048:
1044:
1039:
1035:
1031:
1029:
1026:
1022:
1018:
1014:
1010:
1009:
1008:
1007:
1004:
1001:
997:
993:
989:
988:
987:
986:
983:
980:
976:
972:
968:
964:
960:
957:
956:
951:
948:
944:
940:
937:
936:
935:
934:
931:
928:
924:
921:
920:
913:
910:
905:
904:
903:
900:
895:
894:
893:
892:
889:
886:
882:
877:
872:
869:
866:
865:
862:
859:
854:
844:
838:
835:
833:
830:
826:
823:
821:
817:
813:
809:
806:
805:
796:
793:
789:
788:
787:
786:
783:
780:
776:
772:
771:
770:
769:
766:
763:
759:
756:
755:
754:
753:
750:
747:
743:
739:
736:
734:
731:
727:
723:
719:
716:
714:
711:
706:
703:
701:
698:
694:
691:
689:
685:
684:
678:
670:
667:
666:
655:
652:
648:
647:
646:
645:
641:
638:
632:
631:125.212.21.31
628:
624:
623:
622:
621:
618:
615:
610:
609:
608:
607:
604:
601:
595:
592:
590:
587:
583:
580:
579:
578:
577:
574:
571:
570:
567:
566:Editor review
563:
549:
548:Strong delete
546:
544:
541:
537:
534:
533:
528:
525:
521:
517:
515:
512:
508:
507:
506:
505:
502:
499:
494:
491:
489:
486:
482:
478:
475:
473:
470:
466:
463:
462:
457:
454:
450:
446:
445:
444:
443:
440:
437:
434:
432:also applies.
431:
428:
425:
421:
418:
417:
416:
415:
411:
407:
404:
402:
399:
395:
392:
390:
385:
380:
379:
373:
370:
368:
365:
361:
358:
356:
350:
347:
344:
340:
337:
336:
331:
328:
324:
320:
319:
318:
317:
314:
311:
306:
303:
302:
301:
292:
288:
284:
280:
275:
271:
266:
262:
258:
254:
250:
246:
242:
238:
234:
229:
225:
220:
216:
212:
208:
204:
200:
196:
192:
188:
183:
179:
174:
170:
166:
162:
158:
157:
155:
154:
153:
152:
149:
144:
133:
127:
123:
119:
115:
110:
106:
101:
97:
93:
89:
85:
84:
79:
76:
74:
71:
64:
61:
59:
58:
55:
54:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1554:
1551:
1546:
1534:
1519:
1470:
1453:WP:NOT#IINFO
1430:
1410:
1393:
1376:Phil Bridger
1360:
1342:
1331:Phil Bridger
1285:
1280:
1259:great length
1212:
1208:
1172:Phil Bridger
1167:
1163:
1159:
1155:
1081:WP:NOT#IINFO
1064:
1060:
992:no consensus
991:
990:This is not
958:
943:no consensus
942:
938:
922:
880:
875:
870:
867:
850:
836:
824:
807:
774:
762:Phil Bridger
741:
737:
717:
704:
692:
672:
668:
627:Human height
593:
581:
552:
551:
547:
535:
524:Phil Bridger
492:
476:
464:
436:Phil Bridger
419:
405:
393:
376:
371:
359:
338:
304:
299:
137:
49:
45:
43:
31:
28:
1370:—Preceding
1170:men" etc.
1065:these lists
907:same thing.
829:Masaruemoto
808:Delete all
742:interesting
669:Delete all!
360:Delete all:
1520:Delete all
1411:Delete all
1365:WP:NOT#DIR
1327:WP:NOT#DIR
1209:Suggestion
1185:T. Anthony
1133:T. Anthony
1131:tallest.--
1107:Bao Xishun
1087:concerns;
1085:WP:NOT#DIR
1083:concerns;
1025:T. Anthony
923:Delete all
837:Delete all
825:Delete all
730:T. Anthony
693:Delete all
651:T. Anthony
614:T. Anthony
518:This is a
477:Delete all
449:incomplete
410:WP:NOT#DIR
406:Delete all
394:Delete all
339:Delete all
323:Tom Cruise
46:delete all
1089:WP:TRIVIA
812:≈ jossi ≈
682:lifeguard
612:really.--
540:Mandsford
520:straw man
498:Mandsford
1506:Folantin
1489:Otto4711
1471:Keep all
1457:Otto4711
1419:Terraxos
1384:contribs
1372:unsigned
1343:Keep all
1281:Keep all
1150:Even if
1093:Otto4711
1000:Otto4711
636:Lenticel
599:Lenticel
594:Question
511:Otto4711
493:Keep all
485:Otto4711
469:Folantin
132:View log
1502:Drawyar
1476:Drawyar
1431:Hardly:
1361:Comment
1069:WP:NPOV
939:Comment
909:Noroton
885:Noroton
881:remarks
718:Comment
453:DumbBOT
270:protect
265:history
224:protect
219:history
178:protect
173:history
105:protect
100:history
1077:WP:BLP
816:(talk)
792:JuJube
779:Anakin
746:Anakin
586:D@rk K
536:Aw Gee
465:Delete
372:Delete
352:(st47)
346:ʎʇɹnoɟ
305:Delete
274:delete
228:delete
182:delete
109:delete
52:Kurykh
1526:Maser
1019:, or
775:still
412:says:
398:Tizio
384:Help!
364:Danny
343:uǝʌǝs
291:views
283:watch
279:links
245:views
237:watch
233:links
199:views
191:watch
187:links
126:views
118:watch
114:links
16:<
1394:Keep
1380:talk
1323:WP:V
1292:talk
1164:most
1061:this
868:Keep
738:Keep
724:and
705:Keep
676:Mike
287:logs
261:talk
257:edit
241:logs
215:talk
211:edit
195:logs
169:talk
165:edit
122:logs
96:talk
92:edit
1417:'.
1313:{C}
1287:DGG
1250:Doc
1230:Doc
1168:est
1160:est
1156:est
945:.
899:Doc
842:Hex
697:JJL
686:|
378:Guy
327:Doc
310:Doc
147:{C}
130:– (
1386:)
1382:•
1348:ww
1329:.
1294:)
1015:,
969:,
965:,
897:--
856:❞)
852:?!
848:(❝
673:–
561:24
483:.
408::
349:ʇs
289:|
285:|
281:|
277:|
272:|
268:|
263:|
259:|
243:|
239:|
235:|
231:|
226:|
222:|
217:|
213:|
197:|
193:|
189:|
185:|
180:|
176:|
171:|
167:|
124:|
120:|
116:|
112:|
107:|
103:|
98:|
94:|
48:.
1378:(
1290:(
679:.
642:)
568:)
558:F
555:N
386:)
382:(
293:)
255:(
247:)
209:(
201:)
163:(
134:)
128:)
90:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.