786:; that is, understanding and accepting what an appropriate level of summary detail is in a survey article written for a general interest encyclopedia. We see this problem frequently in our sports articles wherein even some experienced contributors have difficulty in distinguishing trivia from material facts; the problem, however is not peculiar to sports articles and is, in fact, a recurring issue to a greater or lesser degree throughout Knowledge. As an example, it's one thing to state that John F. Kennedy attended the Choate School, produced a middling academic record, gained a reputation as something of a rebel, and provide noteworthy details as illustrative examples. It's quite another thing to create wikitables that list Kennedy's grades in each and every individual class he took over his four years of high school, with a running tally of his calculated cumulative grade point average on a semester-by-semester basis.
808:. Virtually no general interest reader gives a rat's furry little backside what the Longhorns' all-time record is against, for instance, the Idaho Vandals. As noted above, there are entire websites dedicated to compiling, recording and reporting the all-time head-to-head win-loss records of college football teams in tabular format, and there is no real value in copying such data from such stats sites to Knowledge and trying to maintain it when the dedicated sources do a much better job of maintaining such statistics then Knowledge ever could hope to do. That's the purpose of linked footnotes and "external links" sections, i.e., further reading. Trying to replicate the Longhorns' media guide or dedicated CFB statistics sites is folly.
215:"Knowledge articles should not be . . . xcessive listings of statistics. Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of our articles. In addition, articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader. In cases where this may be necessary, (e.g. Nationwide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2012), consider using tables to enhance the readability of lengthy data lists. Where it is not necessary, as in the main article United States presidential election, 2012, omit excess statistics altogether and summarize any necessary data concisely."
840:. Notice Cal does not have a rivalry Texas. Is there a problem with maintaining such information? Possibly. The Texas page was not frequently updated, but I should note that a number of college football lists fall behind on this measure as well. That being said series records pages for other teams are well maintained. Do other sites do a better job of handling this information? I have added more context to the page to alleviate the NOTSTATS and GNG worry and I think that may address this worry as well. That being said, dedicated sources also do a better job of recording things like
918:. Shatterdaymorn has come along and added the kind of text-based contextual significance that articles like this one need (and that, really, so few of our list-class CFB articles currently have, unfortunately). Right now, 14 years into the Knowledge experiment, there are only ten such lists currently in existence, so I find the idea that there will suddenly be hundreds of such lists to maintain to be an exaggeration, at best. And, as far as the whole "well, this stuff is already available elsewhere" argument, need I remind anyone of
377:? The table doesn't represent excessive statistics. It is similar to a season by season list, but instead focuses on the team vs. team results. Representing the information this way highlight different features. This table tells you who Texas has played, when they first played, when they last played, and also who they have not played. This is information you can not easily discover if you consult just the season by season records of the team or the
437:
Warehouse, Sports-Reference.com), the Texas
Longhorns website (texassports.com/), the Longhorns football media guide, Longhorns fan sites (e.g., burntorangenation.com), other user-contributed fan websites (e.g., Bleacher Report), the Big XII Conference media guide and records, the NCAA's various record books, or the UT student newspaper, yearbook, alumni magazine, and other publications of the university or its athletic department.
848:, but I don't think that makes those lists also subject to deletion. Also, please don't intimate that this is just a copied data dump. Notice, I constructed a table to present the information. This was by no means a simple feat. It was something that required a days of work. These debates are suppose to be rational, civil, and respectful and your tone (e.g., "gives a rat's furry little backside") is failing that.
1042:
and the rest of its sort. Non-Discriminate list of information, if not downright plagiarism of other works such as CFBDW. Their current Big XII opponents records is already in the main article as this is standard practice for CFB team pages. The rivals records should be listed as prose in any section
966:
You also misunderstand and misrepresent WP:PRESERVE: it is not a get-out-of-jail-free card for non-notable subjects . . . It says "Preserve appropriate content. As long as any facts or ideas would belong in an encyclopedia, they should be retained in
Knowledge." Note the emphasis on "appropriate";
866:
for specific rivalries (where it makes sense). The only time I see this otherwise brought up is when team X plays team Y for a specific game and it is a random factoid the color commentators bring up. More specifically, because this type of win-loss record keeping is not a regular way of presenting
555:
In considering NOTSTATS and providing context, there is none here, which is why it applies. Yet the data about the
Longhorns vs A&M (that rivalry itself a notable topic) would be fine on the rivalry page, while an overall W-L summation would be appropriate on the overall team page in discussing
536:
to opt against a stand-alone list/article. In this case, I would exercise our editorial judgment to avoid such articles for two reasons. First, I have concerns about our ability to maintain such sprawling lists, as the data at issue is massive (particularly if there are such lists for hundreds of
799:
This list of the
Longhorns' all-time series win-loss records fails LISTN, and simply merging this entire list of mostly trivia to the Texas Longhorns football main article would overwhelm it with mostly trivial stats in the same way that including tabular representations of young Kennedy's report
657:
In regard to the worry over maintaining such data, I do understand the concern. I have made pages like this for other major football teams near the top in total overall wins (Alabama, Notre Dame, and
Michigan) and those have been fairly well maintained in the years they have been available (since
454:
was meant to exclude. There is no significant collective coverage of the actual list topic as a group, the article is nothing more than a list of over 100 win-loss records of the
Longhorns vs. their all-time opponents, and the stats have been copied from one or more of the college football stats
886:
Shatterdaymorn, Masem: I think it's fine to note win-loss records between two opponents in articles about specific games, i.e. bowl games and other games that are historically significant enough to warrant a stand-alone article. It also may be worthwhile to note such records in the game detail
581:
I think we are largely in agreement, Masem. The list here lacks any context, but that could be cured with little effort by simply adding narrative text providing such context. For this reason, I see NOTSTATS as a red herring and not a good reason for deleting. I believe the stronger and more
436:
in multiple, independent, secondary sources, as a group. That means retrospective newspaper articles, magazine articles and books that discuss the
Longhorns football series records, as a group, against their opponents. That does not include sports stats websites (e.g., College Football Data
385:
since all-time record versus a team is frequently cited when discussing an up-coming game. The article could use more explanatory prose, but that is just a reason for expansion not deletion. Note: I am the original author of the page though I have not updated this page for a while. (Sorry for
428:, with significant coverage of the Longhorns football team in hundreds, if not thousands of independent, reliable secondary sources, but that does not mean that the all-time series records of the Longhorns vs. their opponents are likewise notable per GNG. The topic of this list -- "
756:
However, I've never seen in summary articles outside of WP of stat tables that build out the overall historical records of a team against all other teams it plays against, outside of key rivalries. It's the level of resolution that would still be a problem in the main article.
285:. While the team's overall win-loss record or even season by season is reasonable to keep in other articles, specific team-based win-losses make no sense, though I believe that the Longhorns do have a notable rivalry with one team that can be documented there. --
967:
non-notable subjects do not get "preserved" as stand-alone articles. Period. First address the notability of the specific list topic; absent the notability of a stand-alone subject, you may "preserve" content as part of another article if it's appropriate.
492:, it remains my view that a number of editors (including some deletionists) have incorrectly interpreted NOTSTATS. Its purpose, as I understand it, is to require context for stats and to avoid pure data dumps. If there is a statistical list that is notable
948:
You rely on so many faulty premises and make so many bad assumptions, EJ, that it's difficult to know where to start . . . First, you say, "Just because it's available now, doesn't mean that it always will be." -- Do you think think that the official
616:
Thank you, Shatterdaymorn. I think your edits have now mooted any NOTSTATS issue. That said, I still lean slightly toward deleting for the reasons outlined above, though I will keep an open mind. Let's see what others have to add to the discussion.
658:
2012) though the Texas one has not fared well. Do such list need to exist for every team? Probably not, but for teams that claim significant historical pedigree these lists help to explain that in a way that merely stating the pedigree does not.
631:
The additions do not alleviate the NOTSTATS issue. You are simply summarizing the stats, not putting them into larger context of why its overall record against any other team is significant. This potentially edgesd on original research as well.
166:
1108:, which requires that the grouping to be discussed by independent, reliable sources. Rivalries would meet coverage for a series with an individual team, but non-rivaries usually just mention the overall record in passing, Concerns with
517:
862:"Are cumulative win-loss records against their individual opponents worthy of note?" No, based on the lack of this information provided by secondary reliable source on team records across all sports and level of professionalism
800:
cards would overwhelm the John F. Kennedy article. What would be a typical resolution of our particular problem would be to include a much reduced table with the
Longhorns' cumulative win-loss records against their individual
1021:. The Texas longhorns football main article already includes tables for the win-loss series records for the Longhorns rivals and current members of the Big XII Conference. What else would you like to see included?
556:
how successful the team has been over it's history. Your other examples are cases where things like achieving 200 wins as a coach is a notable means to represent successful coaches (based on a check at Google). --
306:
957:.)? This is exactly the sort of trivia that media guides exist to present, and almost all CFB media guides include. Official team media guides -- whether hard-copy or web-based -- are not going away.
160:
922:? Just because it's available now, doesn't mean that it always will be. And, adding the information into the main Longhorns page would just result in over burdening and cluttering up the main
508:
has noted elsewere, if NOTSTATS was a valid basis for deleting statistical listings regardless of notability, it could be used to support deletion of highly notable statistical lists such as:
92:
87:
96:
205:, for lack of significant discussion as a group and coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Moreover, this list of statistics also violates the spirit, if not the letter of
346:
79:
485:
705:
Test case. There have been too many thinly decided sports-related list cases, and the goal was to nominate one and thrash out the arguments here before proceeding with the rest.
1083:
I respect the effort to create this list. It looks to me like it is something that would be better served by a link to an external website that hosts this data. The list is
119:
1064:
argument. Not especially in favor of a merge/redirect situation, as the parent article already has the appropriate content, and its not especially a good search term...
601:
I have added additional commentary to address the NOTSTATS complaint and some additional citations to try to make it better fit with people's interpretations of GNG.
126:
845:
509:
455:
websites. Given that the topic is not notable per GNG and LISTN, no amount of added explanatory text will rectify the problem absent significant coverage of the
326:
258:
834:
Are cumulative win-loss records against their individual opponents worthy of note? In typical game previews, such information is frequently noted. For example
1142:
238:
481:
726:- Let's not throw the baby out with the bath water. This sort of statistical information does have a place within Knowledge, even if it does not merit a
181:
500:
emphasizes precisely this: "To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources." As
378:
148:
676:
per nominator's comments regarding lack of notability and Cbl62's arguments. Why was this not a group nomination for all of the articles found in
537:
college football programs) and changes with great frequency. Second, the same data sets are published off
Knowledge by organizations (e.g.,
1154:
1133:
1096:
1075:
1052:
1030:
1001:
976:
939:
896:
879:
857:
817:
769:
747:
714:
689:
644:
626:
591:
568:
550:
468:
395:
358:
338:
318:
297:
270:
250:
230:
61:
926:
article, which is the whole reason why it was split out into a separate list article in the first place. IMHO, this information should be
386:
deleting the PROD without explanation. I have never had one of my pages proposed for deletion and did it to stop the automatic deletion).
142:
988:
an abbreviated table of the current and former Big 12 teams (and maybe a few others, such as old
Southwest Conference rivals) into the
950:
838:
677:
138:
83:
188:
17:
429:
75:
67:
496:, NOTSTATS suggests that any such listing should have contextual narrative text and citations. The introductory sentence of
841:
835:
513:
1150:
154:
953:
is going to stop publishing all-time series record data, as they have every year for the last 30+ years (see p. 208
1174:
40:
1117:
1048:
1018:
989:
923:
853:
735:
663:
606:
417:
391:
520:, etc. IMO, the real issue is not whether such lists are precluded under NOTSTATS. Rather, as suggested by
221:
This article was previously PROD'ed, but the article creator removed the PROD template without explanation.
1146:
1092:
1084:
1070:
849:
659:
602:
387:
1170:
1026:
972:
813:
710:
464:
354:
334:
314:
266:
246:
226:
36:
538:
533:
1044:
935:
927:
420:
team is clearly notable per the notability guidelines for sports teams and other organizations per
174:
1121:
1113:
892:
743:
685:
497:
489:
451:
206:
1129:
1088:
1065:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1169:
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
1022:
968:
809:
706:
460:
350:
330:
310:
262:
242:
222:
57:
532:
and whether, even if the subject is notable, we ought to exercise editorial judgment under
1109:
1105:
997:
875:
765:
640:
622:
587:
564:
546:
529:
370:
293:
930:
somewhere, and it's probably best, easiest, and most logical to just keep it right here.
931:
503:
202:
1061:
888:
739:
700:
681:
425:
421:
382:
374:
282:
198:
582:
appropriate grounds for deletion are those summarized (hopefully, correctly) above.
407:- I think you misunderstand several of the Knowledge guidelines involved here. . . .
1125:
730:
article. In this case, I think the information would be best presented as a chart
523:
113:
53:
1012:
993:
868:
758:
633:
618:
583:
557:
542:
286:
518:
List of NCAA Division I FBS running backs with at least 5,000 rushing yards
459:
topic of the list in multiple, independent, reliable secondary sources.
369:
The Texas Longhorns are a historically significant college football team
541:) that are better equipped to perform regular updates of the data.
1163:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
1087:
but that's only one measure (and is not inclusionary anyway).--
480:. These types of lists have been discussed at some length at
307:
list of United States of America-related deletion discussions
919:
373:
with extensive coverage of their history. Does it fail
109:
105:
101:
347:
list of American football-related deletion discussions
173:
528:, the real issues here are whether the lists satisfy
867:
these stats, we should not be doing it ourselves. --
1043:of the main page article and in the rivalry page.
678:Category:College football all-time series records
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1177:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1019:Texas Longhorns football#Culture & Rivalries
846:List of college football coaches with 200 wins
510:List of college football coaches with 200 wins
187:
8:
1141:Note: This debate has been included in the
345:Note: This debate has been included in the
325:Note: This debate has been included in the
305:Note: This debate has been included in the
257:Note: This debate has been included in the
237:Note: This debate has been included in the
327:list of Events-related deletion discussions
259:list of Sports-related deletion discussions
1143:list of Texas-related deletion discussions
1140:
344:
324:
304:
256:
239:list of Lists-related deletion discussions
236:
450:the type of excessive list of stats that
381:. This information is certainly notable
379:List of Texas Longhorns football seasons
430:Texas Longhorns football series records
76:Texas Longhorns football series records
68:Texas Longhorns football series records
7:
951:Texas Longhorns football media guide
197:Non-notable list subject that fails
24:
887:section of team season articles.
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
666:) 07:10 , 2 January 2016 (UTC)
609:) 07:10 , 2 January 2016 (UTC)
1:
842:List of NCAA football records
782:Masem, the problem is one of
514:List of NCAA football records
1155:22:27, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
1134:22:19, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
1097:16:41, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
1076:15:10, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
1053:05:01, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
1031:06:42, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
1002:21:31, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
977:21:08, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
940:20:17, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
897:04:29, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
880:03:57, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
858:07:26, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
818:18:01, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
770:15:26, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
748:14:12, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
715:07:23, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
690:07:07, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
645:13:41, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
627:07:52, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
592:06:05, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
569:05:56, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
551:05:23, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
469:03:05, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
396:02:35, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
359:01:18, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
339:00:50, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
319:00:50, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
298:00:46, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
271:00:15, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
251:23:59, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
231:23:24, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
62:01:20, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
1194:
992:article and cut the rest.
1166:Please do not modify it.
1118:Texas Longhorns football
990:Texas Longhorns football
924:Texas Longhorns football
736:Texas Longhorns football
418:Texas Longhorns football
32:Please do not modify it.
432:" -- has not received
52:. Consensus is clear.
1116:precludes a merge to
804:and other identified
494:and not indisciminate
802:conference opponents
434:significant coverage
784:editorial judgment
486:here in Sept. 2015
1157:
1147:Shawn in Montreal
806:historical rivals
482:here in Nov. 2015
361:
341:
321:
273:
253:
1185:
1168:
1073:
1068:
1016:
872:
762:
704:
637:
561:
527:
507:
446:Second, this is
290:
192:
191:
177:
129:
117:
99:
34:
1193:
1192:
1188:
1187:
1186:
1184:
1183:
1182:
1181:
1175:deletion review
1164:
1085:WP:DISCRIMINATE
1071:
1066:
1010:
870:
760:
698:
635:
559:
521:
501:
288:
134:
125:
90:
74:
71:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1191:
1189:
1180:
1179:
1159:
1158:
1137:
1136:
1104:Fails to meet
1099:
1078:
1060:- per Masem's
1055:
1045:UCO2009bluejay
1036:
1035:
1034:
1033:
1005:
1004:
982:
981:
980:
979:
961:
960:
959:
958:
943:
942:
912:
911:
910:
909:
908:
907:
906:
905:
904:
903:
902:
901:
900:
899:
850:Shatterdaymorn
825:
824:
823:
822:
821:
820:
792:
791:
790:
789:
788:
787:
775:
774:
773:
772:
751:
750:
720:
719:
718:
717:
693:
692:
670:
669:
668:
667:
660:Shatterdaymorn
654:
653:
652:
651:
650:
649:
648:
647:
629:
611:
610:
603:Shatterdaymorn
596:
595:
574:
573:
572:
571:
478:Lean to delete
474:
473:
472:
471:
441:
440:
439:
438:
411:
410:
409:
408:
399:
398:
388:Shatterdaymorn
363:
362:
342:
322:
301:
300:
275:
274:
254:
219:
218:
217:
216:
195:
194:
131:
70:
65:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1190:
1178:
1176:
1172:
1167:
1161:
1160:
1156:
1152:
1148:
1144:
1139:
1138:
1135:
1131:
1127:
1123:
1119:
1115:
1111:
1107:
1103:
1100:
1098:
1094:
1090:
1089:Paul McDonald
1086:
1082:
1079:
1077:
1074:
1069:
1063:
1059:
1056:
1054:
1050:
1046:
1041:
1038:
1037:
1032:
1028:
1024:
1020:
1014:
1009:
1008:
1007:
1006:
1003:
999:
995:
991:
987:
984:
983:
978:
974:
970:
965:
964:
963:
962:
956:
952:
947:
946:
945:
944:
941:
937:
933:
929:
925:
921:
917:
914:
913:
898:
894:
890:
885:
884:
883:
882:
881:
877:
873:
865:
861:
860:
859:
855:
851:
847:
843:
839:
836:
833:
832:
831:
830:
829:
828:
827:
826:
819:
815:
811:
807:
803:
798:
797:
796:
795:
794:
793:
785:
781:
780:
779:
778:
777:
776:
771:
767:
763:
755:
754:
753:
752:
749:
745:
741:
737:
733:
729:
725:
722:
721:
716:
712:
708:
702:
697:
696:
695:
694:
691:
687:
683:
679:
675:
672:
671:
665:
661:
656:
655:
646:
642:
638:
630:
628:
624:
620:
615:
614:
613:
612:
608:
604:
600:
599:
598:
597:
593:
589:
585:
580:
579:
578:
577:
576:
575:
570:
566:
562:
554:
553:
552:
548:
544:
540:
535:
534:WP:PAGEDECIDE
531:
525:
519:
515:
511:
505:
499:
495:
491:
487:
483:
479:
476:
475:
470:
466:
462:
458:
453:
449:
445:
444:
443:
442:
435:
431:
427:
423:
419:
415:
414:
413:
412:
406:
403:
402:
401:
400:
397:
393:
389:
384:
380:
376:
372:
368:
365:
364:
360:
356:
352:
348:
343:
340:
336:
332:
328:
323:
320:
316:
312:
308:
303:
302:
299:
295:
291:
284:
280:
277:
276:
272:
268:
264:
260:
255:
252:
248:
244:
240:
235:
234:
233:
232:
228:
224:
214:
213:
212:
211:
210:
208:
204:
200:
190:
186:
183:
180:
176:
172:
168:
165:
162:
159:
156:
153:
150:
147:
144:
140:
137:
136:Find sources:
132:
128:
124:
121:
115:
111:
107:
103:
98:
94:
89:
85:
81:
77:
73:
72:
69:
66:
64:
63:
59:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1165:
1162:
1101:
1080:
1067:Sergecross73
1057:
1039:
985:
954:
928:WP:PRESERVED
915:
863:
805:
801:
783:
731:
727:
723:
673:
493:
477:
456:
447:
433:
404:
366:
278:
220:
196:
184:
178:
170:
163:
157:
151:
145:
135:
122:
49:
47:
31:
28:
1122:WP:PRESERVE
1114:WP:FANCRUFT
1023:Dirtlawyer1
1017:Please see
969:Dirtlawyer1
810:Dirtlawyer1
728:stand alone
707:Dirtlawyer1
498:WP:NOTSTATS
490:WP:NOTSTATS
461:Dirtlawyer1
452:WP:NOTSTATS
416:First, the
375:WP:NOT#STAT
351:Dirtlawyer1
331:Dirtlawyer1
311:Dirtlawyer1
283:WP:NOT#STAT
263:Dirtlawyer1
243:Dirtlawyer1
223:Dirtlawyer1
209:, to wit:
207:WP:NOTSTATS
161:free images
738:article.
488:. As for
1171:talk page
932:Ejgreen77
504:Ejgreen77
37:talk page
1173:or in a
1110:WP:UNDUE
1106:WP:LISTN
889:Jweiss11
740:Blueboar
701:Jweiss11
682:Jweiss11
530:WP:LISTN
457:specific
371:WP:ORGIN
120:View log
39:or in a
1126:Bagumba
524:Bagumba
448:exactly
405:Comment
203:WP:LIST
167:WP refs
155:scholar
93:protect
88:history
1102:Delete
1081:Delete
1072:msg me
1062:WP:NOT
1058:Delete
1040:Delete
955:et seq
732:within
674:Delete
426:WP:GNG
422:WP:ORG
383:WP:GNG
281:Fails
279:Delete
199:WP:GNG
139:Google
97:delete
54:Drmies
50:delete
1013:Jhn31
994:Jhn31
986:Merge
724:Merge
619:Cbl62
584:Cbl62
543:Cbl62
182:JSTOR
143:books
127:Stats
114:views
106:watch
102:links
16:<
1151:talk
1130:talk
1112:and
1093:talk
1049:talk
1027:talk
998:talk
973:talk
936:talk
920:this
916:Keep
893:talk
871:ASEM
864:save
854:talk
844:and
837:and
814:talk
761:ASEM
744:talk
734:the
711:talk
686:talk
664:talk
636:ASEM
623:talk
607:talk
588:talk
560:ASEM
547:talk
539:here
484:and
465:talk
424:and
392:talk
367:Keep
355:talk
335:talk
315:talk
289:ASEM
267:talk
247:talk
227:talk
201:and
175:FENS
149:news
110:logs
84:talk
80:edit
58:talk
1120:to
189:TWL
118:– (
1153:)
1145:.
1132:)
1124:.—
1095:)
1051:)
1029:)
1000:)
975:)
938:)
895:)
878:)
856:)
816:)
768:)
757:--
746:)
713:)
688:)
680:?
643:)
632:--
625:)
590:)
567:)
549:)
516:,
512:,
467:)
394:)
357:)
349:.
337:)
329:.
317:)
309:.
296:)
269:)
261:.
249:)
241:.
229:)
169:)
112:|
108:|
104:|
100:|
95:|
91:|
86:|
82:|
60:)
1149:(
1128:(
1091:(
1047:(
1025:(
1015::
1011:@
996:(
971:(
934:(
891:(
876:t
874:(
869:M
852:(
812:(
766:t
764:(
759:M
742:(
709:(
703::
699:@
684:(
662:(
641:t
639:(
634:M
621:(
605:(
594:]
586:(
565:t
563:(
558:M
545:(
526::
522:@
506::
502:@
463:(
390:(
353:(
333:(
313:(
294:t
292:(
287:M
265:(
245:(
225:(
193:)
185:·
179:·
171:·
164:·
158:·
152:·
146:·
141:(
133:(
130:)
123:·
116:)
78:(
56:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.