839:, you mean I think the article contains no encyclopedic information of any value and detracts from the project, then yes, I guess that definition of IDONTLIKEIT sums up my argument. The creation of articles of this nature is a blight on the project and does not aid the project in any way, shape or form. It doesn't meet GNG either (a map or gazettal do not meet the "significant coverage" test IMO) and has little or no prospect of doing so in the future. As I said above, a blue link is a promise to a reader and this article breaks that promise. It is a poor article, created for
791:—like this article—that merely restates the title and the location. This article does not even give an elevation! Also, there is little likelihood that this sub-stub will ever be able to be expanded because of a lack of reliable sources containing significant coverage of the article. If we accept the principle that the creation of these sub-stubs is OK (or even should be encouraged) then we weaken the concept that encyclopaedic articles should actually contain encyclopaedic information.
1248:. "All X are notable" is a fallacious argument, we should be arguing on the merits of the individual feature. AussieLegend's identified some interesting points to this end in his arguments above - it's 36m above local landscape, so even if one staggered out the 112km along unformed tracks in a semi-desert area to take a photograph of this thing, one might actually have a little trouble finding it (and that's assuming one wasn't seeing mirages by that point).
1268:. This place is essentially not notable. I follow the arguments of Orderinchaos who knows WA well. It was also created to make a point. Incidentally if these locations are compared with Schools, the argument is not that all schools are notable; it is that all High Schools are notable. Primary and Middle Schools are, as far as I can see, still being deleted. If this hill is to be compared with schools, it is a child care centre. --
714:
easy to calculate the number of hills in
Australia, but the NSW Geographical Names Board says there are 4,217 in NSW. Extrapolating from this a figure of more than 40,000 is likely for the whole country. If "all places with a gazetted name are inherently notable" was indeed true, and I am yet to see evidence of this, we could be in for a lot of stub fixing, as happened with the rivers. Just a thought. --
1222:
that "most High
Schools are found to be notable" to "all High Schools are notable" to now "All schools, be they High Schools, Elementary or Primary Schools, Special Schools etc. are notable". What was a common sense convention has been stretched beyond all recognition. This case is the same and the same argument could be used for the every little rise marked on a map. The "inherent notability"
1351:
That this 'island' is likely to be unique would not be unusual in WA, it would be notable if it wasn't, and reference to named features of the landscape can be of crucial importance. My links often relate to nearby location, 'nearby' being within 100 km! The article is functioning and ready to be built upon when needed.
452:. If all we can say about the feature is that it exists and this is its location, is this encyclopedic coverage. A blue link is a promise to a reader that when they follow the link they will find information of some value rather than a mere restatement of the name of the topic. This article does not meet that promise. --
571:"Walk around and take a picture"? You do know where this is? It's not exactly down the end of Main Street to the left. I'm not sure that there's even drivable roads in that part of the country any more. (Edit: 118km from the nearest drivable road, just checked.) And how do we know "a hill" relates to *this* hill - seems
1221:
I think that is the point that AL is trying to make - there is no policy, it is merely a common outcome. Your schools example is the major reason I am concerned about articles like this that rely on the notion of "inherent notability". The "all schools are notable" argument has grown from a statement
1064:
If the sources provided are considered significant coverage for the purposes of GNG, then surely every street in
Melbourne (the subject of several different street directories, both printed and online) now meets the same standard. To consider a map as a reliable source for the purpose of meeting GNG
713:
In
Australia a hill is defined as "a small portion of the earth’s surface elevated above its surroundings, of lower altitude than a mountain. Generally its altitude is less than 300 metres above the surrounding country but this can change in areas of low relief." Geoscience Australia doesn't make it
732:
I agree with this view. Just from my work with the WA gazettes I can tell you not only that there'd be thousands in WA, but there's actually a few significant ones which either have some history or are used as key trigonometric points and hence have some real world significance. This one is clearly
466:
From the gazette one obtains confirmation of its correct name (as I did here), and the precise location. From a map one learns of the spatial relationship it has with nearby features. In my view the promise of the blue link is satisfactorily fulfilled. I'm not sure there's any scope here for one of
438:
It has a gazetted name. That's one third-party reliable source. No doubt I could go down to my local map shop and buy a 1:100000 topographic map upon which it appears. That's two third-party reliable sources. It meets the notability criteria already. I'm very confident I could find a line or two on
1087:
The coverage is trivial - it points to its existence and location, and nothing more. On that basis even my street would be notable as it's printed in a street directory and listed in its index. On consideration, there's actually *more* printed documentary material about my street, as there is some
419:
That seems a bit of an extension from the convention re: populated place names and I am not sure I have seen it interpreted so widely. It does not seem like a great idea to me. Unlike populated places which by their nature will most likely be the subject of some reliable sources, I am not sure the
1350:
than one, but they are not considered in the discussion above. I have linked to many named locations in this region, hills and outcrops are especially notable in this state, beyond the political, economic or other anthropocentric views they turn out to be quite remarkable and this would be noted.
1362:
A significant population of what? Kangaroos? It's a 36m hill at the bottom of some larger, but still non-notable hills. There's no population at the hill, although Google Earth shows a group of burnt out and abandoned structures 1.5km to the south-west. The "hill" itself doesn't even show up on
1000:
A map or a gazettal on its own cannot be considered "significant coverage" by any definition of the term "significant" that means anything at all. "From other reliable sources, one may obtain the approximate elevation" Where is it? A vague wave towards some unidentified source does not count as
1100:
How does it meet the "significant coverage" requirement? Coverage is not simply listing of the details. If it were, you could justify writing an article on most houses that are for sale since they are usually listed in multiple sources. My business would become notable because it is listed in
1135:
Not true. In
Australia, listings are created by the agent but are not restricted to listing by that agent. House sales are often listed by multiple agents, all independent of the source, especially online. That said, you response doesn't explain how this hill meets the "significant coverage"
975:: Topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. No original research is needed to extract the coordinates from the Gazetteer. From other reliable sources, one may obtain the approximate elevation. Knowledge (XXG) use guidelines such as
553:- That Forrest hill is unnamed in WP. But here we have one that has a name. Wouldn't it be interesting to know why this hill was named Victoria? By whom? Maybe one day one person can put a link from some other article linking to it as Moondyne suggested. Put a stub and let it grow. :-)
439:
its geology and topography in the appropriate publication of the
Geological Survey of Western Australia, which is, after all, extremely thorough in its coverage. The Vegetation Survey of Western Australia is somewhat more patchy, but there may well be a publication that covers it.
1031:
That source says it's an estimation though, so I'm not sure whether it's classed as reliable. A topo map I have here says that the height is 436m. Nearby
Wayabeen Hill is 450m, Yeelah Hill is 466m, Curragibbin Hill is just over 500m and Yeeding Hill is 556m. All of these are
1088:
discussion about its construction in a file at the State
Records Office. Victoria Hill is, as far as I can tell, not mentioned in a single SRO file (a search there turns up nothing, suggesting it wasn't used for a trig point or any other useful purpose).
867:, we are allowing the creation of articles about non-notable entities. If we do that, I could write an article about the mound of dirt in the paddock behind my house because technically, it fits the definition of a hill. --06:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
733:
not one of them. I couldn't imagine an article on
Waukolup Hill for example even though I could actually walk there (unlike this middle-of-nowhere example which seems to have been created to prove a point which it no longer even does successfully).
198:
An entirely non-notable geographic feature. Mere inclusion on a list of geographic features does not make this "hill" notable in the absence of other reliable sources. The creation of this article appears to be linked to a move discussion at
766:. What is "dangerous" about creating stubs, whether this one in particular or a "massive number"? We're not running out of space for new articles, and there's no policy against stubs, which are the way that most articles start out.
167:
953:
again. It says "sources", not source, and clarifies this by stating "Multiple sources are generally expected". It also says "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention" and mere mention of its location is trivial.
1001:"significant coverage" either. A mere assertion that a source exists does not cut it. I agree, WP:N is designed to prevent having the same discussions time after time, and this article and topic do not meet WP:N. --
792:
934:
The coverage is trivial - it points to its existence and location, and nothing more. On that basis even my street would be notable as it's printed in a street directory and listed in its index.
1411:. In my view, inherent notability for gazetted hills, as opposed to say, populated places, is taking it too far. As for the GNG, the subject isn't really covered at all in reliable sources. --
488:
My rule of thumb is that if one other article (other than a list) links to it (or could feasably link to it) and its gazetted, its worth having. Verifiability doesn't mean article-worthy. –
448:
I would argue that the map and the gazette only confirm the existence of a feature, but do not meet the "significant coverage" test to be considered as reliable sources for the purposes of
161:
1036:, not above the sourrounding land which averages around 400m AMSL. What we have here is barely a hill at all, poking only 36m above the surrounding land. Doesn't seem notable does it? --
424:
in
Australia has enough sources to support an article. The creation of sub-stub articles based on nothing more that a link to the gazetted name should be discouraged in my opinion. --
1121:
That's a strawman argument. House listings are generally created (by sellers or their agents) for the purpose of selling the house and are therefore not independent of the subject.—
128:
602:
BTW, Lake Barlee wouldn't even be visible from the hill - it's also more than 100km away. The hill would be in the Shire of Yilgarn as it's near Mt Jackson which is well within.
584:
Nice infos. You say lot of things I did not know about that region. I couldn't determine the shire, can you? I only found the region seems to be sparsely populated. Nearby are
223:
1226:- places are deemed as notable because they are kept at AfD discussions. Why are they kept at AfD discussions? Because they are deemed notable!! We should rely on WP:GNG -
710:, it would pave the way for the creation of a massive number of stub articles, as happened when somebody went crazy not that long ago and started creating river stubs.
101:
96:
614:
IMHO creation of locations and geographical features should really in the end be done by those who have knowledge of and working access to local sources from such as
105:
662:@SatuSuro - Agreed. @Orderinchaos - I added the shire to the article. The Lake Barlee story was only to show that hills may have little stories attached to them.
88:
521:
Struggling to identify notability for this one - generally we don't have articles about things which sources confirm exist, but provide no other information.
533:. (Disclosure: I created it). I think all species, all gazetted names should go into WP. Maybe someone can walk around and take a picture. Near by is
403:
All places with a gazetted name are inherently notable. The gazetted name of this place is in fact "Victoria Hill", and I have moved it accordingly.
548:
248:
916:
is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.
182:
149:
17:
1313:
1208:
1169:
880:
913:
143:
297:
266:
1159:
The !policy that "all place are notable" says notability is met if a) it is a geographical place, location or feature b) that
1420:
1403:
1376:
1355:
1334:
1321:
1300:
1283:
1252:
1239:
1216:
1195:
1177:
1145:
1130:
1114:
1092:
1074:
1059:
1045:
1026:
1010:
988:
963:
938:
925:
888:
852:
826:
804:
775:
754:
737:
723:
698:
671:
657:
606:
597:
579:
562:
525:
513:
492:
475:
461:
443:
433:
407:
395:
357:
348:
331:
312:
286:
260:
238:
212:
70:
1363:
Google Earth and the topo maps don't even show contours. It's just a spot height. Why would it or any other similar place be
139:
706:
Keeping this article sets a dangerous precedent. Aside from completely ignoring the "significant coverage" requirements of
742:
Yes, one must not forget that this article seems to have been created in a misguided effort to justify moving an article.
638:- the fact the creator has indicated literally no knowledge of the locale should be sufficient to encourage further such
382:
272:
270:
189:
1435:
92:
36:
269:
in the Yilgarn was a minor goldfield centre in the 1890s. Gazetteer of Australia identifies both at similar locations
319:
That I could support - it's on my list of articles to create. One question - is it "Mount Jackson" or "Jackson"? (
84:
76:
1352:
1331:
878:
rock two metres in diameter twenty meters from the shore in Norway. The result was "it has a name" and was kept.
353:
Ah cool, I'll link Jackson to Mount Jackson when I finally do the relevant land district article then. Thanks :)
200:
1245:
1434:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
836:
814:
155:
1202:
There is no policy, hence the "!". The de facto consensus is that all places are notable. A similar case is
642:
to take care in creating stubs from names alone - rather than experiential context - and having agreed with
504:
Seems to be entirely non-notable. I can understand mountains being notable but hills are just too common. --
976:
1372:
1249:
1191:
1141:
1110:
1089:
1041:
959:
935:
822:
771:
750:
734:
719:
603:
576:
522:
509:
420:
same applies to every rise, waterhole or intermittent watercourse. I think it is very unlikely that every
354:
328:
63:
1416:
921:
667:
593:
558:
695:
256:
1203:
788:
1235:
1126:
1070:
1055:
1022:
1006:
984:
848:
800:
787:
There is, of course, a difference between a legitimate stub that contains useful information and a
472:
457:
440:
429:
404:
234:
208:
175:
308:. I searched but can find nothing noteworthy of this landform other than it apparently exists. –
1296:
654:
489:
392:
345:
309:
283:
840:
627:
623:
327:
says "Jackson", as does Map 35/300 at SRO (which is online but I can't figure out how to link.)
337:
1399:
1368:
1223:
1187:
1137:
1106:
1037:
955:
818:
767:
746:
715:
505:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1412:
1316:
1211:
1172:
917:
883:
711:
663:
589:
585:
554:
544:
57:
1391:
950:
905:
864:
795:
is an earlier discussion about how these sort of articles detract from Knowledge (XXG). --
707:
305:
1276:
692:
252:
1230:
coverage in reliable sources - rather than subjective views of "inherent notability". --
1164:
1102:
572:
1050:
Notability resides in the sources, not in the actual height of the feature in question.—
1231:
1122:
1066:
1051:
1018:
1002:
980:
844:
796:
453:
425:
230:
204:
1364:
1160:
449:
1292:
651:
389:
383:
http://www.ga.gov.au/bin/gazm01?placename=victoria+hill&placetype=0&state=WA+
1395:
122:
636:
or to have actually experienced the location and have the evidence - like a photo
274:
and looking at the surrounding topography, I wonder if they are the same thing.
534:
51:
421:
1269:
619:
341:
793:
Knowledge (XXG):Australian Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 33#River stubs
622:- or as Hesperian has indicated paper versions of the material related to
1105:. The answer to my question is, it doesn't. The subject is not notable. --
543:
in the area and saw the great extent of the lake. He then named it after
575:
to me (there are thousands of hills and that area isn't short of them).
1206:, where the de facto consensus is that "high schools are notable".
1311:
wherever the line goes, Victoria Hill is on the wrong side of it.
631:
381:
per Hesperian - Victoria hill (which it should have been titled
1428:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
1033:
247:, doesn't quite rate in comparison to the other "Mountains" in
912:
means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so
628:
http://en.wikipedia.org/Geological_Survey_of_Western_Australia
624:
http://en.wikipedia.org/Vegetation_Survey_of_Western_Australia
1346:
there is probably a significant population there, possibly
615:
201:
Talk:Victoria (Australia)#Requested move - Victoria (state)
863:
What is dangerous is that by ignoring the requirements of
646:
Hesperian and Mattinbgn's sentiments above - I remain in
979:
to keep from having to reinvent the wheel in every AfD.—
743:
118:
114:
110:
174:
1244:Agreed with Matt's points above. Also worth noting
188:
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1438:). No further edits should be made to this page.
817:. The term for a very short article is "stub".
224:list of Australia-related deletion discussions
650:mode rather than delete or keep of this item
8:
1065:makes a mockery of the whole guideline. --
620:http://henrietta.liswa.wa.gov.au/search~S2
251:, can't see what makes this hill notable.
218:
1291:, not all gazetted places are notable.--
630:in hand and a good understanding of how
222:: This debate has been included in the
549:Colonial Secretary of Western Australia
249:Category:Mountains of Western Australia
1167:. This is the case for Victoria Hill.
340:on 17 August 1846. Speakman and Hall
843:reasons and is beyond redemption. --
387:to Mount Jackson article per moondyne
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
323:Western Australia Government Gazette
1101:multiple sources, all of which are
813:"Sub-stub" is simply a version of
640:adventurers of the computer screen
24:
300:is done. This article should be
1017:Elevation added, source cited. —
298:Mount Jackson, Western Australia
267:Mount Jackson, Western Australia
632:http://www.ga.gov.au/map/names/
539:On 25 March, Forrest climbed a
469:de gustibus non est disputandum
1330:You've got a bet each way :-)
1:
1421:19:02, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
1404:08:18, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
1392:general notability guideline
1377:16:16, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
1356:15:36, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
1335:15:36, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
1322:21:29, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
1301:23:49, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
1284:23:48, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
1253:01:25, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
1240:22:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
1217:22:02, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
1196:18:10, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
1178:17:50, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
1146:09:36, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
1131:07:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
1115:06:58, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
1093:06:48, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
1075:21:11, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
1060:20:56, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
1046:10:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
1027:07:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
1011:06:12, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
989:06:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
964:06:57, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
939:05:01, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
926:19:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
889:17:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
853:23:51, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
827:23:33, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
805:23:23, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
776:23:07, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
755:17:43, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
738:17:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
724:17:00, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
699:16:07, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
672:15:20, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
658:07:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
607:07:06, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
598:06:29, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
580:06:09, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
563:05:54, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
526:02:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
514:16:16, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
493:03:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
476:08:06, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
462:07:55, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
444:04:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
434:03:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
408:02:15, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
396:01:49, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
358:04:09, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
349:06:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
332:02:17, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
325:. 3 March 1897. p. 1897:418.
313:14:57, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
287:01:37, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
276:Rather than delete, suggest
261:22:54, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
239:20:08, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
213:20:04, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
85:Victoria (Western Australia)
77:Victoria (Western Australia)
71:05:27, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
874:I remember an AfD about an
280:and adjust coords slightly.
1455:
977:Knowledge (XXG):Notability
467:us to convince the other;
1431:Please do not modify it.
1186:Which policy is that? --
949:Perhaps you should read
616:http://trove.nla.gov.au/
32:Please do not modify it.
910:"Significant coverage"
588:, Menzies, Sandstone.
385:- not just Victoria)
1390:requirements of the
1388:significant coverage
1224:argument is circular
914:no original research
1163:and c) this can be
321:". (per 8006/96)".
44:The result was
1315:
1210:
1171:
904:Article respects
882:
336:Gregory named it
241:
227:
69:
1446:
1433:
1312:
1281:
1274:
1207:
1168:
879:
586:Shire of Yilgarn
545:Frederick Barlee
342:found gold there
326:
228:
193:
192:
178:
126:
108:
66:
60:
49:
34:
1454:
1453:
1449:
1448:
1447:
1445:
1444:
1443:
1442:
1436:deletion review
1429:
1353:cygnis insignis
1332:cygnis insignis
1277:
1270:
1246:WP:NOTINHERITED
1136:requirement. --
691:Per Hesperian.
344:in Jan 1894. –
320:
135:
99:
83:
80:
64:
58:
54:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1452:
1450:
1441:
1440:
1424:
1423:
1406:
1380:
1379:
1359:
1358:
1340:
1339:
1338:
1337:
1325:
1324:
1303:
1286:
1262:
1261:
1260:
1259:
1258:
1257:
1256:
1255:
1199:
1198:
1181:
1180:
1153:
1152:
1151:
1150:
1149:
1148:
1118:
1117:
1095:
1084:
1083:
1082:
1081:
1080:
1079:
1078:
1077:
1014:
1013:
992:
991:
969:
968:
967:
966:
944:
943:
942:
941:
929:
928:
898:
897:
896:
895:
894:
893:
892:
891:
869:
868:
860:
859:
858:
857:
856:
855:
837:WP:IDONTLIKEIT
830:
829:
815:WP:IDONTLIKEIT
808:
807:
779:
778:
760:
759:
758:
757:
727:
726:
701:
685:
684:
683:
682:
681:
680:
679:
678:
677:
676:
675:
674:
566:
565:
528:
516:
498:
497:
496:
495:
485:
484:
483:
482:
481:
480:
479:
478:
411:
410:
398:
367:
366:
365:
364:
363:
362:
361:
360:
317:
316:
315:
290:
289:
263:
242:
196:
195:
132:
79:
74:
52:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1451:
1439:
1437:
1432:
1426:
1425:
1422:
1418:
1414:
1410:
1407:
1405:
1401:
1397:
1393:
1389:
1385:
1382:
1381:
1378:
1374:
1370:
1366:
1361:
1360:
1357:
1354:
1349:
1345:
1342:
1341:
1336:
1333:
1329:
1328:
1327:
1326:
1323:
1320:
1319:
1314:
1310:
1308:
1304:
1302:
1298:
1294:
1290:
1287:
1285:
1282:
1280:
1275:
1273:
1267:
1264:
1263:
1254:
1251:
1247:
1243:
1242:
1241:
1237:
1233:
1229:
1225:
1220:
1219:
1218:
1215:
1214:
1209:
1205:
1201:
1200:
1197:
1193:
1189:
1185:
1184:
1183:
1182:
1179:
1176:
1175:
1170:
1166:
1162:
1158:
1155:
1154:
1147:
1143:
1139:
1134:
1133:
1132:
1128:
1124:
1120:
1119:
1116:
1112:
1108:
1104:
1099:
1096:
1094:
1091:
1086:
1085:
1076:
1072:
1068:
1063:
1062:
1061:
1057:
1053:
1049:
1048:
1047:
1043:
1039:
1035:
1030:
1029:
1028:
1024:
1020:
1016:
1015:
1012:
1008:
1004:
999:
996:
995:
994:
993:
990:
986:
982:
978:
974:
971:
970:
965:
961:
957:
952:
948:
947:
946:
945:
940:
937:
933:
932:
931:
930:
927:
923:
919:
915:
911:
907:
903:
900:
899:
890:
887:
886:
881:
877:
873:
872:
871:
870:
866:
862:
861:
854:
850:
846:
842:
838:
834:
833:
832:
831:
828:
824:
820:
816:
812:
811:
810:
809:
806:
802:
798:
794:
790:
786:
783:
782:
781:
780:
777:
773:
769:
765:
762:
761:
756:
752:
748:
744:
741:
740:
739:
736:
731:
730:
729:
728:
725:
721:
717:
712:
709:
705:
702:
700:
697:
694:
690:
687:
686:
673:
669:
665:
661:
660:
659:
656:
653:
649:
645:
641:
637:
633:
629:
625:
621:
617:
613:
610:
609:
608:
605:
601:
600:
599:
595:
591:
587:
583:
582:
581:
578:
574:
570:
569:
568:
567:
564:
560:
556:
552:
550:
546:
542:
536:
532:
529:
527:
524:
520:
517:
515:
511:
507:
503:
500:
499:
494:
491:
487:
486:
477:
474:
470:
465:
464:
463:
459:
455:
451:
447:
446:
445:
442:
437:
436:
435:
431:
427:
423:
418:
415:
414:
413:
412:
409:
406:
402:
399:
397:
394:
391:
388:
384:
380:
376:
374:
369:
368:
359:
356:
352:
351:
350:
347:
343:
339:
338:Mount Jackson
335:
334:
333:
330:
324:
318:
314:
311:
307:
303:
299:
296:
295:
294:
293:
292:
291:
288:
285:
281:
279:
273:
271:
268:
264:
262:
258:
254:
250:
246:
243:
240:
236:
232:
225:
221:
217:
216:
215:
214:
210:
206:
202:
191:
187:
184:
181:
177:
173:
169:
166:
163:
160:
157:
154:
151:
148:
145:
141:
138:
137:Find sources:
133:
130:
124:
120:
116:
112:
107:
103:
98:
94:
90:
86:
82:
81:
78:
75:
73:
72:
67:
61:
55:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1430:
1427:
1408:
1387:
1386:. Fails the
1383:
1369:AussieLegend
1365:WP:N-notable
1347:
1343:
1317:
1306:
1305:
1288:
1279:(Discussion)
1278:
1271:
1265:
1250:Orderinchaos
1227:
1212:
1188:AussieLegend
1173:
1156:
1138:AussieLegend
1107:AussieLegend
1097:
1090:Orderinchaos
1038:AussieLegend
997:
972:
956:AussieLegend
936:Orderinchaos
909:
901:
884:
875:
819:Phil Bridger
784:
768:Phil Bridger
763:
747:AussieLegend
735:Orderinchaos
716:AussieLegend
703:
688:
647:
643:
639:
635:
611:
604:Orderinchaos
577:Orderinchaos
540:
538:
530:
523:Orderinchaos
518:
506:AussieLegend
501:
468:
416:
400:
386:
378:
372:
371:
355:Orderinchaos
329:Orderinchaos
322:
301:
277:
275:
244:
219:
197:
185:
179:
171:
164:
158:
152:
146:
136:
45:
43:
31:
28:
1413:Mkativerata
1318:victor falk
1228:significant
1213:victor falk
1174:victor falk
918:TopoChecker
885:victor falk
664:TopoChecker
590:TopoChecker
555:TopoChecker
535:Lake Barlee
377:changed to
162:free images
1204:WP:SCHOOLS
422:Deep Creek
375:merge/move
253:Calistemon
59:have a cup
1232:Mattinbgn
1123:Stepheng3
1067:Mattinbgn
1052:Stepheng3
1019:Stepheng3
1003:Mattinbgn
981:Stepheng3
845:Mattinbgn
841:WP:POINTy
797:Mattinbgn
634:works -
473:Hesperian
454:Mattinbgn
441:Hesperian
426:Mattinbgn
405:Hesperian
231:Mattinbgn
205:Mattinbgn
1103:reliable
1098:Question
789:sub-stub
573:WP:ORish
490:Moondyne
346:Moondyne
310:Moondyne
284:ÇťuĘŽpuooW
129:View log
1396:Jenks24
1293:Grahame
998:Comment
902:Comment
785:Comment
764:Comment
704:Comment
648:comment
612:Comment
417:Comment
373:Support
265:Nearby
168:WPÂ refs
156:scholar
102:protect
97:history
1409:Delete
1384:Delete
1309:Delete
1289:Delete
1266:Delete
1165:proven
1161:exists
951:WP:GNG
906:WP:GNG
865:WP:GNG
835:If by
708:WP:GNG
547:, the
519:Delete
502:Delete
306:WP:GNG
304:d per
302:delete
245:Delete
140:Google
106:delete
53:Coffee
46:delete
1272:Bduke
876:islet
696:Years
401:Keep.
183:JSTOR
144:books
123:views
115:watch
111:links
65:essay
16:<
1417:talk
1400:talk
1373:talk
1367:? --
1348:more
1344:Keep
1307:Keep
1297:talk
1236:talk
1192:talk
1157:Keep
1142:talk
1127:talk
1111:talk
1071:talk
1056:talk
1042:talk
1034:AMSL
1023:talk
1007:talk
985:talk
973:Keep
960:talk
922:talk
849:talk
823:talk
801:talk
772:talk
751:talk
720:talk
693:Five
689:Keep
668:talk
655:Suro
652:Satu
644:both
594:talk
559:talk
541:hill
531:Keep
510:talk
458:talk
450:WP:N
430:talk
393:Suro
390:Satu
379:Keep
278:move
257:talk
235:talk
220:Note
209:talk
176:FENS
150:news
119:logs
93:talk
89:edit
626:or
618:or
537::
229:--
190:TWL
127:– (
68://
62://
56://
1419:)
1402:)
1394:.
1375:)
1299:)
1238:)
1194:)
1144:)
1129:)
1113:)
1073:)
1058:)
1044:)
1025:)
1009:)
987:)
962:)
954:--
924:)
908::
851:)
825:)
803:)
774:)
753:)
745:--
722:)
670:)
596:)
561:)
512:)
471:?
460:)
432:)
259:)
237:)
226:.
211:)
203:.
170:)
121:|
117:|
113:|
109:|
104:|
100:|
95:|
91:|
50:—
48:.
1415:(
1398:(
1371:(
1295:(
1234:(
1190:(
1140:(
1125:(
1109:(
1069:(
1054:(
1040:(
1021:(
1005:(
983:(
958:(
920:(
847:(
821:(
799:(
770:(
749:(
718:(
666:(
592:(
557:(
551:.
508:(
456:(
428:(
370:'
282:–
255:(
233:(
207:(
194:)
186:·
180:·
172:·
165:·
159:·
153:·
147:·
142:(
134:(
131:)
125:)
87:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.