Knowledge (XXG):Categories for discussion/Log/2007 October 12

2326:"Britain" is far to fuzzy a word to have in the title of a history category. In pre-history its a generalist term of an unknown quantity depending on the writers perspective or use of modern terms. In Roman times it can mean (inaccurately) the island, (depending on time) the entire archipelago or, more often and with greater accuracy, roughly modern-day England and Wales. From the fall of Rome to the 17th century the term didn't exist in any real sense. Until the 19th century there was never any question that Ireland was not included in it. From then until the early 20th century it became blurry whether it meant the island of Britain, the UK (to the protest of contemporary Irish people), the British Isles, or the entire British empire. In the 20th century, it disintegrates to mean the UK only, excluding they 26 counties of Ireland, though folk memory and usage (to the vexation of Irish people) is to often include them, and maybe even Northern Ireland depending on what tone of voice is employed by a speaker. Today, the very idea of Britain is a hot topic in UK and Irish social and political science, politics, and history just as it was when the term was reinvigorated in the 17th century. Throughout this whole affair the 3646:, the category name is about as opaque as it gets, and nowhere in the underlying documentation can I find a clear explanation of the process behind it all, or of why the "fromowner" terminology is appropriate. I don't want to hinder the work of image upload patrollers, but if their categories are going to be routinely attached to a large number of images, they need to be clearly named and backed by a clear and succinct explanation of what the process and the category are about. At the moment, the explanations are mostly self-references, e.g. the text in this category says "images in this catigory have been uploaded through the fogen system", with no links or explanation of "fogen" means. If the reader somehow manages to find the unlinked documenation, they'll have to read down to the second section (at 4306:, however, has not achieved stability, and was recently completely overhauled -- resulting in a very different presentation of the subject -- by User:Dbachmann (who, I've just discovered, is none other than User:dab). This suggests that the notion of "Protoscience" may simply not be well-enough established (and defined) to serve as a functional category on Knowledge (XXG). Although I have a pretty good sense of how I myself would use 2335:

consensus on Knowledge (XXG) is for the island to be called Great Britian (actually inaccurate unless you are a medieval mapmaker labouring over the spelling of Brittany). There would be certainly problems with working with it as meaning "History of the British Isles" as this is both inaccurate, has a strong whiff of not being NPOV (I'll stop short of saying POV as I don't think there is any mal-intent), and would be

2266:

islands, but is there a limit? The Isle of Man (for example) is both geographically and politically separate and the Northern Isles are quite separate. My comment had a shade of cheek about it, but I get the impression that the intention is to erase the geographic expression "British Isles", which I have always found to be inclusive and concise. Others disagree: so perhaps the term should be redefined.

4076:. I initially thought that this category seemed too disparate to be worth keeping, but on reflection it seems rather useful. Essentially it is a grouping of things which are not fully classifiable as scientific under the dominant contemporary understandings of science, and that seems to me to be an important grouping of ideas. I fear that if this category did not exist, subjects such as 4458:- There really is no concensus on usage and application of the term "protoscience", so I have somewhat reluctantly concluded that the problems this category presents are insurmountable, and far in excess of any theoretical benefits it might provide. Also, I've neglected to point out that, by my understanding of the terms, much of what is currently in this category really belongs in 1973:

the two might benefit from a merger, but I prefer this name for it as it's rather more modern than the now less frequently used "Great Britain". In addition note that the fact that we have this category does not imply there should not be others for different entities including Britain as a subset or superset like the British Isles, Wales, Scotland, north-west Europe, etc.

2369:, there doesn't seem to be any issues with WP attributing its history to the generic and widely recognised "German ..."; there's no break-out of subcategories into the '2nd Reich'/ 'Central Germany & Alsace-Lorraine', 'German princely states without Hanover', etc. (or is it just that the Westphalian Liberation Front is quieter on the English pages?) 2137:, which includes all the relevant territory, and avoids either using a disputed geographical term or creating a new one. We do need an inclusive category for shared aspects of the history of this group of Islands, because so many aspects of that history are entangled (for better or worse depending on perspective). Is this name acceptable to all? -- 827:

see the need for a "miscellaneous" subclass: the superclass is the place for articles that don't belong in any subclass. If there turn out to be a lot of such articles that have something in common, they can be hived off into a new subclass. Oh, and standardizing the presence/absence of hyphens in the classnames would be nice too :)

1989:::You miss the context Mark; "History of Britain" was claimed by another editor to be a parent category of "History of Ireland", and was categorised as such, somewhere. This got me thinking that the plethora of "British" categories was excessive; British Isles; UK; UK and NI; Great Britain; Britain. I'm sure there are more. ( 3690:

images, you need to explain this process in clear and simple language which can be quickly and easily understood by editors who just want to upload images and not have to try to understand the internal technical workings of your system. You clearly have a system which works; but now you need to make it user-friendly. --

4220:, which is such a hideously stupid name for a category that I just put it up for deletion a little while ago.) Besides the issue of the related cats, there is a whole lot more that needs to be discussed, which I simply don't have time to go into at this moment. But I will take that up when I find the time later today. 3733:

it works may involve more technical terms, and there is no reasonwhy both tasks cannot be done. Great efforts are made elsewhere to ensure that the bits of wikiedia which ordinary editors encounter are both labelled and described in plain English, using non-technical terms and avoiding jargon except

3689:

I want a solution where we do not have a large subset of new images dumped into a category whose name is incomprehensible and whose documentation is so obscure that even seasoned category-watchers at CfD are having a hard time understanding it. Your aims are great, but if you want to tag so many new

3582:

there have been more in the past. The Cat is important because the form of image upload produces a lot of copyvios that get missed by the new image patrolers. As a result it is useful to have them all in one place so they can be reviewed. It should actualy be empty at the moment but I haven't decided

1768:

I have some sympathy w. Johnbod's idea of organising it around the physical British Isles. But in reality its a political history, and "Britain" as a term is clear enough to most everyone. And Britain is consistent with what we have already defined in WP articles. An exception to this viewpoint would

4365:

Assuming Dab's three meanings, as given above and (rather more fully) recently added to the category page, have broad concensus as alternative meanings of the term, then if his assertion that all three meanings are well categorised elsewhere is correct, the category can indeed be merged and deleted.

3714:

for a starting point). It takes you and leads you step by step through the process. Actually understanding it is only required for maintenance and we leave that to the handful of admins who understand the mediawiki namespace and it's relation to templates and the like. "CfD regulars don't understand

2330:

thing that is half-way consistent is that there is an island called Britian ... well, maybe - unless you go back to the Romans, when the island was Albion and "Britain" mean ... ummm, depends when you're talking about ... maybe the archipelago, maybe the modern-day England and Wales, or, hell, maybe

1972:

as discussed above, since that is very close to this cat. Looking at the actual category, clearly there is a history of Britain and it needs categorising - the subcategories of it seem logical although it does not itself capture many articles and neither does (currently) History of Great Britain, so

1725:

On the contrary, the present set-up, including the category under discussion, is set up against all logic and common sense to reflect a particular historical POV. The number of "sovereign states" in the British Isles has varied between one and about 40 at different periods and a supercategory makes

3709:

The documentation is no more obscure than it needs to be. Since the process uses a couple of functions that I wouldn't expect anyone below the level of advanced admin to understand that may not held you. The system is set up so that you don't have to understand it to use it. Seriously try uploading

2334:

In sum, either merge with "History of the UK" or rename to "History of the British Isles" or stick with it being just the island of Britain. On the last point, this creates a bit of bother. "History of Great Britain" is currently for the Kingdom of Great Britain (actually very accurate), but naming

826:

As to the name of the Foo-American parent class, I think naming conventions favour nouns over adjectives and plural (for Categories) over singular, so "Foo-American" loses on either ground. I don't think "Foo-American topics" is a great name, but the vagueness is probably a good thing; and I don't

3402:

the category contained a clear description of what it's for and there was a proposal for a name which could be understood without fifteen minutes research (even "fromowner-generated" is a long way from being self-explanatory). But at the moment the category name is about as obscure as it gets, and

2265:

I agree, but I'm not among those who dispute the wider definition that includes Ireland. How else would I describe the archipelago that includes the islands of Great Britain, Isle of Wight, Isle of Man, Shetlands, Outer Hebrides? I know "Great Britain" can be taken to include the smaller, adjacent

3756:

please show where it says that CFD regulars have to understand it. As for your claim of simplification you clearly haven't read the GFDL lately. Your average user isn't going to notice the cat and even if they do they are unlikely to worry about it complaints so far after over a thousand uploads

2364:

geographic. What is even more apparent through this dialogue is that 'British history' is not dictated by the geography of the island, but by the politics of the people on and around those islands. I'm also afraid that having period-limited descriptions would be unmanageable; the timelines of the

564:

only. But some of them do/did contain non-bio "culture" sub-cats. It might be better if a "Foo-American" or "Foo-American culture" type supercategory name (loose) convention was agreed. The Jewish formula will not work for most. Asian-Americans for one do need such a category. A further good

2046:

should probably be renamed with the relevant dates - if the thing is going to be categorised that way. I think much of the stuff in it is not just on that period anyway. But both "Britain" and "Great Britain" have both political and geographic meanings, and are therefore ambiguous. That is why

2218:. It's a geographic, not a political (or possessive) term. The only debate should be what's included. "British Isles" (IMO) includes all islands from Lowestoft to Limerick, but others disagree, so perhaps the range should be Lowestoft to Isle of Man and remove Irish articles from the category. 4318:-- the problem, of course, is that the criteria are bound to be construed and applied in rather different ways by the various editors who make use of it. Bottom line -- as much as I might like to use it in the way I described, all such judgments would surely have to be reached on the basis of 2681:

If an article has been created, that is fine and should help anyone interested. I created the category since there were so many English bankers from that family, and there are still members prominent. By the way, there are six, not four, members listed, including one peer (extinct peerage).

1708:

the notion that there is a need for a subcategory relating to an imagined union of two separate islands and two sovereign states; "Europe" as the parent and the various states, modern and ancient, of the offshore islands as the sub-categories is clearer and more accurate. Do we need an

3728:

a deletion reason, and even if the regular CfD crew don;t get it, what chance does a newbie have of figuring out why her or his newly-uploaded image has this weirdly-named category? It is perfectly possible to write an accessible explanation of what the category is for. Explaining

2072:

Come on John! You know there is no such place as the "British Isles"; it is a former Imperial British term referring to a brief period in history. This outrageous POV is merely being kept in place by force of numbers of editors with a nationalist British POV.

4291:

There have been any number of discussions of the same basic kinds of issues we're grappling with here, with little discernible progress towards resolving disagreements and achieving a stable concensus on choice and usage of terminology. Even so, the articles

1855:

But given this is a historical category, if Irish hyper-sensitivity rules out the neutral geographic expression "British Isles", you need something to cover England, Scotland and Wales when independent, and under personal union, and under different names.

3403:

none of the linked documentation offers a clear explanation this all makes for a category which editors will simply remove from articles because it will appear to them to be nothing to do with the image they have uploaded. --09:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

2182:. If we can't satisfy everyone (and we can't), the very least we can do is be consistent on such matters. Anything less is unprofessional and inappropriate. If the article gets renamed in the future, we should likewise rename the category to match. 4399:

Oh, dear. I'm afraid it would only make matters worse to add the word "conjectural" to the already-poorly defined term "protoscience". I think I can see what you're driving at, but it would be a guaranteed source of problems. (further comment below)

2239:

explains the dispute over using the term, but I have never before heard of the term being used to describe a grouping which excludes Ireland, however logical that might appear. Knowledge (XXG) is not the place to try redefining a widely-used term.

3652:

I can see that somewhere in all of this there may be a need for categories which help in copyright patrolling, but this is not it. If this category is deleted, I would not object to the creation of a clearly-named and properly-documented category.

4284:- After spending a considerable amount of time rooting around in these categories and subcats, and reading a goodly number of main articles, as well as several lengthy talk page discussions, I've come full circle and can now say authoritatively, 2423:, which IMHO makes its use perfectly adequate and clear. By coming up with all of these new suggestions re-using other pre-existing political states, we are ignoring the need to have something that deals with the 'fuzzy' overlapping cases 168:. The Blasket islands produced several fine writers, who I have added to this category, because the islands are known to generations of Irish people primarily through their writings. There is scope for further articles in the category. -- 2101:

I did not suggest using "the offshore islands" as the parent category; I suggested "Europe". British readers might be very confused by the "offshore" term as many of them are still under the illusion that they live on a "mainland"!

4474:- the term is just too poorly defined to support a category, and the attempts at definitions that have been given are all well supported by categories themselves already. This doesn't even seem to comply with the definition at the 1709:"England-France" category to allow for the Norman and post-Norman period? Should all countries occupied by Germany in 1942 be classified under "History of Germany"? Should "History of Britain" be a sub-cat of "History of Rome"? ( 3394:, and it's still not entirely clear what's going on here, but I presume that "fogen" is a contraction of "fromowner-generated". This does seem like it may be a worthwhile exercise, but the category names are deeply obscure; per 2383:

Sony-youth, your comments on the fuzziness of "Britain" as a geographical term are very useful, but here seems to be agreement that "Great Britain" is less fuzzy. It'd be interesting to hear your thoughts on my suggestion of

2857:

The case for "historical" over "historic" seems rather marginal, but as Johnbod points out, "historic" is used for the related categories, which also include the UK's constituency categories at regional and at county: see

4203:

I've only begun sorting through the array of issues that need to be considered in order to arrive at a well-grounded recommendation. First and foremost, this category is one of a group of related categories -- including

3761:. Others should be tagged for deletion." seams fairy easy to understand. If you don't understand the other sentence it is unlikely to matter since the information is only important to those trying to maintain the system. 3381:. Since most of the uploads are from new users but at the same time will appear to be correctly formatted our normal copyvio detection process break down. Thus another process is needed. The cat is part of that process. 2091:

one state. Could it be more obvious? Your presumed alternative of "offshore islands" was only invented very late in the development of Irish nationalism, and is barely known outside Ireland. Er, who has a POV here???

2436:

as a geographic location. I think we should all be able to agree that Ireland and Great Britain are the two principal islands of the area. Forget about trying to include the other islands in the title, just call it

4918:

a fairly narrow specialty, which I think monetarists, or economists is sufficient to cover. It would be impractical to separate all academicians into the most narrow field in which they work or we'll end up with

4198:

it, as it is a very complex subject that really demands further discussion. I'm glad David Gerard dropped in (I posted a note on his talk page), and I hope he will have more to say, in response to my forthcoming

2774: 4329:

topics. No doubt that would make it much easier to define and restrict, but I'm not sure that there's enough material to justify the existence of the category. What else would it be used for, besides

2472:

That still leaves us with the conundrum apparently that the Category: History of Britain, with all of its disclaimers as to only certain political subdivisions being included, has as its main article

1835:- "Britain" is clearly and unambiguously associated with a political entity; the British State. Hence its use as another name for the "British Isles", a geographical term (as claimed) is simply 460:- I haven't reached any firm conclusions of my own as of yet. However, since this discussion has broadened out to cover considerably more than the particular category, I've solicited input from 399:, which could serve as a parent for all categories related to African American history, culture, people, and so on. My main goal is to avoid the use of "topics" in the title, as it seems overly 2765: 686:

and put all the other relevant categories/articles into it. This structure would untangle the the loop that currently exists and would be a fit with similar categories in the higher category

444:

and put all the other relevant categories/articles into it. This structure would untangle the the loop that currently exists and would be a fit with similar categories in the higher category

5905: 42: 37: 3188:

This category, and two of the articles, were only started in September. The List articles gives reasons why this category is more interesting and significant than one would have thought.

5760: 5901:

There were several stub articles for characters that I merged and redirected either to the book or the film article. There's only one aticle left and it doesn't need its own category.

3888: 3425:

From owner general actually. The name matches the internal code used in the uselang function and succinctly identifies the image stream while keeping naming internally consistent.

2756: 3757:

through the related fromowner system are zilch. The critical line is about as simple as it can get "Images that do not appear to be copyvios should have their tag replaced with

5756:

that the monster films produced by Universal take place within the same fictional universe and there do not appear to be any reliable sources that support this notion. Delete.

5395: 4142:- most of what should go here belongs in the various history of sceince categories and this becomes a place for fringers to say "it's not pseudoscience it's protoscience" -- 3358:, which doesn't appear to me to raise any copyright issues. If there is a copyright issue, could someone explain why the name "fogen" tells us anything about copyright? -- 4920: 3569:

categories distinguishing how various images were uploaded seems to be ocat to me - there's only one image here anyway, for which this category is probably not defining.

3306:

categories distinguishing how various images were uploaded seems to be ocat to me - there's only one image here anyway, for which this category is probably not defining.

190:- My curiosity finally got the better of me, and I decided to look into the Blasket islands. I think this category is a nice illustration of the approach articulated in 1769:

be folks who take a seperatist or nationalist view, but I'm sure they won't be "confused" in their own minds as they already have taken an opinion on its organisation.

3147: 5386: 4230:

You can still encourage some people to discussion. Normally nominations are closed seven days after the nomination started, so you should still have two days left.

2365:

various armed services would have to be-invented for each incarnation. If we look to compare this with a country with a more violently fragmented history, such as

1341:. I agree with the nominator's reasoning, but upmerger ensures that articles in this category when the CfD closes won't be lost from any nuclear power category. -- 358:

includes all sorts of non-biographical sub-categories. This, if necessary renamed, should be the supercategory for the history, biography, culture etc sub-cats.

553: 2047:"British Isles" is the only solution, unless you want to put everything just under "Europe", which clearly does not seem sensible to most people (including me). 2752: 3139: 4386:

seems to cover the third meaning acceptably. A rename is needed to clarify the purpose of the category, which should also be explained on the category page.

4171:"The word does mean something to the non-querulous" -- how does that justify a 'keep' vote? we don't create categories merely on grounds that a term exists. 3771: 194:. No doubt Knowledge (XXG) could limp along without it, but it does serve those readers who are pursuing their explorations through the Category structure. 4446:- The word "protoscience" is too problematic for this to ever be able to exclude any goofy theory, so deletion is probably the only realistic alternative. 2489: 735: 715: 687: 637: 514: 445: 461: 3130: 2300:

Sarah, as nominator, you may wish to note at the top of this discussion that you have changed the proposal which you made there to delete the actegoy. --

21: 4687: 4616: 4596: 4580: 4532: 4478:

article ('science' that predates the modern scientific method, as opposed to modern fringe science) - a good sign that it's unsuitable as a category.

4379: 2770: 4762: 2476:

which treats both islands together. How much better to have one category and one main article with the same name that recognizes both islands in

4416:. After reading the above, I'd lean towards a delete. That may be the easiest way to clean this up. If there are some valid groupings, maybe 4334: 2761: 1647: 332:"This category groups miscellaneous topics related to African Americans." Per the title, the category's scope extends to everything related to 2606:

4 members, we don't have an article for this family, and unnecessary eponymous cat - every member can be or should be linked from each other.

1791:). The category and main article should match. Should it be Britain or British Isles? Any basis for a decision in the text of the article? 17: 5928: 5128: 4796: 4632: 4120: 4093: 3933: 3787: 3743: 3699: 3662: 3418: 3367: 3329: 3051: 2871: 2797: 2641: 2397: 2309: 2249: 2215: 2175: 2146: 1687: 1651: 1538: 1350: 1018: 898: 177: 5609:

are biographical articles, but this is clearly not a biographical category. The articles are adequately interlinked via the main article. –

1747:

The number of states in any section of Europe, ditto. The only "supercategory that is required or that makes sense is "History of Europe". (

5403: 4108: 731: 641: 561: 3647: 3391: 3378: 4773:, expand the acronym and change "strategic thinkers" to "faculty" which is what these folks are termed in the article, standardization. 1220: 1193: 4981:

since economists can handle it; hyperinflation is apparently a defining element of only one guy and he is prominently mentioned in the

2788:

constituency categs; rename others to put historic in brackets at the end for clarity and for consistency with other similar categs. --

2862:. There are about 4 or 5 which use "historic" at the start and which should also be renamed, but 40 with the suffix "(historic)". -- 1295: 3778:"Patent nonsense or gibberish", "Content not suitable for an encyclopedia" and "Newly-coined words or terms (i.e., neologisms).". -- 1303: 739: 727: 403:

and gives the impression that it's a category for articles that do not fit into any of the other "African American ..." categories.

2385: 2283: 2198:

Totally unacceptable to this user. It just perpetuates a term which has no present reality. The article should be changed as well.

2134: 1626: 480:

suffices. There is nothing wrong with semi-general categories, as long as there are subactegories. There are plenty. Fore example:

5423:

Category composed of mostly stubs that have since been merged to the list article (the only article currently in that category). —

1678:, but the closing admin may want to let the discussion run for a bit longer than usual because it has been untagged for 4 days. -- 5450: 4315: 1467: 5873: 5597:'s history, but it's not a defining characteristic of the city of one million (moreover, it's overcategorisation in the form of 2087:

It is clearly a purely geographical term precisely because it was never used with a political meaning at the time when they all

1286: 354:(changed) Well, it's a supercategory, and one is needed. But the parent categories are also sub-categories, which is wrong, and 5724: 3884: 3622: 5881: 5584: 3398:, categories name should not use abbreviations unless hey ae very well name. I could consider changing my !vote to a "rename" 2996: 5732: 556:

is the right way to do it, with the biog subcats coming off that. Woooah - the direct bio sub-cats have all just vanished -

5864: 4887: 1038: 305: 5715: 5166: 4112: 3004: 1438: 118: 5060: 4758: 552:

I would still say not. Several of them show milder forms of the problem the AA categories have, and should be corrected.

5152: 3880: 3840: 3445:

The cat is part of a template. Templates don't produce galleries of images which slows down the decision making process.

2987: 2473: 2236: 2179: 1784: 1546: 1152: 428:

and tidy, per the above. It seems a little odd grammatically, but I can't think of an appropriate abstract noun. So ok.

382:

Well as they are all acting as tail-swallowing head and sub-categories to each other, there are several candidates. But

5960: 5945: 5933: 5857: 5829: 5805: 5790: 5776: 5708: 5692: 5668: 5653: 5641: 5629: 5615: 5540: 5512: 5488: 5473: 5454: 5430: 5379: 5351: 5327: 5312: 5298: 5266: 5250: 5222: 5198: 5181: 5156: 5133: 5109: 5095: 5044: 5028: 5004: 4989: 4973: 4961: 4949: 4927: 4895: 4871: 4852: 4828: 4813: 4801: 4777: 4749: 4733: 4709: 4694: 4676: 4667: 4650: 4637: 4607: 4587: 4569: 4541: 4521: 4497: 4482: 4466: 4450: 4436: 4424: 4417: 4404: 4390: 4361: 4353: 4273: 4254: 4234: 4224: 4180: 4166: 4146: 4132: 4098: 4066: 3993: 3977: 3953: 3938: 3913: 3895: 3872: 3856: 3830: 3801: 3792: 3765: 3748: 3719: 3704: 3684: 3667: 3598: 3587: 3573: 3522: 3506: 3482: 3449: 3440: 3429: 3385: 3372: 3349: 3334: 3310: 3259: 3243: 3219: 3204: 3192: 3178: 3123: 3107: 3083: 3068: 3056: 3032: 2980: 2952: 2928: 2913: 2895: 2876: 2852: 2837: 2816: 2802: 2741: 2725: 2701: 2686: 2673: 2655: 2646: 2624: 2610: 2559: 2543: 2519: 2500: 2457: 2444: 2427: 2402: 2373: 2345: 2314: 2294: 2270: 2254: 2222: 2202: 2191: 2162: 2151: 2106: 2096: 2077: 2051: 2043: 2025: 1993: 1977: 1969: 1954: 1935: 1928: 1917: 1869: 1860: 1843: 1821: 1795: 1773: 1751: 1730: 1713: 1692: 1658: 1633: 1604: 1554: 1527: 1503: 1488: 1474: 1422: 1394: 1370: 1355: 1327: 1279: 1263: 1239: 1224: 1197: 1136: 1110: 1086: 1070: 1046: 1023: 990: 966: 950: 903: 870: 846: 831: 723: 694: 673: 669:

Understood. But some have non-bio sub-cats; it would be useful to have your comments on the supercat issue just above.

648: 615: 592: 573: 547: 505: 468: 452: 432: 409: 390: 377: 362: 342: 313: 289: 270: 246: 231: 218: 198: 182: 158: 102: 74: 5769: 5593:. It currently includes four articles, three of which really shouldn't be there. The massacre is an important part of 4878: 3604: 2412: 2366: 1811: 1570: 1561: 1446: 1181: 1029: 296: 5556: 1429: 5068: 5051: 4550: 714:

This certainly needs to be done, not in isolation, but as part of a thoroughgoing standardization of the subtree of

5170: 3171: 1160: 1143: 582:

would serve as a parent for all things related to African Americans (people, culture, organisations, etc.) just as

534: 383: 368: 355: 5274: 5257: 3436:

You need to spell out the case for keeping these more comprehensibly to save them. Would a template work instead?

526: 522: 5924: 5590: 5124: 4792: 4628: 4554: 4089: 3929: 3783: 3739: 3695: 3658: 3414: 3363: 3325: 3047: 2867: 2793: 2637: 2575: 2393: 2305: 2245: 2142: 1683: 1346: 1014: 894: 173: 5959: