1312:(year-year)" which made for rather a lot of numbers all in a row, that repeat themselves somewhat. Being article summary 's good to keep the key numbers, but what mattered for the routes was their comparative distance rather than the exact difference between them (which is still there, for those with head calculators), and the deaths breakdown was a bit arbitrary without the explanation (were the french crueler, or just worse at building canals?). But, dealt with.
180:
The article says "A ship sailing from New York to San
Francisco via the Canal travels a distance of 9,500 kilometres (6,000 mi), a saving of almost 13,000 kilometres (8,000 mi)" whilst the reference (in note 2) says "San Francisco is now 14,000 miles from New York around Cape Horn. Through the Panama
591:
Lists of upgrades, lists of bridges... to me these are lists, but you're not the first person to say this, so I've made the change you suggested. As for the "Layout" section, feel free to have a go at prosifying it; I tried, but it looked like a horrible mass of words and figures. As it is, people
367:
is a fundamental aspect of the canal which intrudes into everything. However, I think the "Capacity" section as a whole is an issue, and yes, it does look like repetition of the
Panamax thing. I mean, "the canal has all the business it needs" — this is a problem? So I've re-phrased "Capacity" to
287:
for number 8 above: I have also had your problem before; one doesn't want to cite EVERY sentence... what about putting the ref at the end of the section with a blurb (under the ref section) that the website cited is the source for all the info in the above section? Alternatively, put a blurb by the
138:
Your reformulation is certainly an improvement but I'm not over the moon with it (specifically, "cutting" in present continuous seems wrong - it is not currently, as we speak, busy cutting through the isthmus). What about "The Panama Canal is a major shipping canal which cuts through the isthmus of
749:
Yeah, that's pretty much just cheerleading; I changed it to "More than ninety years since its opening, the canal — one of the greatest engineering projects in history — continues to enjoy great success.". I think given the immediately following evidence that it's carrying cargo at all-time record
272:
The reference for the whole Tolls section is on the first sentence. How can I make this clearer (because I see your point)? As for more up-to-date, no, those are the current tolls, which became effective on the dates shown. I've now dispensed with the effective date, which is actually
469:
It's a good article now—well done. Just two matters: I presume that
British spelling is used (you'd expect US spelling here, but it's fine if that's the way it started). I'd still be happier with just 'km', rather than 'kilometres' throughout. I note that 'mile' is abbreviated to 'mi'.
426:
Re linking units on more than just the first occurrence, I felt that in such a large article, requiring someone to scroll back to the start just to get a definition was unnecessarily obtuse. So once per major chunk of text has been my philosophy. Don't you think that's
40:
for archived attempts). Since the last attempt, it has been completely overhauled, and a complete series of articles created around it. It's just had another peer review, and I think it's now ready to properly represent this significant and interesting topic. —
1114:
The
Anchorages topic is too insignificant, so I merged it into Layout. I Merged the two lakes together. The last para in Crossings is a separate topic; it doesn't make sense to merge it, and there's nothing more to say about it. Yes, short paragraphs should
268:
I haven't put references into sections like this one, and
History, which have a "main article" -- my feeling is that the main article should handle it (and will by the time I get them to FAC... ;-). For this issue, I've added a reference in that article.
208:
Reference 5 contains info for 2005 so why have the info for 2004 in the article and not the latest figures? (i.e. for the sentence "Canal traffic in 2004 consisted of 14,035 vessels carrying 203 million tonnes of cargo, an average of almost 40 vessels per
1318:
I did fiddle with the layout a bit, but didn't get anything stunningly different with the preview button that I wanted to preserve. This minor nitpicking doesn't need to be on the FAC page really, it's a good article, whether I poke the odd bit or not.
306:
I think that sorts it out... readers will (or should be able to) figure out the rest of the sub-section's info comes from the source just cited. (Although I'm changing "assigned" to "decided" - could also be "determined". Let me know if that's ok...)
892:
Me, of course! OK, kidding. Seriously, I have demonstrated — by quoting several sources — that demand is rising steadily, and that the canal is handling that demand. I think that that itself is clear proof that the canal will be important
252:
The book is apparently approximating, since 5,000 + 8,000 /= 14,000. I've chosen figures that add up. The real figures depend hugely on routes chosen (which depend on winds and currents, even today), so this is always going to be
1205:
Sorry, there's still inconsistency in the spelling: we have 'centimeters' (US spelling) but 'kilometres' and 'metres' (non-US). There needs to be a piped link on 'centimteres' if UK spelling is in fact the norm for this article.
410:. Perhaps start by making the measurements consistent and logical (mi is linked more than on just its first occurrence; mixed up approach to abbreviating mi/kilometers—km will do). But the whole thing needs careful copy-editing.
969:
I would go ahead and import references from the main history article. My feel is that the reader shouldn't have to go to another article to verify this one. I'd rather err on the side of too many references, rather than too
1001:
Yeah, I was only refering to the sections with a main article. =History= looks good, but the Locks and Lakes subsections still don't have any. They could use some for the specific figures (lock chamber dimensions, etc.)
897:. So I've changed the text to "With demand rising, the canal is in the positioned to be a significant feature of world shipping for the forseeable future", which I think looks less like a guess? What do you think? —
50:
I can't be objective. My own desire to see my contribution (however small) praised balances with my ignorance of the topic; I can't judge if it's covered adequately. And "featured" is a pretty hi standard, going by the
139:
Panama in
Central America thereby dividing the continents of North and South America and connecting the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans."? Or perhaps even better would be to leave out the bit of dividing the continents...
487:, "a pipe 100 millimetres (4 in)" is the correct style; hence "kilometeres" spelt out, and "mi" abbreviated in the converted units — this is exactly what the manual says to do. I guess you should raise this issue at
1103:
The subsections ==Alajuela Lake== and ==The
Anchorages== are rather small. They should be expanded. Single sentence paragraphs in ==The Anchorages== and ==Crossings== should be either expanded or merged into another
768:. I would just remove the 'greatest' designation entirely and let the facts speak for themselves - similar to citing the Yankees' World Series achievements and not calling them "the greatest franchise in baseball"
437:
editing effort to make it that way. You'll notice that this is very consistent, even with imperial-first units: eg. "a volume of 100 cubic feet (2.8 m³)". Why? Because that's what the Manual of Style says. See
235:"As of July 1, 2003, this toll is $ 2.96 per ton for the first 10,000 tons, $ 2.90 per ton for the next 10,000 tons, and $ 2.85 per ton thereafter." needs a reference (and aren't there more up to date figures?)
202:
Something I've also just noticed: the sentence "Approximately 800,000 ships have passed through the Panama Canal since its completion" should begin with "As of ...." (i.e. "As of 2001," or 2002 or whatever,
688:: compare the volume of shipping sent, the cost of shipping, and the factors involved in the comparison (maybe Suez costs more because it's longer or Panama costs more because it has locks or whatever). --
164:
References — I've added one for the savings and disease — what else needs it? I haven't added references for the "summary" sections which have a main article, because the main article should handle that.
430:
Re "measurements consistent and logical" — I don't get it. Every measurement is metric (imperial), except TEU and "PC/UMS ton" which is defined in feet by international law. How is that inconsistent?
223:"Each lock chamber requires 101,000 cubic metres of water (26.7 million U.S. gallons) to fill; this enters the chamber by gravity via a network of culverts beneath each lock chamber." needs a reference
450:
Spell out source units in text. Use digits and unit symbols for converted values and for measurements in tables. For example, "a pipe 100 millimetres (4 in) in diameter and 10 miles (16 km) long".
837:
I see where it says that in the reference. Is there a way of perhaps making it clearer that note refers to the first 2 sentences of that paragraph. I assumed it only refered to the second
671:
Thanks for the comment — that's a good point. Obviously I don't want this "summary" section to get too big, but that was a real omission. I've had a go at fixing it — comments welcome. —
1315:
As for what to add in the extra bit of space, maybe a line bridging the end of the US construction and the current status? The third paragraph doesn't quite stand on its own at the moment.
928:
For this statement: "The canal is presently handling more vessel traffic than had ever been envisioned by its builders" What was the amount of traffic the builders envisioned?
1247:
Fun article to read, I might fiddle with the layout a little, but content is all good stuff. Oh, and maybe de-number the lead a little, especially the double unit stuff... --
175:
the citation for the distance & time saving is a book published in 1913. Don't you think this figure would have changed since we were still using steamships back 1913?
609:
Personally I can't think of a way to make the "layout" list better, that's why I said it could be an exception. The article looks pretty good to me by now so I'll say
214:
I can't find confirmation for the statement "Mean sea level at the
Pacific end of the canal is on average 24 centimeters (9 in) higher than at the Atlantic end" at
823:
I've taken out "widespread". The reference says "the Senate chamber echoed with dire fears and warnings", so I think the statement as it is now is justified. —
1057:
My concept there is that "History" - "Current" - "Future" makes a logical sequence; "Tolls" is more related to "Description". What do you think of that? —
884:"With demand rising, it seems certain that the canal will continue to be a significant feature of world shipping for the forseeable future." Who is certain?
101:
Reference for the 20 day time saving? Reference for number of workers killed during construction? Several more highly specific but unreferenced statements.
592:
can extract information from it quite easily, eq. how many miles of fresh water, etc. Maybe it would look better as a table? What do you think? —
249:
Well, not the distance, at least... I've taken the time out, since I can't find a better ref, and time is meaningless (ie. depends on the boat).
181:
Canal it will be 8,000 miles nearer, or a little more than 5,000 miles distant" (Ch XX). So the article and the reference agree on the distance
91:
The first sentence is rather awkward & the grammar is a bit dubious (the use of present continuous "cutting" and "connecting" especially).
240:"52 million gallons of fresh water from the lake are dumped into the sea by the locks every time a ship transits the canal." needs a citation
17:
185:(8000 mi) but not on the distance between San Fran & NY via the canal (5000 mi for the reference, 6000 mi for the article). Which is it?
1277:
I was amazed to see no mention of the deaths in
History, so I moved the death breakdown there as you suggested (see article history).
741:"There is no question that the Panama Canal continues to be one of the most successful engineering projects of all time." Who says so?
815:"There were widespread fears that efficiency and maintenance would suffer following the U.S. withdrawal." What polls showed this?
1339:
1323:
1281:
1272:
1251:
1239:
1223:
1210:
1192:
1179:
1170:
1154:
1136:
1123:
1087:
1074:
1061:
1020:
1006:
991:
955:
942:
914:
901:
868:
855:
841:
827:
799:
786:
772:
754:
697:
675:
662:
627:
596:
582:
552:
539:
526:
506:
495:
474:
460:
414:
395:
375:
320:
311:
301:
292:
280:
229:
152:
143:
119:
85:
63:
45:
355:
It's mentioned under "Competition", because a competing post-Panamax canal (such as
Nicaragua) would be a competition issue
433:
Re "mixed up approach to abbreviating mi/kilometers" — in fact, it's always "## kilometers (## mi)". I just completed a
1264:
Agree about too many numbers, and nice fix; but if by "double unit stuff" you mean metric/imperial, that's as per the
644:
1335:
While the article doesn't flow brilliantly, it is detailed and informative, and good enough to support as an FA.
107:
680:
Nice work. The level of detail of the addition is consistent with that of the rest of the section, so I'll
1132:
You're right, it is a separate topic. If there really is nothing more to say about it, it should be fine.
372:
308:
297:
Excellent idea. I've had a go — a small change, but I hope it makes it clearer. What do you think? —
289:
226:
140:
116:
114:
Proper organisation of the Panamax issue is lacking - basically the same information mentioned 3 times.
82:
983:
OK done. I haven't put references for things which are simply Wikilinks to their own aqrticles, like
984:
692:
657:
618:
573:
622:
577:
1278:
1269:
1220:
1176:
1120:
1071:
1058:
1017:
988:
939:
898:
852:
824:
783:
751:
672:
593:
492:
457:
392:
386:
371:
Yeah, you're prob right about the panamax issue so I'm withdrawing my opposition wrt that reason
317:
298:
277:
149:
42:
1336:
1320:
1248:
37:
684:. Also, I just thought of something—it might be interesting to make more comparisons to the
1265:
1236:
1189:
1167:
1151:
1133:
1084:
1003:
952:
911:
865:
838:
796:
769:
536:
488:
484:
439:
262:
Done, and reworded tonnage to "capacity", not "cargo carried" (they don't count the latter).
568:. All those lists should be converted into prose, maybe with the exception of "layout". --
349:
It's mentioned under "Efficiency" to explain why tonnage is up, despite transits being down
689:
654:
614:
569:
60:
549:
523:
191:
1288:
Hm, I meant in the locale of the double unit stuff, not the units themselves. It had "
133:"The first sentence is rather awkward" — quite agree. I've had a go at re-wording it.
765:
456:
So, is this another problem with the MoS? If so, can we please get the MoS fixed? —
215:
27:
1150:
These shouldn't be too much trouble to fix. Let me know if I can be of any help -
195:
651:
happen between 1914 and 1977, but by reading this article, one would never know.
1207:
685:
535:
This is true, but being an important subject is not one of the FA criteria. -
503:
471:
411:
1175:
Thanks for your continuing help — I've actioned those comments (see above).
764:
That still seems to be pretty similar wording to the Yankees example at
1119:
be avoided, but I think this case is justified. What do you think? —
364:
385:
I'm going to have another pass over to look for references needed. —
316:
No prob. Thanks again for the help in getting this up to scratch. —
358:
It's mentioned under "Future", because it could drive future changes.
36:
This is the third attempt to get this article to FA status (see its
352:
It's mentioned under "Capacity", because it is an outstanding issue
1262:
I think the death breakdown is important enough to stay up there.
423:
Re "Poorly written", perhaps you could be a little more specific?
52:
1162:
Good work in addressing these so quickly. I have changed to
1070:
No, on second thought, you're right — I moved Tolls down. —
728:* Multiple statements which appear to be uncited opinions:
712:
Here are the problems I've found on my scan of the article:
368:
be about capacity, not post-Panamax. What do you think?
73:
This is certainly a good article but it still needs work:
1166:, pending resolution of my couple remaining issues. -
1046::* I would suggest =tolls= be moved after =history=.
339:"Man-made" — absolutely, changed it to "artificial".
192:
http://www.pancanal.com/eng/history/history/end.html
96:
One does not refer to inanimate objects with "whose"
342:The Panamax issue — I see what you're saying, but:
225:I'd still prefer a ref but I see your point so OK
78:I feel the article is good enough to be featured.
938:Added statstics and references to back it up. —
1219:I've fixed it to use SI spellings throughout. —
216:http://www.wku.edu/~smithch/biogeog/HILD1939.htm
647:. It's apparent from that article that things
520:The Panama Canal is a great subject to feature
196:http://www.pancanal.com/eng/history/index.html
8:
161:Inanimate objects with "whose" — re-phrased.
613:upon satisfying the objections above. --
169:I'm still not happy with the references.
76:pending a small change (see note 8 below)
750:levels, this is clearly justified. —
544:Now my support is unqualified, I just
391:The references look OK to me now... —
288:current ref stating the same thing...
246:Thanks for the continued feedback...
130:Thanks for your comments. Response:
18:Knowledge:Featured article candidates
7:
190:Reference number 3 should point to
24:
1300:km (mi)" and the deaths bit had "
851:Done - I merged the sentences.
643:but needs a few paragraphs from
483:Thanks for the comment. As the
1235:Great well written article. --
265:Darn, sorry; I've added a ref.
1:
980:OK, I'll get to work on that.
1340:23:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
553:18:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
1324:16:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
1282:12:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
1273:11:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
1252:02:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
1240:18:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
1224:13:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
1211:10:27, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
1193:01:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
1180:15:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
1171:05:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
1155:04:55, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
1137:05:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
1124:13:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
1088:01:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
1075:14:05, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
1062:13:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
1021:15:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
1007:05:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
992:14:05, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
956:05:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
943:13:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
915:05:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
902:13:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
869:01:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
856:15:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
842:05:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
828:13:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
800:01:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
787:15:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
773:05:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
755:13:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
698:14:40, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
676:01:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
663:00:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
645:History of the Panama Canal
628:01:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
597:20:28, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
583:15:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
540:04:55, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
527:11:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
507:02:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
496:02:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
475:02:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
461:01:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
415:00:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
396:22:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
389:22:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
376:21:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
321:19:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
312:19:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
302:18:45, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
293:16:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
281:00:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
230:16:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
153:21:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
144:21:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
120:17:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
86:16:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
64:17:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
46:16:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
1356:
1260:Thanks for the support.
895:for the forseeable future
55:-class BB page (which I
106:The term "man-made" is
408:. Poorly written (2a)
218:(the site referenced)
910:Fine by me. Struck.
485:Manual of Style says
1164:Conditional Support
951:Excellent. Struck.
641:; this looks good,
611:conditional support
1029:Looks good. Struck
985:invasion of Panama
203:"approximately"...
1347:
1184:Excellent work.
695:
660:
625:
580:
1355:
1354:
1350:
1349:
1348:
1346:
1345:
1344:
1308:(year-year)...
1266:Manual of Style
693:
658:
623:
578:
489:WP:MOSNUM#Units
440:WP:MOSNUM#Units
31:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1353:
1351:
1343:
1342:
1329:
1328:
1327:
1326:
1316:
1313:
1285:
1284:
1275:
1255:
1254:
1242:
1229:
1228:
1227:
1226:
1214:
1213:
1202:
1201:
1200:
1199:
1198:
1197:
1196:
1195:
1148:
1147:
1146:
1145:
1144:
1143:
1142:
1141:
1140:
1139:
1127:
1126:
1107:
1106:
1099:
1098:
1097:
1096:
1095:
1094:
1093:
1092:
1091:
1090:
1078:
1077:
1065:
1064:
1043:
1042:
1041:
1040:
1039:
1038:
1037:
1036:
1035:
1034:
1033:
1032:
1031:
1030:
1024:
1023:
1011:
1010:
995:
994:
981:
973:
972:
965:
964:
963:
962:
961:
960:
959:
958:
946:
945:
931:
930:
924:
923:
922:
921:
920:
919:
918:
917:
905:
904:
887:
886:
880:
879:
878:
877:
876:
875:
874:
873:
872:
871:
859:
858:
846:
845:
831:
830:
818:
817:
811:
810:
809:
808:
807:
806:
805:
804:
803:
802:
790:
789:
777:
776:
758:
757:
744:
743:
724:
723:
705:
704:
703:
702:
701:
700:
666:
665:
634:
633:
632:
631:
630:
602:
601:
600:
599:
586:
585:
560:
559:
558:
557:
556:
555:
530:
529:
512:
511:
510:
509:
502:You're right.
499:
498:
478:
477:
466:
465:
464:
463:
454:
453:
452:
444:
443:
431:
428:
424:
418:
417:
401:
400:
399:
398:
382:
381:
380:
379:
378:
361:
360:
359:
356:
353:
350:
344:
343:
340:
336:
335:
334:
333:
332:
331:
330:
329:
328:
327:
326:
325:
324:
323:
284:
283:
274:
270:
266:
263:
260:
257:
254:
250:
243:
242:
237:
232:
220:
211:
205:
199:
187:
177:
166:
165:
162:
158:
157:
156:
155:
135:
134:
125:
124:
123:
122:
111:
103:
98:
93:
30:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1352:
1341:
1338:
1334:
1331:
1330:
1325:
1322:
1317:
1314:
1311:
1307:
1303:
1299:
1295:
1291:
1287:
1286:
1283:
1280:
1279:Johantheghost
1276:
1274:
1271:
1270:Johantheghost
1267:
1263:
1259:
1258:
1257:
1256:
1253:
1250:
1246:
1243:
1241:
1238:
1234:
1231:
1230:
1225:
1222:
1221:Johantheghost
1218:
1217:
1216:
1215:
1212:
1209:
1204:
1203:
1194:
1191:
1187:
1183:
1182:
1181:
1178:
1177:Johantheghost
1174:
1173:
1172:
1169:
1165:
1161:
1160:
1159:
1158:
1157:
1156:
1153:
1138:
1135:
1131:
1130:
1129:
1128:
1125:
1122:
1121:Johantheghost
1118:
1113:
1112:
1111:
1110:
1109:
1108:
1105:
1101:
1100:
1089:
1086:
1082:
1081:
1080:
1079:
1076:
1073:
1072:Johantheghost
1069:
1068:
1067:
1066:
1063:
1060:
1059:Johantheghost
1056:
1055:
1054:
1053:
1052:
1051:
1050:
1049:
1048:
1047:
1028:
1027:
1026:
1025:
1022:
1019:
1018:Johantheghost
1015:
1014:
1013:
1012:
1009:
1008:
1005:
999:
998:
997:
996:
993:
990:
989:Johantheghost
986:
982:
979:
978:
977:
976:
975:
974:
971:
967:
966:
957:
954:
950:
949:
948:
947:
944:
941:
940:Johantheghost
937:
936:
935:
934:
933:
932:
929:
926:
925:
916:
913:
909:
908:
907:
906:
903:
900:
899:Johantheghost
896:
891:
890:
889:
888:
885:
882:
881:
870:
867:
863:
862:
861:
860:
857:
854:
853:Johantheghost
850:
849:
848:
847:
844:
843:
840:
835:
834:
833:
832:
829:
826:
825:Johantheghost
822:
821:
820:
819:
816:
813:
812:
801:
798:
794:
793:
792:
791:
788:
785:
784:Johantheghost
781:
780:
779:
778:
775:
774:
771:
767:
762:
761:
760:
759:
756:
753:
752:Johantheghost
748:
747:
746:
745:
742:
739:
738:
736:
735:
733:
732:
730:
729:
726:
725:
721:
718:
717:
713:
711:
707:
706:
699:
696:
691:
687:
683:
679:
678:
677:
674:
673:Johantheghost
670:
669:
668:
667:
664:
661:
656:
652:
650:
646:
640:
639:
635:
629:
626:
620:
616:
612:
608:
607:
606:
605:
604:
603:
598:
595:
594:Johantheghost
590:
589:
588:
587:
584:
581:
575:
571:
567:
566:
562:
561:
554:
551:
547:
543:
542:
541:
538:
534:
533:
532:
531:
528:
525:
521:
517:
514:
513:
508:
505:
501:
500:
497:
494:
493:Johantheghost
490:
486:
482:
481:
480:
479:
476:
473:
468:
467:
462:
459:
458:Johantheghost
455:
451:
448:
447:
446:
445:
441:
436:
432:
429:
425:
422:
421:
420:
419:
416:
413:
409:
407:
403:
402:
397:
394:
393:Johantheghost
390:
388:
387:Johantheghost
383:
377:
374:
370:
369:
366:
362:
357:
354:
351:
348:
347:
346:
345:
341:
338:
337:
322:
319:
318:Johantheghost
315:
314:
313:
310:
305:
304:
303:
300:
299:Johantheghost
296:
295:
294:
291:
286:
285:
282:
279:
278:Johantheghost
275:
271:
267:
264:
261:
258:
255:
251:
248:
247:
245:
244:
241:
238:
236:
233:
231:
228:
224:
221:
219:
217:
212:
210:
206:
204:
200:
198:
197:
193:
188:
186:
184:
178:
176:
173:
172:
171:
170:
168:
167:
163:
160:
159:
154:
151:
150:Johantheghost
147:
146:
145:
142:
137:
136:
132:
131:
129:
128:
127:
126:
121:
118:
115:
112:
110:
109:
104:
102:
99:
97:
94:
92:
89:
88:
87:
84:
81:
77:
74:
72:
68:
67:
66:
65:
62:
58:
54:
48:
47:
44:
43:Johantheghost
39:
35:
29:
26:
19:
1332:
1321:zippedmartin
1309:
1305:
1301:
1297:
1293:
1289:
1261:
1249:zippedmartin
1244:
1232:
1186:Full Support
1185:
1163:
1149:
1116:
1102:
1045:
1044:
1000:
968:
927:
894:
883:
836:
814:
763:
740:
737:
734:
731:
727:
722:, see below.
719:
715:
714:
709:
708:
681:
648:
642:
637:
636:
610:
564:
563:
545:
519:
515:
449:
434:
405:
404:
384:
373:Mikkerpikker
309:Mikkerpikker
290:Mikkerpikker
253:approximate.
239:
234:
227:Mikkerpikker
222:
213:
207:
201:
189:
182:
179:
174:
141:Mikkerpikker
117:Mikkerpikker
113:
105:
100:
95:
90:
83:Mikkerpikker
79:
75:
70:
69:
56:
49:
33:
32:
28:Panama Canal
1296:km (mi)...
1292:km (mi)...
1190:The Catfish
1168:The Catfish
1152:The Catfish
1134:The Catfish
1085:The Catfish
1004:The Catfish
953:The Catfish
912:The Catfish
866:The Catfish
839:The Catfish
797:The Catfish
770:The Catfish
716:Conditional
537:The Catfish
427:reasonable?
71:Mild Oppose
1268:. Cheers,
1104:paragraph.
690:Spangineer
686:Suez Canal
655:Spangineer
615:Rune Welsh
570:Rune Welsh
363:Basically
273:pointless.
61:Trekphiler
1302:french+us
1117:generally
694:(háblame)
659:(háblame)
624:Esperanza
579:Esperanza
550:DelftUser
524:DelftUser
148:Done! —
59:judge).
38:talk page
34:self-nom:
1333:Support.
987:— OK? —
108:gendered
1245:Support
1233:Support
1083:Struck
1016:Done.
864:Struck
795:Struck
782:Done.
720:Support
682:support
546:support
516:Support
365:Panamax
80:SUPPORT
1306:french
766:WP:AWW
710:Oppose
638:Object
565:Oppose
406:Oppose
276:Done.
1188:now.
435:major
259:Done.
256:Done.
209:day")
183:saved
16:<
1337:Ambi
1304:...
1208:Tony
970:few.
619:ταλκ
574:ταλκ
548:. --
522:. --
504:Tony
491:. —
472:Tony
412:Tony
194:not
53:Iowa
1298:y-x
649:did
269:OK?
57:can
1319:--
1310:us
1237:WS
653:--
621:|
617:|
576:|
572:|
518:.
1294:y
1290:x
442::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.