281:
an absurd result if I design the ranking scheme to do so.) The large variance between a school's ranking on the different scales underlines the subjective nature of the choices made by the ranking organizations in devising their ranking systems -- if these systems were objective, it's very unlikely that one school would be ranked 12th in one system, 50th in another, and would not even be considered on two other lists. Schools can and do manipulate their rankings by working to improve metrics that are known to be tracked by the ranking organizations. For example, USNews gives a weight of 16.25% to incoming students' GMAT scores; a school could improve its ranking on that metric by encouraging its applicants to sit for that exam multiple times, then reporting each student's highest score. The article itself highlights the manipulative nature of the ranking process, saying: "Business school rankings are important to the various business schools because they are an important marketing tool used to recruit top students, and lure recruiters from the top companies. Business schools attempt to achieve higher rankings in order that they may obtain the top students who will over the course of their careers most likely benefit the school by achieving high ranking positions, attaining great influence, and accumulating great wealth."
485:. It seems to me that there is a clear need for more lists on this type of subject. This list could easily be passed. I suspect that people have been giving Business and Economics lists a little bit harder time than they should. Again there is really nothing wrong with this list other than should we have some sort of cutoff on who is included. When you get to the lower ranked schools you start getting into less notable schools as is evidenced by the fact that the first one below the top 25 on the U.S. News list does not even have its own article. The first opposition above seems related to the first sentence in this comment.--
808:
can re-sort the list according to any ranking they prefer. I suggest listing the schools alphabetically by the name of the parent university (or the name of the freestanding business school, if such exists). I suggest sorting by university name rather than school name because the university names are more stable (at least one of these schools is actively soliciting a large donor, for whom they will rename the school) and more recognizable.
421:
1281:
many displays (this is something I've worked on), I find that I made a mistake in rendering the
Economist rankings for just the U.S. schools (there should be only one #13, and all the subsequent rankings need to be incremented by one), and I don't know what to think about the new addition of "average" rankings. The article will get to featured status, but I don't think it's there yet... --
975:
934:
893:
852:
811:
763:
549:. I'd look favorably upon a merged list that is fully sortable, lists all respectable business schools (for example, all accredited schools with an on-campus full-time MBA program) and includes details on degrees offered (e.g., BS, MBA, doctorate), accreditation, and rankings (particularly if it included some of the rankings that are not included in the current list). --
1168:(i.e., rankings of schools that are visited heavily by recruiters for national companies). Actually, I don't think the WSJ "national" and "regional" lists should be displayed separately, as they are mutually exclusive. Rather, I think they should be displayed in the same column, but with an annotation on the regional rankings so the distinction is clear. --
1528:. That page does not describe methodology (it probably is on another page) and it does not provide overall rankings (schools are ranked by several different attributes), but it probably needs to be acknowledged in the article. (As I indicated, this article does not feel "fully formed" yet... This is just one more reason...) --
1448:
schools (captioned to mention their rankings), such as the photos of the
Harvard, U of Chicago, Stanford, and MIT business schools. (Too bad that the Case Western Reserve b-school is so low-ranked; its photo is very interesting.) BTW, I removed my "oppose" statement, but have not yet moved over to "support." --
1429:. I suggest you remove the images and keep the list as a clean table. The images does not add any value to the list while increasing significantly its size: How is the picture of an eagle, or a close-up of a tower clock or a statue could add value to the list and provide more information for each school?
1200:
Sorting will be messed up in either case, but with the letter the numbers don't even sort in order. Also, the lists are not mutually exclusive. See
Harvard or Columbia to name a few. I think the columns should be separate for this reason. It will aid sortability. I would like to remove the U and
807:
The default order of the list should be changed to something that will allow users to look up a specific program. The current method of ordering the list by the US News & World Report rank is not acceptable, as it is difficult to use and it gives undue weight to that one information source. Users
1280:
I have not removed my "oppose" comment for this featured list nomination because I still have a general impression that this list is not quite ready -- perhaps it was nominated for featured status prematurely. Specifically, the introductory section is a bit rough still, the table may be too wide for
517:
It is true that a disproportionate fraction of featured lists are lists on "trivia-like" topics such as sports, TV episodes, and music (especially discographies). My interpretation of this is that it's relatively easy to create beautifully formatted lists about pop culture topics, whereas it can be
1107:
Regarding the images, I was confused by your listing for the
University of Iowa business school. The list said the school was in Des Moines, but the image was of a building identified as being in Iowa City (but it was not identified as being on the campus). It turns out that the school is actually
280:
I fully understand that these are not your top list, but that does not change the fact that these types of rankings are inherently subjective. Many subjective decisions can be hidden in a seemingly scientific ranking. (I've devised ranking schemes, and I know that I can "scientifically" arrive at a
1447:
That recommendation would also resolve my concern about the width of the list, and it would make it easier to browse the list because individual rows would take less space. Instead, the introductory section of the article could be nicely illustrated with photos of a few of the high-ranked business
452:
The universe of
Michigan football receivers is not infinite, but it might as well be -- new receivers are recruited annually and the bottom guys on the complete list presumably have career yardage statistics in the negative numbers. There would be no purpose in attempting to create a comprehensive
1026:
than any building you could show me on campus. Furthermore, it represents the most lasting image of the university for me. Personally, I like images. If there is a policy against them we can take them out, but I think the article is better with them. I like images. If I can get your vote with
1494:
Yet another thing. I found that text is aligned right in the table which is odd. Could you fix it? As for the heigh of each row, it could be fixed if you increase the width of the first 3 columns, and replace the lists names with very short abbreviations (since there's a lot of wasted space for
1167:
U means "unranked" (or "not ranked") in the given list. "NA" means that particular ranking list (i.e., rankings of schools that are primarily recruited by regional companies) does not apply to the given school because the school is ranked on a mutually exclusive and hierarchically superior list
714:
That's a good addition. Additionally, the Wall St. Journal list has 3 sets of rankings: national recruiters (just 19 schools listed), international recruiters (24 schools listed, including 8 US schools that are also on the national list and one that is also on the regional list), and regional
1021:
No images are of cities to my knowledge. They are all of buildings, structures, or land that represent the B-school or university with few exceptions. For
Michigan, Duke and USC I chose sports related images because these schools are so big on sports that even the business students find it
801:
Seeing your determination to have this become a featured list, I've put some time into improving the article -- including editing the lead to describe what appear to be the new inclusion criteria (which I am OK with). The experience of working on the article leads me to identify several more
1013:
I have mixed feelings about the photos. They are nice eye candy, and some are impressive photos of the business schools, but many of them have little to do with the business school with which they are paired. (Instead, they are photos from the university campus or even the associated
363:
That would not avoid the problem of the arbitrariness of selectively including only schools that appear in the top 25 on somebody's ranking list. There is no clearly defensible reason for including those schools and excluding the business schools at (for example)
563:
I'd be against merging because when I went to business school (MBA Michigan 92) there were over 700 business schools. I imagine there might be close to 1000 business schools now. We only have 100 being listed as ranked. Merging them would degrade this
1598:- This is a valuable page to anyone seeking information on b-schools in the US. It collects together information that is spread around Knowledge (XXG) in the various school articles, information which is often out of date or selectively disclosed.
1108:
on the university's main campus in Iowa City (not in Des Moines), so I corrected the list entry. Also, it turns out that the building is on the campus (where it used as a museum), so I edited the image description to include that information. --
541:. It lacks "well-defined entry criteria" to form a reasonable basis for "including every member of a set"; indeed, the selection criteria could be deemed "controversial" (for example, by deans of schools that consistently rank around 26 to 30).
101:. I have decided to stop at the top 25 because the first list that I looked at had a business school without a wikipedia page listed as the first school after the top 25 so I felt 25 was a good number to include notable schools.--
400:
Any cutoff would arguably be arbitrary. One could just a well argue the cutoff of all features List of tallest buildings is arbitrary. At least the article clearly represent some sort of consensus between several prominent lists.
380:(ranked 29 on two lists and 32 on a third). These are not "tallest buildings" or "longest bridges" (for which it is inevitable that an arbitrary cut-off must be made); rather, these are entities that compete with each other,
1341:
My main reason for taking it out is that there is little scientific validity in averaging these rankings. Another reason is that it gives the impression of advertising the top schools. Let the list stand by itself, IMO.
453:
list. In contrast, there is a discrete number of accredited US business schools offering MBAs, their numbers are relatively stable, and all of them make claims to quality. Comprehensive lists could be created.
1258:
I replaced the blank list entries with an invisible sortable field, so that the list will now sort properly. (That is, an ascending sort will begin with number 1, not with a long series of blanks.) --
890:
The article subheadings should be reconsidered; the context of the titles "Importance" and "Techniques" is not obvious. Longer titles, such as "Ranking techniques", would be more meaningful.
715:
recruiters (51 schools listed). I think it would be worthwhile to add the international and regional rankings to the table, perhaps using alphanumeric "numbers" such as I4 and R13. --
424:
384:
it would be possible to define and list the complete set to which they belong (for example, accredited U.S. business schools offering the MBA degree in a full-time on-campus program).
344:
I think part of the issue here is with "top". Maybe a title like "List of by rankings" would be better (and it would be closer to the usual convention for ordered lists)?
522:
57:
546:
139:
479:
1680:
1661:
1644:: With all the work you've done, the list looks very good. Love having the pictures, thanks for making it sortable, and it looks quite comprehensive. --
1635:
1617:
1587:
1555:
1537:
1504:
1489:
1457:
1438:
1417:
1385:
1351:
1336:
1322:
1290:
1267:
1252:
1228:
1195:
1177:
1162:
1117:
1102:
1070:
1054:
1008:
967:
926:
885:
844:
796:
756:
724:
709:
676:
653:
638:
591:
558:
512:
466:
446:
410:
395:
353:
334:
294:
275:
235:
205:
196:
148:
128:
86:
1696:
40:
1186:
them. Specifically, without these notations, the blank entries end up on top of an ascending sort. (Clearly, sorting is going to be a challenge.) --
455:
You have not established "well-defined entry criteria" that clearly justify this particular list membership (and not some other list membership).
1295:
If you don't like the table, now is the time to say so because we can come to a consensus to remove it. I am not so crazy about it either.--
427:, I was told to choose a cutoff and be consistent across all lists. Now when I try to do it on this one I am getting run through the mill.
67:
30:
17:
545:
If you are committed to creating a list of US business schools that truly qualifies as a featured list, do consider merging this list with
1390:
If the text is rough can you clarify whether it is the lead, the first section, the section with the methodologies or all of the above.--
538:
221:
1570:
1472:
1400:
1368:
1305:
1248:
1211:
1145:
1085:
1037:
991:
950:
909:
868:
827:
779:
739:
692:
621:
574:
495:
442:
365:
317:
258:
179:
111:
1613:
1574:
1543:
1476:
1404:
1372:
1309:
1215:
1149:
1089:
1041:
995:
954:
913:
872:
831:
783:
743:
696:
625:
578:
499:
321:
262:
183:
115:
1233:
I have removed the U and NA so that the sort is numeric and not alphabetical (I.E. so that 10-19 do not come between 1 and 2).
1182:
On my talk page, you said that the Us and NAs cause the sorting to be messed up. I added them because the sorting is messed up
533:, suggesting to me that the lack of an article about the whole school is just an oversight on the part of the school's fans.
1655:
1626:
I don't have time to think about this right now, and anyway I don't have a particular interest in the subject matter. --
931:
The article should link to some of the other articles on institutional rankings. (I added it to a relevant category.)
972:
Within "Techniques," shouldn't the different methods be listed in the same order in which they appear in the table?
377:
682:
O.K. I have added all the
Schools and EIU. I have to explain the last methodology and will do so momentarily.--
1075:
I will address your issues by the weekend. I will realphabetize by
University. I am changing the title now.--
420:
369:
244:
These are not my top. These are the top schools by various education rankings experts or poll experts such as
162:
1500:
1462:
I have removed all images from the lists and placed the best pictures I could find for the #1's in the text.--
1434:
373:
76:
Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.
1601:
1236:
659:
P.S. Do consider adding information on how US schools ranked in the
Economist Intelligence Unit list. (See
430:
1566:
1468:
1396:
1364:
1301:
1244:
1207:
1141:
1081:
1033:
987:
946:
905:
864:
823:
775:
735:
688:
617:
570:
491:
438:
313:
254:
175:
107:
1496:
1430:
1676:
1201:
NA because they are unexplained in the article and confusing. Furthermore, they worsen the sorting.--
1609:
1578:
1480:
1408:
1376:
1313:
1219:
1153:
1093:
1045:
999:
958:
917:
876:
835:
787:
747:
700:
629:
582:
503:
325:
283:
Finally, your decision to list 25 schools (not 20, 30, 50, 98, 100, or 125) is inherently arbitrary.
266:
187:
119:
245:
98:
1651:
1561:
1463:
1391:
1359:
1296:
1240:
1202:
1136:
1076:
1028:
982:
941:
900:
859:
818:
770:
730:
683:
612:
565:
486:
434:
406:
349:
308:
249:
202:
170:
145:
102:
1582:
1484:
1412:
1380:
1317:
1223:
1157:
1097:
1049:
1003:
962:
921:
880:
839:
791:
751:
704:
633:
586:
507:
329:
270:
191:
166:
123:
1673:
1631:
1551:
1533:
1453:
1347:
1332:
1286:
1263:
1191:
1173:
1113:
1066:
1023:
720:
672:
649:
554:
462:
391:
290:
231:
83:
1605:
1525:
802:
improvements that will be needed before this can be considered a
Knowledge (XXG) exemplar:
472:
165:
ranked schools with a list of Division I-A football programs. I will try to beef up the
611:
P.S. Would the name List of United States business schools by ranking by appropriate?--
530:
97:
as nominator. I am nominating this because it is a comprehensive list that adheres to
664:
220:
This is not a list with "well-defined entry criteria," as called for under item 1 in
157:
This should not be merged with the general list. It would be like merging a list of
1646:
402:
345:
1627:
1547:
1529:
1449:
1343:
1328:
1282:
1259:
1187:
1169:
1109:
1062:
716:
668:
645:
550:
458:
387:
286:
227:
158:
525:
does not necessarily indicate that Wikipedians don't think it's notable. There
729:
I will do it before the weekend. Above I explain why I am against a merger.--
537:
The selective (and elitist) list of top-ranked business schools does not meet
138:
Is this page actually necessary? There isn't a lot of information there, and
1022:
important to them. As a Wolverine I am prouder to see a picture of the
1695:
Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in
39:
Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in
78:
The closing editor's comments were: 15 days, 3 support, 0 oppose.
1495:
rankings) and explain these abbreviations just above the table.
372:(ranked 26 on one list, 39 on another, and 43 on a third list),
218:
Identification of "Top" schools involves a subjective judgment.
1560:
Financial Times poll and methodologies are now incorporated.--
518:
challenging to write excellent articles about serious topics.
201:
I've struck my comments. It is better than it was before. --
142:
isn't an overly long page. I think it should be merged there.
475:
and tell me why no lists have been passed that fall under
644:
No. That would not resolve the issues with this list. --
425:
Lists of Michigan Wolverines football receiving leaders
1327:
I guess that makes two of us who say "take it out." --
660:
307:
I have revamped the text as per the comments above.--
161:winners with a list of actors or merging a list of
665:http://which-mba.com/index.asp?layout=2007rankings
523:University of Wisconsin-Madison School of Business
1689:The above discussion is preserved as an archive.
376:(ranked 28 on one list and 36 on two lists), and
1520:- I found yet another set of rankings, from the
1699:. No further edits should be made to this page.
248:. There is nothing subjective about my list.--
43:. No further edits should be made to this page.
58:List of United States business school rankings
1697:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Featured list candidates
547:List of business schools in the United States
140:List of business schools in the United States
66:The following is an archived discussion of a
41:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Featured list candidates
29:The following is an archived discussion of a
8:
368:(ranked 27 on two lists and 29 on a third),
1135:What is the difference between U and NA.--
849:The article title may need to be revised.
18:Knowledge (XXG):Featured list candidates
1524:(linked from the Thunderbird article):
539:Knowledge (XXG):Featured list criteria
222:Knowledge (XXG):Featured list criteria
1542:PS - That link may not work, but the
7:
1624:Continue this discussion without me.
1027:them in I would like to keep them.--
480:WikiProject Business & Economics
366:Washington University in St. Louis
24:
531:specific program at that B school
973:
932:
891:
850:
809:
761:
419:
1:
1662:06:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
1636:19:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
1618:21:23, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
1588:15:54, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
1556:23:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
1538:23:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
1505:18:54, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
1490:23:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
1458:17:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
1439:10:49, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
1418:23:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
1386:23:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
1352:19:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
1337:17:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
1323:23:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
1291:18:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
1268:18:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
1253:06:23, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
1229:22:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
1196:15:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
1178:15:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
1163:14:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
1118:15:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
1103:06:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
1071:04:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
1055:07:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
1009:06:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
968:22:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
927:06:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
886:06:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
845:22:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
797:17:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
757:23:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
725:16:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
710:16:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
677:06:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
654:06:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
639:21:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
592:23:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
559:06:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
513:17:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
467:14:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
447:07:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
411:05:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
396:05:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
354:05:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
335:02:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
295:04:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
276:23:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
236:23:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
206:22:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
197:23:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
149:23:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
129:23:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
1526:Financial Times top 10 lists
1358:I have fixed 14 and above.--
1681:20:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
521:The lack of an article for
87:20:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
1716:
378:Michigan State University
1692:Please do not modify it.
370:University of Notre Dame
163:Bowl Championship Series
73:Please do not modify it.
68:featured list nomination
36:Please do not modify it.
31:featured list nomination
374:University of Rochester
52:20:25, 1 January 2008.
663:for information; see
661:http://mba.eiu.com/
529:an article about a
1544:search result link
246:Harris Interactive
1659:
1620:
1604:comment added by
1586:
1488:
1416:
1384:
1321:
1255:
1239:comment added by
1227:
1161:
1101:
1053:
1007:
966:
925:
884:
843:
795:
755:
708:
667:for the list.) --
637:
590:
511:
449:
433:comment added by
418:On my last list,
333:
274:
195:
127:
1707:
1694:
1679:
1660:
1649:
1599:
1564:
1466:
1394:
1362:
1299:
1234:
1205:
1139:
1079:
1031:
985:
980:
977:
976:
944:
939:
936:
935:
903:
898:
895:
894:
862:
857:
854:
853:
821:
816:
813:
812:
773:
768:
765:
764:
733:
686:
615:
568:
489:
484:
478:
428:
423:
311:
252:
173:
105:
75:
38:
1715:
1714:
1710:
1709:
1708:
1706:
1705:
1704:
1703:
1690:
1685:
1672:
1645:
1522:Financial Times
978:
974:
937:
933:
896:
892:
855:
851:
814:
810:
766:
762:
482:
476:
71:
61:
34:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1713:
1711:
1702:
1701:
1684:
1683:
1665:
1664:
1593:
1592:
1591:
1590:
1540:
1514:
1513:
1512:
1511:
1510:
1509:
1508:
1507:
1442:
1441:
1423:
1422:
1421:
1420:
1388:
1356:
1355:
1354:
1339:
1278:
1277:
1276:
1275:
1274:
1273:
1272:
1271:
1270:
1180:
1130:
1129:
1128:
1127:
1126:
1125:
1124:
1123:
1122:
1121:
1120:
1059:
1058:
1057:
1016:
1015:
1011:
970:
929:
888:
847:
804:
803:
759:
657:
656:
609:
608:
607:
606:
605:
604:
603:
602:
601:
600:
599:
598:
597:
596:
595:
594:
543:
534:
519:
357:
356:
338:
337:
301:
300:
299:
298:
297:
211:
210:
209:
208:
132:
131:
91:
90:
89:
62:
60:
55:
54:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1712:
1700:
1698:
1693:
1687:
1686:
1682:
1678:
1675:
1670:
1667:
1666:
1663:
1657:
1653:
1648:
1643:
1640:
1639:
1638:
1637:
1633:
1629:
1625:
1621:
1619:
1615:
1611:
1607:
1603:
1597:
1589:
1584:
1580:
1576:
1572:
1568:
1563:
1559:
1558:
1557:
1553:
1549:
1546:does work. --
1545:
1541:
1539:
1535:
1531:
1527:
1523:
1519:
1516:
1515:
1506:
1502:
1498:
1493:
1492:
1491:
1486:
1482:
1478:
1474:
1470:
1465:
1461:
1460:
1459:
1455:
1451:
1446:
1445:
1444:
1443:
1440:
1436:
1432:
1428:
1425:
1424:
1419:
1414:
1410:
1406:
1402:
1398:
1393:
1389:
1387:
1382:
1378:
1374:
1370:
1366:
1361:
1357:
1353:
1349:
1345:
1340:
1338:
1334:
1330:
1326:
1325:
1324:
1319:
1315:
1311:
1307:
1303:
1298:
1294:
1293:
1292:
1288:
1284:
1279:
1269:
1265:
1261:
1257:
1256:
1254:
1250:
1246:
1242:
1238:
1232:
1231:
1230:
1225:
1221:
1217:
1213:
1209:
1204:
1199:
1198:
1197:
1193:
1189:
1185:
1181:
1179:
1175:
1171:
1166:
1165:
1164:
1159:
1155:
1151:
1147:
1143:
1138:
1134:
1131:
1119:
1115:
1111:
1106:
1105:
1104:
1099:
1095:
1091:
1087:
1083:
1078:
1074:
1073:
1072:
1068:
1064:
1060:
1056:
1051:
1047:
1043:
1039:
1035:
1030:
1025:
1020:
1019:
1018:
1017:
1012:
1010:
1005:
1001:
997:
993:
989:
984:
971:
969:
964:
960:
956:
952:
948:
943:
930:
928:
923:
919:
915:
911:
907:
902:
889:
887:
882:
878:
874:
870:
866:
861:
848:
846:
841:
837:
833:
829:
825:
820:
806:
805:
800:
799:
798:
793:
789:
785:
781:
777:
772:
760:
758:
753:
749:
745:
741:
737:
732:
728:
727:
726:
722:
718:
713:
712:
711:
706:
702:
698:
694:
690:
685:
681:
680:
679:
678:
674:
670:
666:
662:
655:
651:
647:
643:
642:
641:
640:
635:
631:
627:
623:
619:
614:
593:
588:
584:
580:
576:
572:
567:
562:
561:
560:
556:
552:
548:
544:
542:
540:
535:
532:
528:
524:
520:
516:
515:
514:
509:
505:
501:
497:
493:
488:
481:
474:
470:
469:
468:
464:
460:
456:
451:
450:
448:
444:
440:
436:
432:
426:
422:
417:
414:
413:
412:
408:
404:
399:
398:
397:
393:
389:
385:
383:
379:
375:
371:
367:
361:
360:
359:
358:
355:
351:
347:
343:
340:
339:
336:
331:
327:
323:
319:
315:
310:
306:
303:
302:
296:
292:
288:
284:
279:
278:
277:
272:
268:
264:
260:
256:
251:
247:
243:
240:
239:
238:
237:
233:
229:
225:
223:
217:
216:
207:
204:
200:
199:
198:
193:
189:
185:
181:
177:
172:
168:
164:
160:
156:
153:
152:
151:
150:
147:
143:
141:
137:
130:
125:
121:
117:
113:
109:
104:
100:
96:
93:
92:
88:
85:
81:
77:
74:
69:
64:
63:
59:
56:
53:
51:
48:The list was
44:
42:
37:
32:
27:
26:
19:
1691:
1688:
1668:
1641:
1623:
1622:
1595:
1594:
1562:TonyTheTiger
1521:
1517:
1464:TonyTheTiger
1426:
1392:TonyTheTiger
1360:TonyTheTiger
1297:TonyTheTiger
1241:TonyTheTiger
1203:TonyTheTiger
1183:
1137:TonyTheTiger
1132:
1077:TonyTheTiger
1029:TonyTheTiger
983:TonyTheTiger
942:TonyTheTiger
901:TonyTheTiger
860:TonyTheTiger
819:TonyTheTiger
771:TonyTheTiger
731:TonyTheTiger
684:TonyTheTiger
658:
613:TonyTheTiger
610:
566:TonyTheTiger
536:
526:
487:TonyTheTiger
454:
435:TonyTheTiger
415:
381:
362:
341:
309:TonyTheTiger
304:
282:
250:TonyTheTiger
241:
219:
214:
213:
212:
171:TonyTheTiger
154:
135:
134:
133:
103:TonyTheTiger
94:
79:
72:
65:
49:
47:
35:
28:
1600:—Preceding
1235:—Preceding
429:—Preceding
159:Oscar award
84:Crzycheetah
1606:Vantelimus
1579:WP:CHICAGO
1481:WP:CHICAGO
1409:WP:CHICAGO
1377:WP:CHICAGO
1314:WP:CHICAGO
1220:WP:CHICAGO
1154:WP:CHICAGO
1094:WP:CHICAGO
1046:WP:CHICAGO
1000:WP:CHICAGO
959:WP:CHICAGO
918:WP:CHICAGO
877:WP:CHICAGO
836:WP:CHICAGO
788:WP:CHICAGO
748:WP:CHICAGO
701:WP:CHICAGO
630:WP:CHICAGO
583:WP:CHICAGO
504:WP:CHICAGO
326:WP:CHICAGO
267:WP:CHICAGO
188:WP:CHICAGO
120:WP:CHICAGO
1024:Big House
1656:contribs
1614:contribs
1602:unsigned
1249:contribs
1237:unsigned
471:O.K. Go
443:contribs
431:unsigned
203:Scorpion
146:Scorpion
99:WP:WIAFL
50:promoted
1677:cheetah
1669:Support
1647:SatyrTN
1642:Support
1596:Support
1583:WP:LOTD
1518:Comment
1485:WP:LOTD
1427:Comment
1413:WP:LOTD
1381:WP:LOTD
1318:WP:LOTD
1224:WP:LOTD
1184:without
1158:WP:LOTD
1133:COMMENT
1098:WP:LOTD
1050:WP:LOTD
1004:WP:LOTD
963:WP:LOTD
922:WP:LOTD
881:WP:LOTD
840:WP:LOTD
792:WP:LOTD
752:WP:LOTD
705:WP:LOTD
634:WP:LOTD
587:WP:LOTD
564:list.--
508:WP:LOTD
416:Comment
403:Circeus
346:Circeus
342:Comment
330:WP:LOTD
305:Comment
271:WP:LOTD
242:Comment
192:WP:LOTD
167:WP:LEAD
155:Comment
124:WP:LOTD
95:Support
80:Promote
1628:Orlady
1548:Orlady
1530:Orlady
1450:Orlady
1344:Orlady
1329:Orlady
1283:Orlady
1260:Orlady
1188:Orlady
1170:Orlady
1110:Orlady
1063:Orlady
1014:city.)
769:done--
717:Orlady
669:Orlady
646:Orlady
551:Orlady
459:Orlady
388:Orlady
287:Orlady
228:Orlady
215:Oppose
136:Oppose
16:<
1674:Crzy
1652:talk
1632:talk
1610:talk
1552:talk
1534:talk
1501:talk
1454:talk
1435:talk
1348:talk
1333:talk
1287:talk
1264:talk
1245:talk
1192:talk
1174:talk
1114:talk
1067:talk
721:talk
673:talk
650:talk
555:talk
473:here
463:talk
439:talk
407:talk
392:talk
350:talk
291:talk
232:talk
1575:bio
1477:bio
1405:bio
1373:bio
1310:bio
1216:bio
1150:bio
1090:bio
1042:bio
996:bio
955:bio
914:bio
873:bio
832:bio
784:bio
744:bio
697:bio
626:bio
579:bio
500:bio
382:and
322:bio
263:bio
184:bio
169:.--
144:--
116:bio
1671:--
1654:/
1634:)
1616:)
1612:•
1585:)
1554:)
1536:)
1503:)
1497:CG
1487:)
1456:)
1437:)
1431:CG
1415:)
1383:)
1350:)
1342:--
1335:)
1320:)
1289:)
1266:)
1251:)
1247:•
1226:)
1194:)
1176:)
1160:)
1116:)
1100:)
1069:)
1061:--
1052:)
1006:)
981:--
965:)
940:--
924:)
899:--
883:)
858:--
842:)
817:--
794:)
754:)
723:)
707:)
675:)
652:)
636:)
589:)
557:)
527:is
510:)
483:}}
477:{{
465:)
457:--
445:)
441:•
409:)
394:)
386:--
352:)
332:)
293:)
285:--
273:)
234:)
226:--
194:)
126:)
82:.
70:.
33:.
1658:)
1650:(
1630:(
1608:(
1581:/
1577:/
1573:/
1571:c
1569:/
1567:t
1565:(
1550:(
1532:(
1499:(
1483:/
1479:/
1475:/
1473:c
1471:/
1469:t
1467:(
1452:(
1433:(
1411:/
1407:/
1403:/
1401:c
1399:/
1397:t
1395:(
1379:/
1375:/
1371:/
1369:c
1367:/
1365:t
1363:(
1346:(
1331:(
1316:/
1312:/
1308:/
1306:c
1304:/
1302:t
1300:(
1285:(
1262:(
1243:(
1222:/
1218:/
1214:/
1212:c
1210:/
1208:t
1206:(
1190:(
1172:(
1156:/
1152:/
1148:/
1146:c
1144:/
1142:t
1140:(
1112:(
1096:/
1092:/
1088:/
1086:c
1084:/
1082:t
1080:(
1065:(
1048:/
1044:/
1040:/
1038:c
1036:/
1034:t
1032:(
1002:/
998:/
994:/
992:c
990:/
988:t
986:(
979:Y
961:/
957:/
953:/
951:c
949:/
947:t
945:(
938:Y
920:/
916:/
912:/
910:c
908:/
906:t
904:(
897:Y
879:/
875:/
871:/
869:c
867:/
865:t
863:(
856:Y
838:/
834:/
830:/
828:c
826:/
824:t
822:(
815:Y
790:/
786:/
782:/
780:c
778:/
776:t
774:(
767:Y
750:/
746:/
742:/
740:c
738:/
736:t
734:(
719:(
703:/
699:/
695:/
693:c
691:/
689:t
687:(
671:(
648:(
632:/
628:/
624:/
622:c
620:/
618:t
616:(
585:/
581:/
577:/
575:c
573:/
571:t
569:(
553:(
506:/
502:/
498:/
496:c
494:/
492:t
490:(
461:(
437:(
405:(
390:(
348:(
328:/
324:/
320:/
318:c
316:/
314:t
312:(
289:(
269:/
265:/
261:/
259:c
257:/
255:t
253:(
230:(
224:.
190:/
186:/
182:/
180:c
178:/
176:t
174:(
122:/
118:/
114:/
112:c
110:/
108:t
106:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.