883:. Your lone presence is evidence of the existence of one lone maintainer, not of large numbers of maintainers. And we need to weigh that evidence of your presence against the fact that a similar portal was abandoned for nearly a decade. So the balance of evidence I see is that you are a lone enthusiast for creating this portal, which make sit very likely that it will join the list of many many hundreds of other portals which were built by one enthusiastic good-faith editor like yourself ... but which had nobody else to maintain them when that editor moved on to other things. Nearly 600 such abandoned portals have been deleted in the last few months (on top of about 4200 automated spam portals crated by TTH and his partners-in-crime), and I have just today found another dozen to bring to MFD. So if you want this portal to be kept, the most persuasive thing you could do is to is to link to a discussion where a large number of other editors have committed themselves to working to maintain this portal indefinitely. That
1522:
1023:
1820:
lines, not advocating for POV here). Some of these you can put in articles in lesser forms, but they always take a sideline position. Thanks to technical templates the information in the portal is always up to date, for instance the lead sections of important articles are transcluded into this portal. This means the overall quality of the climbing topic scope has an influence on the quality of the portal. As I understand it, all of this has been underutilized in other portals in the past and odd compromises have weakened them, trying to make them more like articles or navboxes, so I understand that many users don't appreciate the power of portals.
1120:, and I am genuinely interested, with no axe to grind here: by all appearances you joined the project on June 14, on June 20 you were creating a technically sophisticated, excellent quality portal (its quality is not my issue, only the breadth of its subject matter), and on July 6 you are running Petscans to depth 20? Can I ask if you came from a different WikiProject, since if there are other editors like you there we would love to repeat your recruitment with them. Please do not read any sarcasm into this, I am genuinely interested in hearing your story and improving English Knowledge (XXG). Thanks in advance.
1742:
readers and maintainers. It does not state a broad subject area will instantly and necessarily cause large numbers of readers and maintaners, just that it is likely to lead to it. And it does not set out numbers for any of these parameters. It does not state a portal needs to be deleted if it does not meet these (non-existent) numbers. It does not state a portal needs to be deleted if it does not have at least two maintainers. I hope this cleared up your confusion about what this sentence does say and what it does not say. --
2549:. It isn't clear what argument I am said to be presenting. I am stating what the other stuff is. As I noted at the beginning of the comment, we can see what the outcome of this MFD will be, which is Keep. To a retired information technology engineer, quantitative data on other stuff may be interesting as data. But when the portal is nominated for deletion again in December 2019, or in August 2022, don't say that the numbers weren't available.
1160:
by what measure do you judge the value of a portal? If there is no objective measurement of breadth of subject, like numbers of articles in the scope, and pageviews themselves are not trustworthy, then maybe you need to reassess your procedure for deleting portals. Maybe if you vote for deleting portals no matter what, you are violating the meaning of consensus and democracy on this website. If you want to delete all portals start a new RfC.
1313:. Climbing is a major sport, practised worldwide, with many different types; it is an adequately broad topic. Many of the arguments brought here more & more feel like "I DON'T LIKE IT" dressed in wikiacronyms. Per my comment elsewhere, relying on the Foundation's buggy new code to provide a portal replacement is unwise. It is certainly not supported by a community-wide RfC, which in my opinion would be required.
1475:
premature, in my opinion, occurring just 16 days after the page was created. The crystal ball prediction above stating, "there is no reason to think that this portal will attract readers" is premature; again, the portal has only been live for 16 days. Furthermore, the portal's creator herein has stated that they are willing to improve and address concerns about the portal, so there is also an active maintainer.
998:
And a portal needs to have a large number of maintainers and readers, which meanwhile must be caused by a broad subject. This ignores all other possible factors playing into the success of a portal. At no point have you demonstrated anything or set out a clear definition for breadth of subject. You just use this policy as it suits you and you make it out to be more clean cut than it actually is.
2024:– The following table shows pageview statistics for a variety of sports portals, some of which have been kept and some of which have been deleted. It probably won't change the result, which is that this portal will probably be approved (kept). However, sports portals do not attract readers. Portals have been shown not to be an effective way to promote topics within Knowledge (XXG).
1924:, if I'm honest, and serves as a good 'shop window' on the subject. I'm quite impressed by its contents and appearance (apart from the image of a person with ice tools on an indoor climbing wall. That needs changing.) I see no need to focus on the reasonable number of views thus far, as user hits have never featured in any article deletion discussions, nor should they for portals.
617:
being a new user, so I answered their question. You barged into that conversation uninvited by the way to throw some self-defeating argument about pageviews at me and insult me personally. I maintain that I used the best tools available to me and did not try to mislead while you are constantly abusing and misinterpreting policies to suit your rather concerning anti-portal agenda.
165:- On inspection, this portal does not rely on subpages, which is an improvement over the old portal design that relies on subpages. However, this portal appears to consist of lists of topics and articles that function as a tree of navboxes, but are less intuitive and less convenient to use than a navbox. What the author is doing can be done at least as well with a navbox.
1972:
that reflects more than current trends in an activity created over a century and a half ago. It's a sport perceived by many as a lifestyle, rather than merely a collection of technical disciplines leading to formal competitions. And it has a rich history of daring feats and colorful characters. I suppose that's the crux of my concern. FWIW
1353:. But in practice this portal has only a single maintainer, a new editor in the first flush of wiki-enthusiasm who expresses OUTRAGE that before creating a portal they might have sought out other editors interested in maintaining it. We also have clear evidence that the previous portals in this topic area were abandoned and underused.
1971:
I know that at least one or two of you are climbers, but to what extent does one need to be an expert of sorts in the subject to develop this portal, or to pass judgement on the existing effort? My opinion is that one should have a depth and a breadth of experience in order to create an entrance path
1573:
Please take your personal disputes elsewhere. And none of those numbers or thresholds are official guideline. Nowhere in the guideline is a number set for minimum pageviews or maintainers. And one active maintainer is usually enough for any other portal to avoid deletion. Regarding me being merely an
1159:
as user BrownHairedGirl pointed out, this Portal has 29 average daily pageviews (since the day I created it), more than the
Portals Golf and Tennis. If we measure the value of a portal by its pageviews alone, then this portal should not be deleted. But if we do not, then you should ask yourself this:
972:
You continue to ignore the points I have been repeatedly making; that we have evidence that other climbing-related portals did not attract either maintainers or editors; and we have evidence that non-spectator sports generally don't attract them. Hence the request for evidence that the clear trends
331:
According to the old deletion discussions the
Portals were deleted due being abandoned, half-way finished and low quality. None of this is the case with this portal and I am willing to improve the quality according to what the community thinks is reasonable. Regarding the claim that climbing is not a
1875:
Mainspace to Portal space linking is uncommon. What are the prospects for serious linking, and why should this portal be different from most portals? For navigation by wikilinking, the parent article is how that is supposed to work best. Every relevant other article gets linked, usually directly,
1796:
seems quite sufficient in my opinion. An internet search for "climbing" produces an immediate link to the
Knowledge (XXG) article, which I think is fairly well-written, and directs one to any number of sub-genres. Please explain the added value of a preliminary portal that more or less does the same
1396:
is the parent article that serves to provide a source-based NPOV-compliant introduction and navigation options. The Portal is non-encyclopedic, and presents and reads like a pro-climbing pamphlet. Redirect to preserve the history while it is decided how to revamp the whole portal concept, which is
471:
The tool is not perfect, one article being miscategorized does not disprove the trend. I did not write that piece of software so such things are outside of my control. PetScan is the best tool available to my knowledge, if you have a better tool for counting articles in categories and subcategories,
997:
As was established in the deletion discussions, the other portals were low quality, halfway finished and not maintained. Why would they attract readers and maintainers? Your argument is flawed. A portal needs to have a broad topic, which is demonstrated by a large number of readers and maintainers.
754:
It is hard to attract a large number of readers and dedicated maintainers if the portal gets deleted right after its creation. I have demonstrated that climbing is a broad subject area as per comment above. And climbing is already a broader subject than just rock climbing. Also please consider that
616:
How many articles are in the scope then? And I don't know why you are bringing up my occupation again and again as if I had used that as an argument. Another user asked a personal question about how I could create a "technically sophisticated, excellent quality portal" (their words, not mine) while
421:
I am limited by functionality of PetScan. Depth 10 has the same results by the way. I just used depth 20 because when I tested it with some portal categories I got extremely low results, which I found unlikely. Mountains that have information about climbing ascends are very much in the scope of the
1819:
Yes, I think it is needed. Portals offer a more visual and interactive narrative than an article ever could. Plain boring list of links that you can hover over are nice and all, but they are not as engaging and powerful as placards, slideshows, videos and selected content (selected along objective
1640:
I could be critical of your practices as well, which I believe I have been, but that is not the point of this discussion page. If you wish to criticize that user's integrity and practices then choose the appropriate venue instead of doing it in every discussion they are involved in. And the policy
1474:
per the rationales of User:Hecato and User:Espresso Addict above. I feel that the topic is broad enough to meet the portal guideline relative to its topical coverage on
English Knowledge (XXG). This new version of the portal was created on 20 June 2019‎, and as such, the nomination for deletion is
1289:
Agree. There is not simple statement as to what a Portal is, or should be. ENDPORTALS showed considerable dissatisfaction with the status quo of portals, but shied back from agreeing to delete them all en mass, absolutely no surprise there. I think
Portals needs a massive restructure, a reboot,
588:
Your claim to be a software developer looks less and less plausible with every comment by you. The problem here is that you used the tool without understanding its effects, and without even a preliminary sanity-check on its results. The result was garbage-in, garbage out. If you were genuialey a
1890:
This somehow turned into a discussion about the purpose of portals as a whole instead of a discussion about whether this individual portal is a good member of the set of portals. Do you care to continue this discussion somewhere else, maybe on that village pump you mentioned, so as not to fill up
1867:
Needed like a navbox? For navbox navigation purposes, it is inferior to a navbox. Navboxes are easily understood and edited, to fix problems for example. This is not true for the portal. The portal is not comprehensive in navigation aids, and does not appear intended to be, instead presenting
926:
This is not right after
Knowledge (XXG)'s creation. It's nearly two decades after Knowledge (XXG)'s creation, when we have long-established guidelines requiring multiple maintainers for portals because of 14 years of experience of portals being created in good faith by lone enthusiasts who later
1542:
As NA1K well knows, POG requires that a portal attract large numbers of maintainers. Yet here we have one lone maintainer, a new editor in the first flush of enthusiasm. The ranks of deleted portals are filled with portals created with enthusiasm by an enthusiastic newcomer who disappeared soon
1178:
well knows, the figure of 29 reflects a period of only a few days, in which the portal was being built and the being discussed at this MFD. So those figures are predominantly the views by editors participating in those processes, not of readers. As evidence of reader interest, they are utterly
490:
Categories on en.wp are grouped in hierarchies for navigational convenience, not for mathematical purity. So a set of "Category:X + subcats" will often include topics which are at best tangentially related to X. (One of the worst examples of this arose from the not-wholly-unreasonable placing of
208:
Two newish features of the
Wikimedia software means that the article and navboxes offers all the functionality which portals like this set out to offer. :Both features are available only to ordinary readers who are not logged in, but you can test them without logging out by right-clicking on a
1852:
It is needed like a navbox is needed. It a tool for navigation and exploration according to a set of rules. A different set of rules than lists and navboxes. The better question is: is it useful? And I think it is. The portal is new and not well linked into the article-sphere yet. I don't think
1741:
Alright, let us dissect that sentence from the guideline. All it says is that portals should have a broad subject area because that might (is likely to) lead to large numbers of readers and maintainers. Which is implied to be desirable. It does not state a portal needs to have a large number of
1419:
I disagree with your assertion that climbing as a topic is too small to deserve a portal overview of its topics for reasons explained above. But still I would like to hear your opinions about this portal being POV and paying an undue amount of attention to only some aspects of climbing. If this
1822:
Regarding your concerns about the categorization of bouldering and the perceived focus on sport climbing, let us work it out together. The portal is new and I did not get much criticism yet. I think the right path forward would be constructive dialogue to improve the portal and shared editing,
1615:
I understand that you may wish to ally yourself with NA1K since your objectives in this discussion coincide. But no matter how vehement your objections I will not desist from challenging NA1K's sustained practice of deception. If you choose to define yourself as defender of NA1K's practice of
911:
Please don't tell me about bad faith debate tactics and ask me in the same breath to present a large number of dedicated maintainers and readers for a portal that I have just created. By that logic
Knowledge (XXG) should have deleted itself right after its inception because it did not have any
1006:
is such vague language, meanwhile you treat this like it was a clean cut demand for X amount of maintainers and Y number of readers with a topic that has a breadth of Z, otherwise we need to instantly delete the portal with no breathing room. None of that is actually written anywhere in that
1655:
portals need to have large numbers of pageviews at all times and if they have below 100 daily views, then they need to be deleted. And if they have one maintainer then that is not enough either. And if those maintainers have not been long enough here, then they are no good anyway and don't
1891:
this discussion with meta topics? Please tell me on my talk page. Regarding the linking of portals, I think Portal:Science is a good example. It is linked in almost every article even tangentially related to science, at least I find it linked whenever I do any research on science topics.
955:. Does it say anywhere that you need to have more than one maintainer when you create a portal? To me it reads like you need to create a portal that is attractive to maintainers, which I did not have time to demonstrate since you are trying to delete the portal right after its creation.
212:
mouseover: on any link, mouseover shows you the picture and the start of the lead. So the preview-selected page-function of portals is redundant: something almost as good is available automatically on any navbox or other set of links. Try it by right-clicking on this link to
1548:
As an admin, NA1K knows much better than to repeatedly misrepresent established guidelines in order to obscure wording which she has unsuccessfully tried to remove. I hope that the closure of the discussion does not endorse the systematic deception practiced by NA1K.
1290:
and that all but the top portals, the ones currently linked from the main page, need to go. But by "go", I mean restructured, archived, not deleted. I think that navigation portals need structure for the portals and pathways, not thousands of standalone doors. --
1797:
thing? It would appear the entire purpose of this portal is to emphasis formal competitions, such as the
Olympic Games. I think it's a mistake to introduce the reader to the sport from this perspective. For example, "bouldering" is listed under the section
1274:
show me that the community has no consensus about what a portal is. I agree with your statement and by my mfds history would vote delete here, but I expect a consensus from the community so that portals like this one are deleted(or keepd) in block and not
787:
portals should be immediately deleted. The answer to that question was a clear "no", but "don't delete everything now" does not mean "keep everything" or that "portals as a feature are valuable". Please apply your reasoning without misrepresenting the
1837:
Hecato. "is it needed"? I think it is very hard to say it is, given the age of portals and their next to zero use. The few pageviews per days could well be only bots and crawlers. For what is it needed? What will happen differently in its absence?
755:
this discussion is about this portal and not the concept of portals as a whole. There was a community decision which came to the conclusion that portals as a feature are valuable and should be kept. Please apply your reasoning in that context.
1853:
pageviews tell us much right after its creation. As I see it, one feature that all popular portals have in common is that they are well-linked in their respective article scope. Readers can not click on something they don't know exists.
486:
You misunderstand the problem: there is no miscategorisation involved. The problem is that your search was badly designed, and AFAICS you appear not to have done even the cursory checks which would have revealed that there is a design
1211:
I have build most of that portal in my sandbox. And if this one and only statistic you seem to care about, pageviews, is distorted and not applicable because of the young age of this portal, then this AfD must have been premature.
332:
notable broad enough topic. I think the collected article topics in the portal show a different image. But if that is not enough, climbing as a sport is part of the Summer
Olympics in 2020 and 2024. According to PetScan (depth 20)
1675:
I am criticising NA1K's integrity and practices in this discussion because NA1K is using those dishonest practices to attempt to sway this discussion. I will do so in any discussion in which any editor deliberately misrepresents
379:
1497:, not least because NA1K repeatedly supports unsuccessful proposals to remove from it any wording which might support deletion of even completely abandoned portals. POG provides two clear factors to measure a portal's breadth:
1434:
Hecato, this portal has far from the worst POV attractiveness (politics is far more attractive to POV), but this topic like all topics is vulnerable to Wikipedian's unconscious bias. It is virtually unavoidable. The answer is
148:, but we are here. There is no reason to think that this portal will attract readers. It is not a broad subject area. At best, what the author is proposing may be a slide show, but a portal should be more than a slide show.
1871:
Rules for navigation by Portal? What are these rules? This goes to the purpose question being asked at both WT:POG and the Village Pump RfC. I can find or even imaging sensible workable rules, not with so much content
373:
That figure of 7874 is almost certainly nonsense. Blindly using Petscan to a depth of 20 sucks in all sorts of articles which have a tangential relationship to the topic. It includes for example the 610 articles in
799:. You have offered no evidence that this portal has attracted any maintainers other than yourself, and we have the evidence of the previous portal that viewers didn't want it, and the evidence of other sports portals.
1356:
The irony of it all is that despite EA's cry of "I DON'T LIKE IT", the only "I DON'T LIKE IT" at play here is EA's decision to simply ignore the two tests which qualify the "broad subject areas" requirement.
545:
This same pattern has been replicated by you several times: you make strong assertions which turn out to be ill-founded because you made mistaken assumptions about the data and didn't test those assumptions.
631:
You used a tool without understanding what it does, and without sanity-checking the results, and seem wholly unconcerned by the fact that on that basis you made definitive statements which are demonstrably
635:
You also seem entirely unconcerned about your transparently bogus use of statistics in that other discussion. So at this stage you don't look like either a software developer or a person of integrity.
1539:. NA1K offers not a shred of evidence to suggests that this portal has any characteristic which would place it in that mere 6.2% of portals which pass even the pathetically low thershold of 100/day.
530:
So any such result set needs to be checked to see whether it has picked up tangential articles. You are new to Knowledge (XXG), so may not be aware of the nature of categories. But since you have
2618:
1007:
guideline. I don't even want to know how many portals you have deleted with that draconian interpretation of that innocent lead section for a guideline about creating high quality portals.
182:- As the person who created that portal, I am willing to improve whatever concerns you have with the quality of the portal. None of these concerns have been brought to my attention though.
1574:"enthusiastic newcomer", I am an extended confirmed user. And I do not appreciate these assumptions about me lacking character and getting bunched together in insulting generalizations. --
592:
I assess breadth by a number of factors, including number of directly relevant articles in scope, but also on experience of the number of readers and editors attracted by other portals. --
1696:. You are at least doing better than NA1K, who pretend that this phrase doesn't exist. So now that we agree what the guideline actually says, tie for a reality check. Do you agree that
803:
727:
326:
1336:, the rhetorical flourish of dismissing reasoned objections as "I DON'T LIKE IT" is a sleazy and dishonest game. I am sad to see you reduced to that, because you can do so much better.
1513:
So we have yardstricks by which to measure this. Sadly, the systematically deceptive NA1k routinely comments in MFDs by omitting any mention of these yardsticks, as where NA1K asserts
969:
Then you have reading comprehension issues. The text clearly refers to broad subject areas which attracts maintainers and readers. It does not refer to designs which attract editors.
322:
115:
1947:, but that said, it seems more style than substance. The main article has been shaped by a number of devotees over a period of time, and I think it does its job quite well.
862:
841:
1420:
portal happens to survive this deletion discussion, please tell me your concerns on the talk page of the portal, or on my own talk page and I will try to address them.
2600:
844:. How do you measure breadth then? And you are deleting this portal right after its creation. This portal is not abandoned, as you might have noticed by my presence.
1235:- Keep per now, while there is no consensus about WP:POG. I consider this topic somewhat narrow, but this portal is better than "90%" of portals related to sports.
439:
that you didn't even glance at the results to assess their relevance, so and thereby didn't notice that the very first item is a song which not about climbing
953:
Please bear in mind that portals should be about broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers
2622:
1249:
The problem with WP:POG is that it is too lax. This portal fails even the lax interpretation. At 29 views per day, it fails its reason for existing. --
1397:
a process that has no chance of keeping such narrow topics as stand alone portals. All that is good about this portal should be built into the article
220:
automatic imagery galleries: clicking on an image brings up an image gallery of all the images on that page. It's full-screen, so it's actually much
1608:. It is an objection to this consensus-forming discussion being disrupted by an admin who has chosen yet again to be intentionally deceptive about
114:
Portal recreated by a user six days after joining the project, just squeaking under the newly applicable autoconfirmed requirement. And just like
512:
574:. I use the tools recommended to my be the guidelines. Meanwhile what do you base your concept of "breadth of subject" on exactly, a feeling?
2511:
1986:
I wish to expand the portal in that regard. I don't think deletion is the right remedy to your concerns, but thanks for your opinion anyway.
1731:
1630:
1563:
1371:
1193:
1047:
987:
941:
901:
824:
744:
716:
698:, which requiractice, the repeated experience of sports portals is that the only those portals which relate to mass spectator sports attract
650:
606:
560:
461:
411:
302:
254:
94:
1521:
1022:
1599:
you have made 592 edits after being signed up for 33 days; that is very firmly in newcomer territory. And "enthusiastic" is a compliment.
17:
524:
500:
496:
90:
2576:
2558:
2535:
2515:
2012:
1995:
1981:
1964:
1933:
1900:
1885:
1862:
1847:
1832:
1810:
1782:
1751:
1736:
1667:
1635:
1583:
1568:
1481:
1460:
1429:
1410:
1376:
1327:
1299:
1284:
1258:
1244:
1221:
1198:
1169:
1147:
1129:
1103:
1052:
1016:
992:
964:
946:
921:
906:
853:
829:
764:
749:
721:
655:
626:
611:
583:
565:
534:, I am sure that you know to quickly examine a data set to see whether it is plausible. The presence near the top of the list of both
481:
466:
431:
416:
353:
307:
280:
259:
191:
174:
157:
135:
63:
288:
is a concept which applies to articles. This discussion is about a portal, which is not an article, so notability does not apply. --
1033:). Very very few portals achieve anything other than risible pageviews. Only 6.2% of portals exceed even 100 pageviews per day. --
422:
Climbing project by the way. Mountaineering is a sub-topic of Climbing. I don't appreciate these assumptions of trying to mislead.
1094:- I have changed the level of your References because second-level and third-level headings in an MFD break the flow of the MFD.
82:
2604:
1823:
building a robust interactive introduction to the topic, not deleting it. And your ideas would be very welcome for that.
2644:
40:
375:
879:
The problem is that as I have explained to you above, the breadth test of a portal is defined in part by its ability
571:
2554:
2507:
1727:
1626:
1559:
1367:
1322:
1189:
1125:
1099:
1043:
983:
937:
897:
820:
740:
712:
646:
602:
556:
457:
407:
298:
250:
170:
153:
131:
2531:
1778:
1280:
1240:
508:
214:
200:
2003:
1499:"broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers"
1351:"broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers"
797:"broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers"
689:"broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers"
504:
492:
2499:
776:
684:
285:
1977:
1806:
1439:, by presenting viewpoints only as they exist in sources, and ensuring explicit viewpoint presentation by
866:
691:. But in prles. This discussion is about a portal, which is not an article, so notability does not apply.
341:
240:
Those new technologies set a high bar for any portal which actually tries to add value for the reader. --
119:
791:
The test of whether a portal is a "broad topic are" is not just how many articles are within its scope.
224:
than a click-for-next image gallery on a portal. Try it by right-clicking on this link to the article
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below.
2640:
2008:
1490:
1477:
535:
383:
36:
447:
So which is is? Did you make no check of the data you presented? Or did you intentionally mislead? --
2550:
2503:
2202:
Originator edits, but not this portal since creating it in 2012. No apparent maintenance since 2012.
1960:
1929:
1718:
1617:
1550:
1358:
1333:
1317:
1180:
1121:
1095:
1034:
974:
928:
888:
811:
731:
703:
637:
593:
547:
520:
516:
448:
398:
289:
267:
241:
166:
149:
127:
86:
58:
865:. that page is actually just a tendentious essay, driven in part by the discredited portalspammer @
2542:
2527:
1881:
1843:
1774:
1456:
1406:
1295:
1276:
1254:
1236:
730:. In Jan–Feb 2019 that portal got only 6 pageviews per day, which is an utterly abysmal figure. --
337:
209:
link, and the select "open in private window" (in Firefox) or "open in incognito window" (Chrome).
1773:- There are editors here who seem willing to make improvements to the portal, give it a chance. -
1920:
Looks a vibrant and informative Portal page. Far more interesting in appearance than the page on
887:
change my mind, though I would have to weigh it against the likelihood of very low readership. --
876:
arguments like that, because straw man tactics are deeply corrosive to collaborative discussions.
1543:
after. No evidence has been offered to suggest that this portal is an exception to that pattern.
234:
1315:
If you feel the need to respond to this comment, feel free to do so, but please DO NOT ping me.
1973:
1802:
333:
1436:
2572:
1991:
1896:
1858:
1828:
1747:
1663:
1579:
1425:
1217:
1165:
1143:
1012:
960:
917:
849:
760:
622:
579:
477:
427:
349:
276:
187:
2546:
2523:
1609:
1494:
1346:
1271:
792:
695:
123:
2639:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's
1956:
1925:
1717:
Those are the two realities about which NA1K is in denial. Where do you stand on them? --
1444:
336:
has 7874 articles. To put that in reference with some categories with associated portals:
77:
69:
53:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's
145:
806:, one of the issues was that it had been abandoned for over 8 years. So please drop the
1877:
1839:
1452:
1402:
1291:
1265:
1250:
872:
As you well know, nobody is arguing that this portal is abandoned. Please do not make
539:
387:
869:(TTH). Please do not misrepresent it as documenting any sort of community consensus.
329:
specifically said the portal could be recreated again properly by a dedicated editor.
589:
software developer, you'd understand the problem without having it explained to you.
442:
that you did notice that irrelevance at the start, but used the junk numbers anyway.
2619:"Olympic Committee Unanimously Votes to Include Sport Climbing in Paris 2024 Games"
2129:
Not deleted. Created March 2019, and was just a redirect during the sample period.
1536:
1440:
1030:
2419:
Originator inactive since Jan 2017. Appears to have been last maintained in 2010.
542:
should have been a clear indication that this search was not working as you hoped.
2568:
1987:
1892:
1854:
1824:
1743:
1683:
1659:
1616:
systematic deception in pursuit of their goals, that is entirely your choice. --
1594:
1575:
1421:
1213:
1175:
1161:
1139:
1115:
1091:
1029:
Hecatio, just look at graph of average daily pageviews for portals (data source
1008:
956:
913:
858:
845:
770:
756:
618:
575:
473:
423:
394:
345:
272:
228:, open in a private/incognito tab, and click on any image to start the slideshow
183:
840:
There is a whole list of reasons that were found against deleting portals, see
1451:, and am appalled at the state of the article, being completely unsourced. --
873:
1510:
Note the wording: "large numbers", applied to both readers and maintainers.
122:, the subject does not meet the breadth-of-subject-area requirement of the
1493:
is an experienced admin who is very well-acquainted with portal guideline
2002:
The notion that the portal "is terrible to me" is entirely subjective, a
1944:
1921:
1801:. I suspect many boulderers would take exception to this categorization.
1793:
1448:
1398:
1393:
1389:
225:
1943:
Admittedly, the portal is more visually attractive and fashionable than
1689:
to wrap words which are not a quote. That is deceptive and misleading
2476:
Originator inactive since 2012. No indication of recent maintenance.
2391:
Originator inactive since 2009. Last maintenance appears to be 2014.
1525:
Average daily pageviews of portals on en.wikipedia in April–June 2019
1026:
Average daily pageviews of portals on en.wikipedia in April–June 2019
881:
to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers
795:
applies two other criteria: it requires that portals should be about
687:
is a concept which applies to artices that portals should be about
1520:
1021:
1528:
To counter this assertion of feelings, we have actual evidence:
2635:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
1443:
phrasing with explicit sourcing. Now, to illustrate I look at
1138:
I will answer on your talk page as not to influence the vote.
235:
available since 2015 to users of Knowledge (XXG)'s Android app
2601:"Vertical Triathlon: The Future of Climbing in the Olympics"
1694:"large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers"
1537:
Q2 2019, only 6.2% of portals got even 100 pageviews per day
804:
Knowledge (XXG):Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Rock climbing
728:
Knowledge (XXG):Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Rock climbing
1647:
large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers.
397:
will have known when posting them that they are garbage. --
264:
Regarding the notability please consider my comment below.
2448:
Originator last edited in 2014. Last maintenance in 2014.
700:
large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers
217:, open in a private/incognito tab, and mouseover any link.
2006:
argument, and provides no valid rationale for deletion.
1612:, which explicitly requires "large numbers" tactically .
2564:
1604:
My objection to NA1K's conduct is not, as you claim, a
531:
527:
picked up most of the 20th century history of Vietnam.)
102:
98:
863:
Knowledge (XXG):Consultation on the future of portals
781:
portals as a feature are valuable and should be kept
393:
So basically, those are garbage statistics ... and @
1643:portals should be about broad subject areas, which
1658:I believe that is just your personal addition. --
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
2647:). No further edits should be made to this page.
773:, there are a bunch of misunderstandings there:
118:(closed as delete), and the more recent one for
1706:That less than 100 page views per day is not a
1876:tangential relations within two wikilinks. --
327:The deletion proposal of Portal:Rock Climbing
144:- I disagree with the admin who declined the
8:
2336:Peak of article views at 4988 on 26 January
2497:
2363:Created in 2012. Last maintained in 2012.
2027:
2146:No maintenance since 2015. Two articles.
1000:...should be about broad subject areas...
378:+subcats, and the first item returned by
532:stated that you are a software developer
199:. Too narrow a topic, and redundant to
2592:
18:Knowledge (XXG):Miscellany for deletion
2081:National Basketball League (Australia)
1654:
1642:
1605:
1532:
1514:
1349:requires that portals should be about
1003:
999:
952:
807:
780:
570:PetScan is a wikimedia tool listed at
513:Category:Presidency of John F. Kennedy
1955:this portal is terrible to me, sorry.
1708:"large numbers of interested readers"
1515:I feel that the topic is broad enough
7:
2134:National Basketball League of Canada
48:The result of the discussion was:
1792:. I am naive concerning "portals."
525:Category:People from County Wexford
501:Category:People from County Wexford
497:Category:People from County Wexford
323:deleted 10 years ago with two votes
1701:large number of portal maintainers
1392:, and redirect all the subpages.
325:, things change a lot since then.
24:
116:this portal's last MfD discussion
808:deleted right after its creation
321:. The first Portal:Climbing was
1699:One portal maintainer is not a
1535:required by the guideline. In
2621:. climbing.com. Archived from
2603:. climbing.com. Archived from
694:The relevant guidance here is
572:Knowledge (XXG):Categorization
523:is a huge sprawling thing, so
1:
1531:Very few portal attracts the
1270:, per the current discussion
436:There are two possibilities.
2545:asks me why I am going with
1868:only a selection of options.
499:. The trail of subcats went
376:Category:Lists of mountains
233:Similar features have been
2667:
2563:Maybe it makes more sense
2174:No maintenance since 2011.
2577:05:50, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
2559:20:18, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
2536:17:37, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
2516:03:03, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
2431:Portal has been renamed.
2013:01:43, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
1996:05:36, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
1982:05:10, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
1965:20:09, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
1934:02:38, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
1901:07:33, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
1886:07:11, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
1863:06:42, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
1848:06:35, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
1833:06:19, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
1811:04:31, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
1783:00:05, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
1752:06:48, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
1737:23:28, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
1668:20:34, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
1636:20:10, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
1584:18:52, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
1569:18:30, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
1461:06:35, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
1053:17:58, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
1004:...which are likely to...
64:06:24, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
2637:Please do not modify it.
2351:National Football League
1482:22:28, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
1430:15:26, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
1411:04:07, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
1377:04:42, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
1328:02:49, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
1300:02:29, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
1285:01:55, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
1259:00:38, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
1245:20:41, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
1222:06:12, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
1199:23:21, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
1170:16:49, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
1148:07:39, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
1130:02:55, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
1104:14:48, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
1017:19:18, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
993:18:39, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
965:16:58, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
947:23:33, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
922:20:46, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
907:13:41, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
854:07:39, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
830:00:21, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
765:13:25, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
750:13:15, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
722:13:12, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
656:18:20, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
627:18:02, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
612:17:44, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
584:16:39, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
566:15:27, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
509:Category:John F. Kennedy
482:06:12, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
472:then please present it.
467:23:25, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
432:15:26, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
417:15:09, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
354:12:25, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
308:13:08, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
281:12:49, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
260:11:55, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
215:Template:Climbing navbox
201:Template:Climbing navbox
192:06:58, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
175:04:15, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
158:04:08, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
136:03:46, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
32:Please do not modify it.
2522:Why are you going with
1692:We agree that POG says
1533:large number of readers
726:For specific data, see
505:Category:Kennedy family
493:Category:Kennedy family
1526:
1027:
1645:are likely to attract
1524:
1487:Note to closing admin
1025:
536:America the Beautiful
384:America the Beautiful
1641:states specifically
973:have been bucked. --
783:. It asked whether
779:did not ask whether
521:Category:Vietnam War
517:Category:Vietnam War
386:. The 25th item is
120:Portal:Rock climbing
2543:User:Knowledgekid87
2547:Other Stuff Exists
2037:Article Page Views
1941:Reluctantly delete
1679:please do not use
1527:
1345:As you well know,
1028:
2518:
2502:comment added by
2495:
2494:
2162:Baseball in Japan
2034:Portal Page Views
1735:
1634:
1567:
1375:
1326:
1316:
1197:
1051:
991:
945:
905:
867:The Transhumanist
828:
748:
720:
654:
610:
564:
465:
415:
334:Category:Climbing
306:
258:
2658:
2627:
2626:
2615:
2609:
2608:
2607:on May 29, 2019.
2597:
2028:
2011:
1726:
1724:
1722:
1688:
1682:
1625:
1623:
1621:
1606:personal dispute
1598:
1558:
1556:
1554:
1480:
1366:
1364:
1362:
1320:
1314:
1269:
1188:
1186:
1184:
1119:
1042:
1040:
1038:
982:
980:
978:
936:
934:
932:
927:abandon them. --
896:
894:
892:
861:, you linked to
819:
817:
815:
739:
737:
735:
711:
709:
707:
645:
643:
641:
601:
599:
597:
555:
553:
551:
456:
454:
452:
406:
404:
402:
297:
295:
293:
271:
249:
247:
245:
107:
106:
61:
56:
34:
2666:
2665:
2661:
2660:
2659:
2657:
2656:
2655:
2651:
2645:deletion review
2631:
2630:
2625:on Jul 4, 2019.
2617:
2616:
2612:
2599:
2598:
2594:
2589:
2565:in this context
2551:Robert McClenon
2504:Robert McClenon
2007:
1720:
1719:
1686:
1680:
1619:
1618:
1592:
1552:
1551:
1476:
1445:Portal:Climbing
1360:
1359:
1334:Espresso Addict
1318:Espresso Addict
1263:
1182:
1181:
1122:UnitedStatesian
1113:
1096:Robert McClenon
1036:
1035:
976:
975:
951:You mean this?
930:
929:
890:
889:
813:
812:
733:
732:
705:
704:
639:
638:
595:
594:
549:
548:
450:
449:
400:
399:
291:
290:
268:BrownHairedGirl
265:
243:
242:
167:Robert McClenon
150:Robert McClenon
128:UnitedStatesian
80:
78:Portal:Climbing
76:
73:
70:Portal:Climbing
60:| confabulate _
59:
54:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
2664:
2662:
2653:
2650:
2649:
2629:
2628:
2610:
2591:
2590:
2588:
2585:
2584:
2583:
2582:
2581:
2580:
2579:
2561:
2528:Knowledgekid87
2493:
2492:
2489:
2488:
2486:
2483:
2480:
2477:
2474:
2471:
2468:
2465:
2461:
2460:
2458:
2455:
2452:
2449:
2446:
2443:
2440:
2437:
2433:
2432:
2429:
2426:
2423:
2420:
2417:
2414:
2411:
2408:
2404:
2403:
2401:
2398:
2395:
2392:
2389:
2386:
2383:
2380:
2376:
2375:
2373:
2370:
2367:
2364:
2361:
2358:
2355:
2352:
2348:
2347:
2345:
2343:
2340:
2337:
2334:
2331:
2328:
2325:
2324:Figure Skating
2321:
2320:
2318:
2316:
2313:
2310:
2308:
2305:
2302:
2299:
2295:
2294:
2292:
2289:
2286:
2283:
2280:
2277:
2274:
2271:
2267:
2266:
2264:
2262:
2259:
2256:
2254:
2251:
2248:
2245:
2241:
2240:
2238:
2236:
2233:
2230:
2228:
2225:
2222:
2219:
2215:
2214:
2212:
2209:
2206:
2203:
2200:
2197:
2194:
2191:
2187:
2186:
2184:
2181:
2178:
2175:
2172:
2169:
2166:
2163:
2159:
2158:
2156:
2153:
2150:
2147:
2144:
2141:
2138:
2135:
2131:
2130:
2127:
2125:
2122:
2119:
2117:
2114:
2111:
2108:
2104:
2103:
2101:
2099:
2096:
2093:
2091:
2088:
2085:
2082:
2078:
2077:
2075:
2073:
2071:
2069:
2067:
2065:
2063:
2061:
2057:
2056:
2053:
2050:
2047:
2044:
2041:
2038:
2035:
2032:
2026:
2025:
2018:
2017:
2016:
2015:
2004:WP:IDONTLIKEIT
1999:
1998:
1968:
1967:
1949:
1948:
1937:
1936:
1914:
1913:
1912:
1911:
1910:
1909:
1908:
1907:
1906:
1905:
1904:
1903:
1873:
1869:
1821:
1814:
1813:
1799:Sport Climbing
1786:
1785:
1775:Knowledgekid87
1767:
1766:
1765:
1764:
1763:
1762:
1761:
1760:
1759:
1758:
1757:
1756:
1755:
1754:
1715:
1714:
1713:
1712:
1711:
1704:
1690:
1677:
1613:
1601:
1600:
1587:
1586:
1546:
1545:
1544:
1540:
1518:
1511:
1505:
1504:
1503:
1502:
1468:
1467:
1466:
1465:
1464:
1463:
1414:
1413:
1382:
1381:
1380:
1379:
1354:
1340:
1339:
1338:
1337:
1308:
1307:
1306:
1305:
1304:
1303:
1302:
1277:Guilherme Burn
1237:Guilherme Burn
1229:
1228:
1227:
1226:
1225:
1224:
1204:
1203:
1202:
1201:
1153:
1152:
1151:
1150:
1133:
1132:
1106:
1084:
1083:
1082:
1081:
1080:
1079:
1078:
1077:
1076:
1075:
1074:
1073:
1072:
1071:
1070:
1069:
1068:
1067:
1066:
1065:
1064:
1063:
1062:
1061:
1060:
1059:
1058:
1057:
1056:
1055:
970:
877:
870:
833:
832:
800:
789:
692:
682:
681:
680:
679:
678:
677:
676:
675:
674:
673:
672:
671:
670:
669:
668:
667:
666:
665:
664:
663:
662:
661:
660:
659:
658:
633:
590:
543:
540:Clint Eastwood
528:
488:
445:
444:
443:
440:
391:
388:Clint Eastwood
357:
356:
330:
315:
314:
313:
312:
311:
310:
238:
231:
230:
229:
218:
205:
204:
194:
177:
160:
109:
108:
72:
67:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2663:
2654:
2648:
2646:
2642:
2638:
2633:
2632:
2624:
2620:
2614:
2611:
2606:
2602:
2596:
2593:
2586:
2578:
2574:
2570:
2566:
2562:
2560:
2556:
2552:
2548:
2544:
2541:
2540:
2539:
2538:
2537:
2533:
2529:
2525:
2521:
2520:
2519:
2517:
2513:
2509:
2505:
2501:
2491:
2490:
2487:
2484:
2481:
2478:
2475:
2472:
2469:
2466:
2463:
2462:
2459:
2456:
2453:
2450:
2447:
2444:
2441:
2438:
2435:
2434:
2430:
2427:
2424:
2421:
2418:
2415:
2412:
2409:
2407:Olympic Games
2406:
2405:
2402:
2399:
2396:
2393:
2390:
2387:
2384:
2381:
2378:
2377:
2374:
2371:
2368:
2365:
2362:
2359:
2356:
2353:
2350:
2349:
2346:
2344:
2341:
2338:
2335:
2332:
2329:
2326:
2323:
2322:
2319:
2317:
2314:
2311:
2309:
2306:
2303:
2300:
2297:
2296:
2293:
2290:
2287:
2284:
2281:
2278:
2275:
2272:
2269:
2268:
2265:
2263:
2260:
2257:
2255:
2252:
2249:
2246:
2243:
2242:
2239:
2237:
2234:
2231:
2229:
2226:
2223:
2220:
2218:Rock climbing
2217:
2216:
2213:
2210:
2207:
2204:
2201:
2198:
2195:
2192:
2189:
2188:
2185:
2182:
2179:
2176:
2173:
2170:
2167:
2164:
2161:
2160:
2157:
2154:
2151:
2148:
2145:
2142:
2139:
2136:
2133:
2132:
2128:
2126:
2123:
2120:
2118:
2115:
2112:
2109:
2106:
2105:
2102:
2100:
2097:
2094:
2092:
2089:
2086:
2083:
2080:
2079:
2076:
2074:
2072:
2070:
2068:
2066:
2064:
2062:
2059:
2058:
2054:
2051:
2048:
2045:
2042:
2039:
2036:
2033:
2030:
2029:
2023:
2020:
2019:
2014:
2010:
2009:North America
2005:
2001:
2000:
1997:
1993:
1989:
1985:
1984:
1983:
1979:
1975:
1970:
1969:
1966:
1962:
1958:
1954:
1951:
1950:
1946:
1942:
1939:
1938:
1935:
1931:
1927:
1923:
1919:
1916:
1915:
1902:
1898:
1894:
1889:
1888:
1887:
1883:
1879:
1874:
1870:
1866:
1865:
1864:
1860:
1856:
1851:
1850:
1849:
1845:
1841:
1836:
1835:
1834:
1830:
1826:
1818:
1817:
1816:
1815:
1812:
1808:
1804:
1800:
1795:
1791:
1790:Is It Needed?
1788:
1787:
1784:
1780:
1776:
1772:
1769:
1768:
1753:
1749:
1745:
1740:
1739:
1738:
1733:
1729:
1725:
1716:
1709:
1705:
1702:
1698:
1697:
1695:
1691:
1685:
1678:
1674:
1673:
1671:
1670:
1669:
1665:
1661:
1657:
1652:
1648:
1646:
1639:
1638:
1637:
1632:
1628:
1624:
1614:
1611:
1607:
1603:
1602:
1596:
1591:
1590:
1589:
1588:
1585:
1581:
1577:
1572:
1571:
1570:
1565:
1561:
1557:
1547:
1541:
1538:
1534:
1530:
1529:
1523:
1519:
1516:
1512:
1509:
1508:
1507:
1506:
1500:
1496:
1492:
1488:
1485:
1484:
1483:
1479:
1478:North America
1473:
1470:
1469:
1462:
1458:
1454:
1450:
1446:
1442:
1438:
1433:
1432:
1431:
1427:
1423:
1418:
1417:
1416:
1415:
1412:
1408:
1404:
1400:
1395:
1391:
1387:
1384:
1383:
1378:
1373:
1369:
1365:
1355:
1352:
1348:
1344:
1343:
1342:
1341:
1335:
1331:
1330:
1329:
1324:
1319:
1312:
1309:
1301:
1297:
1293:
1288:
1287:
1286:
1282:
1278:
1275:individually.
1273:
1267:
1262:
1261:
1260:
1256:
1252:
1248:
1247:
1246:
1242:
1238:
1234:
1231:
1230:
1223:
1219:
1215:
1210:
1209:
1208:
1207:
1206:
1205:
1200:
1195:
1191:
1187:
1177:
1173:
1172:
1171:
1167:
1163:
1158:
1155:
1154:
1149:
1145:
1141:
1137:
1136:
1135:
1134:
1131:
1127:
1123:
1117:
1111:
1107:
1105:
1101:
1097:
1093:
1089:
1086:
1085:
1054:
1049:
1045:
1041:
1032:
1024:
1020:
1019:
1018:
1014:
1010:
1005:
1001:
996:
995:
994:
989:
985:
981:
971:
968:
967:
966:
962:
958:
954:
950:
949:
948:
943:
939:
935:
925:
924:
923:
919:
915:
910:
909:
908:
903:
899:
895:
886:
882:
878:
875:
871:
868:
864:
860:
857:
856:
855:
851:
847:
843:
839:
838:
837:
836:
835:
834:
831:
826:
822:
818:
809:
805:
801:
798:
794:
790:
786:
782:
778:
777:WP:ENDPORTALS
775:
774:
772:
768:
767:
766:
762:
758:
753:
752:
751:
746:
742:
738:
729:
725:
724:
723:
718:
714:
710:
701:
697:
693:
690:
686:
685:WP:Notability
683:
657:
652:
648:
644:
634:
630:
629:
628:
624:
620:
615:
614:
613:
608:
604:
600:
591:
587:
586:
585:
581:
577:
573:
569:
568:
567:
562:
558:
554:
544:
541:
537:
533:
529:
526:
522:
518:
514:
510:
506:
502:
498:
494:
489:
485:
484:
483:
479:
475:
470:
469:
468:
463:
459:
455:
446:
441:
438:
437:
435:
434:
433:
429:
425:
420:
419:
418:
413:
409:
405:
396:
392:
389:
385:
381:
377:
372:
369:
368:
367:
366:
365:
364:
363:
362:
361:
360:
359:
358:
355:
351:
347:
343:
342:Isle of Wight
339:
335:
328:
324:
320:
317:
316:
309:
304:
300:
296:
287:
286:WP:Notability
284:
283:
282:
278:
274:
269:
263:
262:
261:
256:
252:
248:
239:
236:
232:
227:
223:
219:
216:
211:
210:
207:
206:
202:
198:
195:
193:
189:
185:
181:
178:
176:
172:
168:
164:
161:
159:
155:
151:
147:
143:
140:
139:
138:
137:
133:
129:
125:
121:
117:
113:
104:
100:
96:
92:
88:
84:
79:
75:
74:
71:
68:
66:
65:
62:
57:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
2652:
2636:
2634:
2623:the original
2613:
2605:the original
2595:
2498:— Preceding
2496:
2244:Gaelic games
2021:
1974:Oldtimermath
1952:
1940:
1917:
1803:Oldtimermath
1798:
1789:
1770:
1707:
1700:
1693:
1650:
1644:
1498:
1486:
1471:
1441:active voice
1385:
1350:
1310:
1232:
1156:
1109:
1087:
884:
880:
796:
784:
699:
688:
370:
318:
221:
196:
179:
162:
141:
111:
110:
50:no consensus
49:
47:
31:
28:
2473:Jan19-Feb19
2445:Jan19-Feb19
2416:Jan19-Feb19
2388:Jan19-Feb19
2360:Jan19-Feb19
2333:Jan19-Feb19
2307:Jan19-Feb19
2279:Jan19-Feb19
2253:Jan19-Feb19
2227:Jan19-Feb19
2199:Jan19-Jun19
2171:Jan19-Feb19
2143:Jan19-Feb19
2116:Jan19-Feb19
2090:Jan19-Feb19
1179:useless. --
1108:Tangential
1092:User:Hecato
380:that search
126:guideline.
55:‑Scottywong
2587:References
2379:Basketball
2107:Volleyball
1957:Catfurball
1926:Nick Moyes
1872:featuring.
1723:HairedGirl
1622:HairedGirl
1555:HairedGirl
1363:HairedGirl
1185:HairedGirl
1039:HairedGirl
979:HairedGirl
933:HairedGirl
893:HairedGirl
816:HairedGirl
736:HairedGirl
708:HairedGirl
642:HairedGirl
598:HairedGirl
552:HairedGirl
453:HairedGirl
403:HairedGirl
344:has 1737.
340:has 8029,
338:Gymnastics
294:HairedGirl
246:HairedGirl
2641:talk page
2298:Badminton
1878:SmokeyJoe
1840:SmokeyJoe
1453:SmokeyJoe
1403:SmokeyJoe
1292:SmokeyJoe
1266:SmokeyJoe
1251:SmokeyJoe
912:readers.
874:straw man
810:stuff. --
37:talk page
2643:or in a
2526:here? -
2512:contribs
2500:unsigned
2436:Baseball
2270:Swimming
2060:Climbing
2052:Articles
2043:Comments
2040:Baseline
1945:Climbing
1922:Climbing
1794:Climbing
1732:contribs
1672:Hecato:
1649:It does
1631:contribs
1564:contribs
1449:Climbing
1399:Climbing
1394:Climbing
1390:Climbing
1386:Redirect
1372:contribs
1194:contribs
1110:Question
1048:contribs
988:contribs
942:contribs
902:contribs
825:contribs
745:contribs
717:contribs
651:contribs
607:contribs
561:contribs
462:contribs
412:contribs
303:contribs
255:contribs
226:Climbing
39:or in a
2282:Deleted
2190:IndyCar
2121:2839.50
2049:Percent
2022:Comment
1676:policy.
1653:state:
1437:WP:NPOV
1157:Comment
1088:Comment
632:untrue.
519:. And
180:Comment
163:Comment
91:history
2569:Hecato
2524:WP:OSE
2464:Sports
2422:176.72
2394:275.30
2366:434.55
2312:340.76
2095:546.00
2055:Notes
1988:Hecato
1953:Delete
1893:Hecato
1855:Hecato
1825:Hecato
1744:Hecato
1728:(talk)
1660:Hecato
1656:count.
1627:(talk)
1610:WP:POG
1595:Hecato
1576:Hecato
1560:(talk)
1495:WP:POG
1422:Hecato
1368:(talk)
1347:WP:POG
1214:Hecato
1190:(talk)
1176:Hecato
1162:Hecato
1140:Hecato
1116:Hecato
1044:(talk)
1009:Hecato
984:(talk)
957:Hecato
938:(talk)
914:Hecato
898:(talk)
859:Hecato
846:Hecato
821:(talk)
793:WP:POG
771:Hecato
757:Hecato
741:(talk)
713:(talk)
696:WP:POG
647:(talk)
619:Hecato
603:(talk)
576:Hecato
557:(talk)
474:Hecato
458:(talk)
424:Hecato
408:(talk)
395:Hecato
346:Hecato
299:(talk)
273:Hecato
251:(talk)
222:better
197:Delete
184:Hecato
142:Delete
124:WP:POG
112:Delete
2482:1.61%
2479:62.26
2454:1.39%
2451:72.16
2425:0.57%
2397:0.36%
2369:0.23%
2342:1.85%
2339:54.11
2315:0.29%
2288:4.01%
2285:24.94
2261:5.83%
2258:17.17
2235:1.29%
2232:77.33
2208:1.46%
2205:68.60
2180:2.86%
2177:35.00
2152:1.03%
2149:97.50
2124:0.04%
2098:0.18%
2046:Ratio
2031:Title
1721:Brown
1620:Brown
1553:Brown
1401:. --
1361:Brown
1183:Brown
1037:Brown
977:Brown
931:Brown
891:Brown
885:could
814:Brown
734:Brown
706:Brown
640:Brown
596:Brown
550:Brown
487:flaw.
451:Brown
401:Brown
292:Brown
244:Brown
99:watch
95:links
16:<
2573:talk
2555:talk
2532:talk
2508:talk
2470:2677
2442:2742
2413:5125
2385:6332
2357:8691
2304:5793
2113:5679
1992:talk
1978:talk
1961:talk
1930:talk
1918:Keep
1897:talk
1882:talk
1859:talk
1844:talk
1829:talk
1807:talk
1779:talk
1771:Keep
1748:talk
1664:talk
1580:talk
1491:NA1K
1472:Keep
1457:talk
1426:talk
1407:talk
1323:talk
1311:Keep
1296:talk
1281:talk
1272:here
1255:talk
1241:talk
1233:Keep
1218:talk
1174:As @
1166:talk
1144:talk
1126:talk
1112:for
1100:talk
1031:here
1013:talk
1002:and
961:talk
918:talk
850:talk
842:here
788:RFC.
761:talk
702:. --
623:talk
580:talk
538:and
478:talk
428:talk
371:Note
350:talk
319:Keep
277:talk
188:talk
171:talk
154:talk
132:talk
103:logs
87:talk
83:edit
2330:974
2276:399
2250:103
2224:464
2196:343
2168:140
2140:390
2087:546
1730:• (
1651:not
1629:• (
1562:• (
1489:.
1447:vs
1388:to
1370:• (
1192:• (
1046:• (
986:• (
940:• (
900:• (
823:• (
802:At
785:all
743:• (
715:• (
649:• (
605:• (
559:• (
495:in
460:• (
410:• (
382:is
301:• (
253:• (
2575:)
2567:.
2557:)
2534:)
2514:)
2510:•
2485:77
2467:43
2457:23
2439:38
2428:25
2410:29
2400:30
2382:23
2372:12
2354:20
2327:18
2301:17
2273:16
1994:)
1980:)
1963:)
1932:)
1899:)
1884:)
1861:)
1846:)
1838:--
1831:)
1809:)
1781:)
1750:)
1687:}}
1684:tq
1681:{{
1666:)
1582:)
1549:--
1459:)
1428:)
1409:)
1357:--
1298:)
1283:)
1257:)
1243:)
1220:)
1168:)
1146:)
1128:)
1102:)
1090:-
1015:)
963:)
920:)
852:)
763:)
636:--
625:)
582:)
546:--
480:)
430:)
352:)
279:)
190:)
173:)
156:)
146:G4
134:)
101:|
97:|
93:|
89:|
85:|
52:.
2571:(
2553:(
2530:(
2506:(
2291:4
2247:6
2221:6
2211:4
2193:5
2183:9
2165:4
2155:2
2137:4
2110:2
2084:1
1990:(
1976:(
1959:(
1928:(
1895:(
1880:(
1857:(
1842:(
1827:(
1805:(
1777:(
1746:(
1734:)
1710:?
1703:?
1662:(
1633:)
1597::
1593:@
1578:(
1566:)
1517:.
1501:.
1455:(
1424:(
1405:(
1374:)
1332:@
1325:)
1321:(
1294:(
1279:(
1268::
1264:@
1253:(
1239:(
1216:(
1196:)
1164:(
1142:(
1124:(
1118::
1114:@
1098:(
1050:)
1011:(
990:)
959:(
944:)
916:(
904:)
848:(
827:)
769:@
759:(
747:)
719:)
653:)
621:(
609:)
578:(
563:)
515:→
511:→
507:→
503:→
476:(
464:)
426:(
414:)
390:.
348:(
305:)
275:(
270::
266:@
257:)
237:.
203:.
186:(
169:(
152:(
130:(
105:)
81:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.