Knowledge (XXG):Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:GLAM/GibraltarpediA

1486:- let me give you 2 cases where I think working with Tourist Boards *might* work, with proper safeguards of course. This spring Philadelphia announced a tourist campaign aimed at the arts that was formally organized as a group of museums led by the local tourist board. I asked a few glammers whether I should contact them and the advice ranged from "be very careful" to "don't do it". I went ahead and wrote anyway. It didn't work out, but if the Tourist Board had wanted to act as a conduit between a GLAM project and the museums, maybe even throw in a free lunch or 2 and a prize, I still wouldn't be against it. 2nd, much smaller example. I'd like to put a QRpedia code on every NRHP covered bridge in Pennsylvania. The problem is - who owns the bridges - so who can give permission to post? Those who know the usual state of the inside of covered bridges might say "just post the QR codes. Nobody will mind a couple of 1 inch square codes inside." The state owns about half the bridges, the counties about half, with a couple of private owners thrown in. It's not always clear which, e.g. a bridge that straddles 2 counties on a newly designated state road, with the old bridge replaced by a new one off to the side. Getting a general permission from a tourist board would likely be easy. They might say "nobody is going to mind, but we'll inform the owners." That would be good enough for me. 3531:- and very nicely. The nomination is a WP:POINT violation as it is a direct reaction to me telling the nominator that there are no policy reasons to delete the the project. The above posters have sofar done a good job explaining why . Let me highlight a few points. You do not merge a larger project into a smaller one. Projects decide their own scope (minor exceptions when nationalist or other POVwarriors are involved) ect as above. In addition I would like to add that a) you do not counter systematic bias by deleting the surplus but by increasing/promoting the deficiancy - which brings me back to my earlier point that every country or region needs a project like this. Just imagine what this would do to the quality of articles promoted at DYK. b) Knowledge (XXG) has long been struggling to retain editors and recruit new ones. This project has not only focused on using existing editors like normal wikiprojects do but also has aa)recruited new editors and more importantly bb) trained those to comply to wikipolicies & guidelines. To be met with such hostility in uncalled for and not in line with our core principles of collaboration. . 1352:, then does it make sense to delete GibraltarPediA or even make it a "task force" of a smaller, less active project which is also narrower in scope? If anything, it should be the other way around. Nevertheless, there are some real problems with the way GibraltarPediA has conducted itself so far. I'd say to give both projects some time to work out a new relationship, and for GibraltarPediA to re-structure itself to behave more like a WikiProject than a GLAM project. It really doesn't fit into the GLAM framework which is meant for cultural insitutions to share their resources and expertise with Knowledge (XXG). GibraltarPediA seems set up to get editors to do a lot of work for Gibraltar's Tourist Board, and as far as I can see, Knowledge (XXG) has received nothing in return, so far. For example, has The Museum of Gibraltar (or its staff) contributed images, made reference books easily accessible to editors, uploaded archival material? In other words, 1665:. Individual editors editing for recompense, such as free air travel to Gibraltar as has been promised as part of this project, is fine. However, Knowledge (XXG) cannot officially support commercial enterprises like GibraltarpediA. What about the locations that compete with Gibraltar for tourist dollars? Why does Gibraltar get picked and not them? What about the government of Spain, which doesn't agree with the current political situation with Gibraltar? Is Knowledge (XXG) going to get involved in taking sides in politics? Also, aren't the WMF and WMUK charitable entities? Then, it's definitely wrong for Knowledge (XXG) to be sponsoring a commercial enterprise. Using charitables organizations for commercial enterprises is unethical, and WP's administration has a clear duty to stop it from happening within the English Knowledge (XXG), at the very least. 762:, where a "stations=yes" parameter files the page into the rail stations project while still acknowledging the parent Trains project. That way there's still a convenient way to keep track of which pages have been affected by the Gibraltarpedia project - either by the fans of the project who want to show off how much they've achieved, or the detractors of the project who want to keep track of which pages are of concern - without cluttering up the talkpages with templates. If at a future date the Gibraltarpedia project is shut down altogether, a bot can just remove "gibraltarpedia=yes" from the affected pages. (Maybe have a single "Pillars of Hercules region" - or something - template, with options for "gibraltar=yes", "ceuta=yes", "algeciras=yes" and so on, to allow for those articles which aren't within Gibraltar proper, or cover more than one area.) 2488:

type events. I see these events as distinct from GLAM and needing different rules, an RFC might settle that. In hindsight having a disputed territory as the focus on such an event was always going to be contentious, it would have been better if Gibraltar had not been such a trailblazer. In any event we want good content and we want to make our content accessible, this project is designed to do both, we may need rules to ensure that any incentives (prizes, expenses and so forth) are awarded in ways that benefit the pedia and don't skew it. But the way to achieve that is to discuss our concerns and our boundaries, not delete the project. Disclosure, I'm an active member of Wikimedia UK and put some hours of entirely voluntary time into Monmouthpedia, and I may have made a handful of equally voluntary edits that are related to this project.

316:. MonmouthpediA is a subnational WikiProject, focusing on one town and covering part of the territory of a wider WikiProject. Gibraltar is a supranational WikiProject, focusing on a broad region of southern Spain, northern Morocco and Gibraltar itself. That's actually a very good way to approach a topic, by inviting editors to consider cultural, historical, geographical and economic links across borders. Gibraltar is uniquely suited to such an approach as it's the gateway to the Mediterranean; it's impossible to cover it adequately without crossing the boundaries of different WikiProjects. The great advantage of Gibraltarpedia is that it encourages a holistic approach to Gibraltar that existing WikiProjects do not. In addition, Gibraltarpedia is not set up the same way as the entirely informal WikiProject Gibraltar; it is a formal 2411:

Gibraltar. I just want to do what I do best - share the knowledge, but it is very frustrating to read comments such as "Delete the sucker". Is this how you want to motivate people to contribute to Knowledge (XXG)? Cut the crap if you really care about Knowledge (XXG) so much that you are willing to spend hours defending the deletion of something we have worked and keep working hard on. If you keep hating, you will keep demotivating new/potential contributors - very constructive. Not. If you think this is a rant, try and put yourself in my shoes; I don't believe anyone deserves to have to go through so much hassle for someone else's amusement. Invest your energy in something better instead and you might wake up with a smile tomorrow. Just my 2 pence.

576:

future if there are significant advantages over traditional GLAM entities, or no traditional GLAM entity is in a position to partner. There have been some serious misjudgements—particularly by the board of WMUK and a number of Gibraltar-affiliated editors at DYK—but let's learn from those and correct the systemic problems rather than throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Another thing that should be made clear, probably in writing, at the start of an arrangement involving a political dimension, is that the non-commerical, volunteer nature of the movement must be respected in public comments. Memo to Mr Costa, but we're still pleased all the same that he's supporting the project.

3290:

Zoos are as I understand it purely commercial. However the point of this thread was to put it into the context of Gibraltarpedia and similar place pedia events. Kew Gardens or London Zoo would be great partners for a GLAM event. But unlike say the Museum of London I doubt that a Zoo would be a natural partner for a place pedia event, and the reason why this is relevant to Gibraltarpedia is that I for one would be much more comfortable with it if the participants who are actually writing these Gibraltar related articles responded to this RFC by redefining Gibraltarpedia with a local museum as their main partner rather than a tourist board.

1054:, which is quite relevant. They often make mistakes, and are sometimes don't play nicely with us, but overall, their interests are nicely aligned with us. They have resources that we don't, and can assist us in our mission of creating excellent free references works. It's true that they sometimes care too much about their image rather than sharing their collections, but that is why we need to cultivate partnerships that will serve as positive models, rather than spurn them. There are certainly examples of institutions acting thoughtfully and responsibly, and engaging with Knowledge (XXG) in good faith and on our terms. 2382:, I have absolutely no vested interests in the project. From the start, though, I have appreciated the motivating effect the initiative has had on building up cultural coverage of Gibraltar and surrounding areas. The idea of building bridges to Africa is also innovative, as is the use of QR coding in the wake of Monmouthpedia. Many apects of Knowledge (XXG) and Wikimedia have led to critical press coverage over the years. This will blow over like all the others. But it seems to me important not to give in to a few critical articles. The project is providing excellent results -- so let's maintain it and support it. -- 718:, no particular project has exclusive rights over a particular topic area and so the way in which such pages are managed may be diverse and devolved. If some restructuring seems helpful, then this should be managed using normal editing processes and there's no reason provided to explain why deletion is appropriate or the best way forward. The pious call for calm and fair discussion is blatant nonsense as this matter has already been discussed in several forums and so bringing it to MfD is obviously redundant, inflammatory and unhelpful. The nominator has also tried to delete good faith contributions such as 675:

real world. School children are being told about wikipedia, staff at GLAMs are getting their work ready, organisations are getting images to release as cc-by-sa. In Monmouth we have seen conferences coming to town because of the augmented reality demonstrations. That work got a wikipedian onto government committees, we have government ministers debating whether to use cc-by-sa for everything. I'm not sure that people know what could be lost here. There are just over 200 articles created so far - 19 edits today just on the English Knowledge (XXG). I'm told that this is a lot more than the previous project.

3147:

subject focus than a museum but cover that over a broader geography, or like local reference libraries they will be too small to partner with us. But provided the collaboration is with people whose job it is to curate and communicate cultural heritage rather than market a tourist venue I'm not that fussed if my assumption were to be refuted. The important thing is that if we badge something as GLAM it needs to be at heart a GLAM collaboration, and I'm not convinced that Gibraltarpedia is more a relationship with the Gibraltar museum than it is with the Gibraltar tourist department.

1171:

control over, by the way)? What happens to DYK / GA / FA submissions about Gibraltar? You can't "freeze" a WikiProject - it's just a collaboration, no more, no less, and unless you're prepared to topic-ban every contributor to the entire topic area and protect every article in it, there's simply no way to "freeze" it. And what kind of message would that send, not just to all the contributors to the project, but to the entire population of Gibraltar? "Sorry, your contribution aren't wanted here?" Great way to grow the encyclopedia and encourage new editors, guys.

671:: There is an emotive debate going on. (Could we have it in one place please and do invite the people involved whatever their language) If you actually look at the proposal then its quite rational if it were to just join two projects. If we could create a project template that allowed us to specify whether it was in Gibraltar or in the wider area in Africa and Iberia then that would allow us to stop having the problem of two templates. We only have a seperate template because we lacked the template skills. Its in GLAM because it came from British Museum --: --> 1245:

the GibraltarpediA? Also, what is the basis for assuming that the WikiProject can attract Wikipedians with an existing interest in the unique group of "the British Overseas Territory of Gibraltar, the Strait of Gibraltar, the Spanish municipalities along the coast of the Bay of Gibraltar, the northernmost coast of Morocco and Ceuta." I don't see this WikiProject whose entire scope would appeal to more than a handful of people. Given the "paid consultancy agreement between the Government of Gibraltar and a trustee of Wikimedia UK",

1310:- This may have been instigated originally by a museum or other legitimate GLAM entity; but the minute the tourism board gets involved, it's pimping! Tourism boards are not cultural entities, they are commercial promotional entities dedicated to making their home base look as attractive as possible for the benefit of the local tourist industry, and there's no way around that. We (especially Bamkin) have done serious damage to the reputation of the entire project by letting ourselves be bought this way, and you can't put enough 266:: "If a closely related group already exists, even if it is inactive, you should join that project rather than starting yet another WikiProject. Any editor can "revive" or "take over" an inactive or semi-active WikiProject simply by joining the project." It is clear that the Gibraltar project is a "closely related group". There is no good reason wny everything that has been done now couldn't have been done in the existing Wikiproject structure (95% of the articles falls straight inside the Gibraltar project scope). 1888:. This isnt the first time that wiki contributors have acquired domain names like this, but it is not typical for the wiki contributor to be engaged in for-profit activities using that intellectual property. (It's worth pointing out that Victuallers & co are likely only getting enough profit to pay to keep a roof over their head and food on the table.) So I have concerns about the trademark being promoted on Knowledge (XXG), but it appears to have been intended to be a net-positive for Knowledge (XXG). 1404:. Shutting this down would send a message to potential GLAM collaborators that we're hesitant to partner with them. Restrict this collaboration if you don't like it (even though they seem to be producing good content; shutting them down would prevent further improvement of encyclopedic content, which is the basic purpose for which we exist in the first place), but don't get rid of them entirely. Even if we closed this project completely, deletion would be a bad idea — problematic pages get tagged with 3498:

cash rich v cash poor places, I would hope that if anyone who wants to do something similar in their home town we could come up with some guidelines as to which aspects of this they can replicate and which they shouldn't. Clearly the physical plaques with QR codes are going to cost money, and putting them up on buildings costs money and requires permission. But collaborating with your local museum or local history society to write articles for Knowledge (XXG) can be a purely voluntary thing.

1829:- I don't think the existence or no existence of a Gibraltarpedia project is the question. The issue is government money for perceived benefit through article creation and placement, an all-too-cozy relationship between the overfunded WMUK organization and private consultants, and an absolute lack of transparency with respect to who is getting paid what by whom for what. The project isn't the problem; it's bigger than that, unfortunately. I have no opinion in this deletion debate. 981: 1237:- When I read things like -- subnational, supranational, links across borders, uniquely suited, gateway, crossing the boundaries, great advantage, encourages a holistic approach, entirely informal, collaboration with national and cultural institutions, well-established and very successful model -- never mind. I lost my train of thought. As for GibraltarpediA, can anyone explain what that Knowledge (XXG) project does for Knowledge (XXG)? 3361:, on the other hand, was a partnership with a tourist board: a purely promotional commercial-minded entity, with a self-admitted desire to get publicity on the cheap by getting eager Gibralter Wikipedians, and at least one or two mercenaries holding positions of trust, to do their marketing for them in Knowledge (XXG), and (apparently) a tacit understanding that any unfavorable content would be swept under the table (re-read Ibsen's 2857:. A single tag, properly encoded, identifies the article as being within the scope of three separate but closely related projects, India, Indian cities, and Madhya Pradesh. Simple, doesn't pollute the page with excess tags, but still links it to the relevant areas. And it should have the side effect of helping to assuage the concern that there is spamming going on I the tags. Win-win as far as I can see. 146: 2635:

yet to be put up around notable areas and landmarks. Another reason why this site should not be bypassed as a simple link from Knowledge (XXG) is because the government of Gibraltar has already agreed to aid us in this project financially and supportingly. On a personal note, I reckon pages like this should not be discarded but started up for each country of province to aid the future generations of

2761:"When in doubt, appoint a Royal Commission." Interesting, but it looks as though that review is concentrating on COI and people being paid, rather than the issue of WP's perceived independence of commercial interests. We don't know how long it will take, and I don't think we should delay having an en:wp RFC about non-GLAM collaborations: should we do them at all, and if so with what safeguards? 1262:

of Knowledge (XXG) to have QRpedia code plaques/labels placed outside of Knowledge (XXG) on structures to allow those reading the QRpedia code with a smartphone, etc. to bring up a Knowledge (XXG) article linked to the QRpedia code."? If that is what GibraltarpediA means by "GibraltarpediA uses QRpedia codes," then I'm all for it. However, that can be handled as a Gibraltar task force under

3479:. And only cash-rich places can do this, eg the cash-poor areas in southern Spain (who desperately needs tourist-money) will not be able to do the same. Do you think that is fair? And I am stunned by the lack of political background knowledge here; when a Gib-person is called "nationalistic", that is, to put it bluntly, Gib-speak for "anti-Spanish". Have anyone even questioned why 2203:

nearly-duplicate projects. People may disagree with that position, but it is entirely appropriate to have the discussion and to see whether this is a situation that is wanted (or tolerated) or not. That there are a lot of knee-jerk votes in this MFD is regrettable, I do still hope that a number of people will discuss the actual premisse of this MfD and not what they read into it.

3588:

the article and keep arguments for the AfD is staggering, and makes me wonder if there isn't a much larger problem here than just the needless and pointless near-identicality in scope of two projects. The bad faith editing and us-vs.-them attitude shown by many of the most prominent members of the project (and supporting non-members like you or Colonel Warden) is quite worrying.

1639:. I know of no precedent for disbanding a WikiProject based on an alleged COI of one or two persons involved. The content about Gibraltar, whatever the circumstances, has been written, featured in DYK, and exists now as part of Knowledge (XXG). The page about the collaboration that produces it should remain also. Put it this way -- suppose you decided the project 2686:

outside world will not understand the subtleties of exactly who is getting paid for what: the disastrous message going out is "Knowledge (XXG) can be bought - and bought cheaply - to help a marketing campaign". In a way we are fortunate that most of the external comment so far has been about paid editing rather than about Knowledge (XXG) being used for promotion.

1708:, not only is there no evidence of monetisation going on, but almost all of the articles produced so far probably aren't capable of being monetised. Furthermore, it's quite insulting to imply that the other project members are working for commercial purposes. We're not, clearly, otherwise we wouldn't be producing articles of no commercial value like 1072:

notion that GLAM is the source of the problem, it's worth considering the fact that GLAM has actually established methods that are solutions to the problem. GLAM has significantly improved every manner of Wikimedia project through these partnerships and shared resources. This suggestion is borne out of a gross misunderstanding of what GLAM is.

2835:

the knowledge and culture stored in museums and other institutions for access by everyone on the planet, then, whatever their protestations, they don't fully believe in the mission of Knowledge (XXG) or Wikimedia (and so what are they doing here?). Arguments coming from that perspective need to be ignored or at least given a very low weight.

896:. There seems to be a misunderstanding in the last few comments above. Fram's proposal isn't about templates. This is about deleting an entire WikiProject and all of its subpages, and essentially telling all of its participants that they're not wanted. Combining templates isn't actually a bad idea, but it's not what's under discussion here. 386:"There is certainly no way that WP Gibraltar is going to take on the work of Gibraltarpedia." Why not? Why are people willing to make edits under the GibraltarpediA banner, but not under the Project Gibraltar banner? Looking at the 10 most recent GibraltarpediA tagged articles, which ones wouldn't fit perfectly under the Gibraltar project? 1465:

they might not understand that this situation is in trouble because of the motives of the collaborating organisation, this MFD might be seen as encouragement for Gigs' "get rid of all GLAMs" position. Even if you don't want to allow this project to be active, why do you want to delete it instead of tagging it as historical?

2353:. Perhaps Gibraltarpedia should be stopped; perhaps it should keep going; I don't know. One way or the other, this is not an appropriate venue to discuss the termination of the project. Even if the project were to cease, the page would still be kept as a reminder to future generations, so deletion is not on the table. — 3096:

institution a Gallery, Library, Archive or Museum. For good or for ill the link on "place pedia" projects is with the community, presumably via the local council. Whether we should have them and if so whether we need additional safeguards for them is worth discussion, but unless the primary relationship is with a local

1855:

Roger, then take it up with him, but don't take it out on the volunteers that have been working really hard as a part of this project. GibraltarpediA has resulted in a ton of great new articles for Knowledge (XXG) that probably would have taken years to get added otherwise, if ever. And volunteers like

3608:

article in a few days. However, I was one of the contributors who worked on it to save it from deletion. Not only did I not fabricate anything, I worked to correct and source any errors inadvertently made by other contributors. I saw absolutely no evidence of bad faith editing. However, what I cannot

3530:

As ar as I know WP:IDONTLIKEIT has not yet been promoted to be a valid deletion criteria, and that what the nomination amounts to. This whole hounding of the project is a massive drain on editors that should be used to produce good articles - which is exactly what the project was attempting to achive

3226:

the acquisition and dissemination of information? That lets Kew in, and it doesn't matter that they sell admission tickets and a collaboration might help to sell more. Another way to look at it is, would we be embarrassed to see our name in the press as a collaborator and supporter? From where we are

2834:

not to understand the rationales given for Gibraltarpedia (and Delicious Carbuncle "likes" the comment). If people object to widening the contributor base and geographic reach of Knowledge (XXG), creating more content in and about the Global South, promoting international co-operation, and freeing up

2820:

Deletion or even "freezing" of the project page would send a clear, strong discouraging signal to the engaged new users who have improved dozens of articles, to experienced Wikipedians doing outreach, to current and to potential partner organisations. This would undermine our mission of bringing free

2279:

to accept outside editors or those belonging to some other WikiProject - is there? So if you abolish this one, by all means WikiProject Gibraltar must accept the overflow. And as this will include editors with a COI, and the pages it will have sole interest in will remain the object of QR clicks by

2018:

Knowledge (XXG) doesn't really work by precedent, and I don't know of any precedent where a project was created with a 95% overlap with an existing project. Do you know of any similar examples? If not, all discussion about precedent is useless, if there is no precedent for the situation then there is

1988:

This nomination seems to be misconceived on two additional levels: first, as far as I know, it's completely unprecedented for a large, active WikiProject to be nominated for deletion. As far as I know, it's never happened before. Second, WikiProjects aren't customarily deleted. The usual precedent is

1854:

Furthermore, I would like to note (and I know you said this isn't about the editors, Fram, but i'm not talking about you here) that all the people who have been attacking GibraltarpediA as a whole and the articles its editors have been making should be ashamed of themselves. If you have an issue with

1261:

GibraltarpediA says "GibraltarpediA uses QRpedia codes." Really? How? Can anyone show me which Knowledge (XXG) article includes a QRpedia code posted there by GibraltarpediA? Is GibraltarpediA trying to say something like, "WikiProject GibraltarpediA coordinates Wikipedians to seek permission outside

1211:

way of stopping off-wiki work because, well, it's off-wiki. This proposal (and indeed any proposal) can't reach further than any pages on Knowledge (XXG). Note that the proposer hasn't suggested some kind of off-wiki "freeze", hopefully because he recognises that he has absolutely no way of directing

914:

There seems to be a misunderstanding in your post. All participants are wanted, and most articles are wanted as well. There is no reason why these participants couldn't join and/or use the existing older project instead (as indicated in my reply to you above). And editors are free to use a discussion

740:

per Warden: starting this MfD is just about the worst thing that could be done about the situation at this time, as all it's going to achieve is inflame a situation which has already been blown out of all proportion. It would be better if everyone was to take a week off from bickering about this, and

508:

a big and broad debate that needs to be had before projects like this carry on about the role of paid collaboration, the purpose of chapters and so on. Carrying on as if there's no problem is a recipe for absolute disaster. We probably shouldn't delete the page, but the project cannot carry on in its

371:

No, it wouldn't, at least not for this particular purpose. WikiProjects are traditionally set up on a national or regional basis. That's fine as far as it goes, but it limits the scope for cross-border collaboration. The advantage of a transnational WikiProject such as this is that it encourages such

3568:

Why? You will need to ask the project not me. A different geographic scope together with the political implications does come to mind. Also since it is a collaboration with external institutions it appears logical to follow the GLAM model. As far as your question regarding that AFD is concerned you

2401:

and let the people of Gibraltar put Gib on the map without hating and demotivating them every step of the way. I actually refuse to read the block of text above me (although I have scanned it briefly). I don't think that reading through it will teach me anything, will make me a better person or will

2202:

is in their scope. And what would that flawed rationale be? Don't you believe that it is up to the wider community to decide whether a proliferation of nearly-identical projects is wanted or not? This is not about one editor, this is about the community denying a group of editors the right to create

1848:

I think it's quite apparent that there's a significant difference between Wikiproject Gibraltar and GibraltarpediA that is a part of GLAM. As Prioryman, creator of Wikiproject Gibraltar, explained at the beginning of this MfD, they are completely different and should be treated as separate entities,

1573:

I know how Wikiprojects usually work. They are a way for editors to collaborate against community consensus, develop their own policies, and provide a way to coordinate tag-teaming of POV pushing and AfD voting without appearing to violate canvassing rules. They are a great boon to our encyclopedic

1431:

Nyttend, you are conflating this project with GLAM projects. The minute the Tourism Board got involved, it ceased to be a legitimate project and became prostitution. Tourism boards are advertising agencies, dedicated to pulling in the tourists for the benefit of locally based (albeit not necessarily

1170:

The idea of a "freeze" is nonsensical in that it literally doesn't make sense. How would it work? Would editors no longer be allowed to collaborate on articles about Gibraltar? What happens to the work being done on the ground to train new Gibraltarian editors (something which this discussion has no

499:

As a Wikimedia UK member, and someone who is on good terms with people involved in this project, it pains me slightly to write this. The idea that Gibraltarpedia is going to carry on as is after all the controversies in the last week or so is utterly ridiculous. (On a rather technical note, I'm also

72:

malfeasance - occasions where the project was being used to undermine NPOV - I can't super-weight the less than a quarter of participants in this discussion who favoured deletion. If there was evidence of substantial undermining of the "Write a free, NPOV encyclopaedia" goal, I would be inclined to

3497:

Hi Huldra, please try to remember that some if not most of the people drawn into this will be people who want to voluntarily write articles about important topics related to the place where they live. The prize is unlikely to have been a motivation for the people already living in Gibraltar. As for

3414:

It's not completely unprecedented (Esperanza), but even if it were, we could still do it. It doesn't matter where a consensus is formed, as long as it's well advertised. That said, I don't think this is going to end in a consensus anyway, so your point is still valid. We probably should start a

2670:

this page from under the GLAM umbrella. It is not a GLAM and that is obscuring some of the problems and is tarnishing GLAMs by association. Any collaboration launched with lots of publicity carries the implication that Knowledge (XXG) supports the other partner's aims, and risks the perception that

2634:

was created was to advertise or to make Gibraltarians more aware of their surrounding history as well as educating visitors around the world. Deleting this page merely because there is a page similar to it is unfair and unnecessary. It's existence coincides with the Gibraltarpedia QR codes that are

2410:

forum on the internet for people to vent out their negative energy. I personally only realized the impact of Knowledge (XXG) after we met with John and Roger in Gib, they have been a true inspiration for me to start editing and translating Knowledge (XXG), as they have been for many other people in

2222:

is possibly an appropriate subject for an RFC, if you think this proliferation is a widespread and serious problem. It is not, in my view, an appropriate rationale for singling out one established, active project and nominating it for deletion and/or forcing another project with a narrower scope to

1934:

Could you clarify what exactly needs "rescuing"? It seems to be working fine as it is. Lots of new articles are being produced and the off-wiki work on the ground (training etc) seems to be going fine too. The only problems it's having currently are those being caused by the likes of the editor who

1464:

You'll notice that I didn't call this a GLAM; I understand that it's not. However, that's largely irrelevant; the tourism board is trying to collaborate with Wikipedians for the improvement of Knowledge (XXG) articles related to the board's activities. GLAM projects do the same thing, and because

818:

I can read, I realize that it is the page itself which is nominated for deletion. That is obviously not going to happen, we can't just delete a project via mfd, so I thought I would put forward an actual practical solution to at least on aspect of the issue instead of wasting time pretending there

320:

collaboration with national and cultural institutions, following a well-established and very successful model used elsewhere. Finally, let's not pretend that this is anything other than a political deletion request motivated by the recent controversy. Nobody could seriously think this request would

273:

an attack against editors or articles; all interested editors are invited to join the existing project(s), and all articles will still fall in the scope of one or more existing geographic projects. This is, on the other hand, an attempt to keep some structure in the WikiProject jungle; creating new

3706:

You are the one that brought it up. Repeatedly. I have no idea where you got it from. So I'm asking you, since you use that argument to accuse me of bad faith and strawman arguments. If you are just accusing me of such things without any actual evidence to back it up, then it may be better to drop

3625:

Bad-faith editing against wikiprojects seems to have become the new game now and I do react very sensitive to that. People for example remove projectbanners before articles get put up for deletetion so that projects do not get alerted and similar shenanigans. My question to you is: Are you here to

3587:

no current news article referring to the construction of the road in the 19th century. That's exactly what I asked you: what news article? Not answering that makes your argument a strawman, not mine. The number of project members who have so far incorrectly used sources to fabricate whole parts of

3289:

I've done quite a bit of categorisation of Kew Gardens images on Commons, as well as various zoos, and I have no problem treating them as GLAMs. Though I'd have to admit I'm more comfortable with a GLAM if it is a not for profit or Public body as opposed to a purely commercial enterprise, and some

2691:

I am sure that those who set this up didn't anticipate this, didn't think through the consequences or the appearance to the world of what they were doing, but this is what has happened and what we must not allow to happen again. An RFC on non-GLAM collaborations sounds a good way forward. It would

1256:

do this? How does the WikiProject plan to "cover" every single notable place, person, artefact, plant and animals in as many languages as possible? What does that even mean? If GibraltarpediA is talking about a WikiProject on en.wikipedia.org, the WikiProject has to be related to and from English.

1244:

I understand it embrace a whole city, aspires to bridge two continents, and aims to cover. I'm happy to learn of the WikiProject's political aspirations, but what about the encyclopedia? Does GibraltarpediA have any plans to improving Knowledge (XXG)'s coverage of the disconnected topics listed on

1136:

per Tom Morris. If a project has lost the trust of the Wikimedia community, which this project has, then it needs to be reorganized. I'm not saying "kill this with fire", and I have no problem with their increased presence in DYK, but at the very least a cooling off period is needed while everyone

1010:

If any one GLAM project ever hits the point where the primary function of the project is to promote the partner institution, as opposed to using the partner institution's resources to reach the shared goal of improving content within both Knowledge (XXG) and the partner institution's purview, then

722:

but there is no consensus to delete in those cases. Such repeated nominations indicate that the nominator is trying to make a witch hunt or vendetta out of this matter. Such nominations should be speedily closed so that calm and fair discussion can continue on more appropriate pages such as this

575:

Tom, that is not reasonable. The project is a highly significant advance for the movement. Perhaps it may have been preferable to partner with a more traditional GLAM entity, but it's on the road now and I don't see the point of excluding local and other government entities from partnership in the

3399:

I know a lot of users are concerned about this project and its associations with groups outside the WMF, but an MFD can't just remove an entire project. As far as I know that would be completely unprecedented, even inactive projects are not just deleted. A broader, properly organized RFC on these

2487:

This project has a number of editors writing appropriate content for the pedia. There are concerns about the motivations of some of the people who are encouraging them and recruiting them for us, but it would be better to address that in a more focussed way, such as an RFC on future "place pedia"

1449:

That's an extreme position. Yes, tourist boards are responsible for promotion; but in this case they're evidently seeking to do it through improving public awareness of things to do with Gibraltar. That meshes nicely with Knowledge (XXG)'s objectives of improving access to information, especially

674:

Gibraltarpedia route. It does contain 3 or 4 GLAMs or so but its the same as Monmouthpedia in scope. If the proposal is to actually delete an active wiki project then that is at least strange. Just in case anyone missed this, this isnt like a normal wiki project. There are things happening in the

277:

I would urge all editors from bith sides to not focus on side issues or turn this into an us-vs-them discussion, but to discuss this MfD calmly and fairly, indicating what the advantages and disadavantages are of having this extra project instead of using (and if needed revitalising) the existing

56:

Beyond this, what little evidence presented here is that Wikiproject Gibraltar doesn't want a merger; I don't think moving it from a subproject of GLAM to a subproject of Gibraltar would address the concerns of those who want the project deleted, nor those who want this closed without an outcome.

1949:

There's no requirement for a project to be "approved" by the WikiProject Council. It is simply recommended that editors go through the process to see if there are a viable number of people interested in working on the project and to get feedback from experienced editors re possible pitfalls. See

1506:

We now have political party WikiProjects. Why not have wikiprojects that do marketing campaigns? A WikiProject is just a group of editors. If they decide they want to work for the Gibraltar Tourism Ministry (or whatever its name is), why not? What I object to is the spamming of various Knowledge

1040:

When your opinion is put into effect, I'll look forward to seeing you nominating for deletion everything contributed by a curator, librarian, or archivist about the cultural material which they are responsible for, as well as your future guarding of Knowledge (XXG) against the further gifting of

2875:

This I can agree with. Even though GibraltarpediA is a separate project, in terms of talk page taggings, it would be much better if they just added a sentence yes/no switch to the existing Wikiproject Gibraltar tag, like how certain task group projects do it. That would save on talk page space.

2685:

see this project as a means of "marketing Gibraltar as a tourist product through Knowledge (XXG)... effectively marketing but done at the lowest possible cost" and do not expect any editing of "Gibraltar's Knowledge (XXG) site" by those who "do not have Gibraltar's best interests at heart". The

2217:

This case hardly constitutes "proliferation of nearly-identical projects". We're talking about two specific projects here. What I and several people here contend is that these two projects are significantly different in both their scope and their focus of activity. Each of them has the right to

1071:

actually is, it's clear that the community has established solid best practice, perhaps some of the best that exists, around how to effectively partner with institutions with like-minded missions to share resources in ways that avoid Conflict of Interest. Rather than taking up the simple-minded

3146:

Fair point. I've tweaked my comment accordingly. However I would be surprised if many GLAMs other than local Museums were well placed to be our partner in a "place pedia" type of program. My assumption is that the sort of Galleries, Libraries and Archives that we work with will have a narrower

1521:

I don't think we should have any Wikiprojects with partisan goals. We have almost no guidelines on what can and can't be a Wikiproject. That may need to change at some point. We can't prevent people from collaborating, but we can send them a message that it's not OK to collaborate to push a

2829:

Look at the arguments being offered for deletion. Gigs above writes "Delete WP:GLAM and all subpages." - so the target is not some issue specific to Gibraltar, but mutually successful collaboration with the storehouses of knowledge and culture? We have to route around such arguments to fulfil

653:

that is being done under the banner of this project that can't be done under the banner of the Gibraltar WikiProject and its affiliates. The other purposes of this project (the cooperation between WMUK and Gibraltar authorities, and QRpedia, and even categorizing it as a GLAM project -per Tom

372:

collaborations. WikiProject Gibraltar is not transnational and it is not a GLAM, so you are in effect not arguing for a merger but a dissolution of Gibraltarpedia, which is no doubt the objective here. There is certainly no way that WP Gibraltar is going to take on the work of Gibraltarpedia.

3095:

I'm not sure what proportion of the articles created have had much to do with the museum, but even if it were quite significant, this is a "place pedia" project not a GLAM or not just a GLAM. The defining characteristic of a GLAM venture is that it is a collaboration with a cultural heritage

1193:

stop. If people want to make DYK / GA / FA submissions about Gibraltar, they do it the same way they would do it as if this project had never existed. And as to the editors on the ground, if people are being trained in the use of Knowledge (XXG), until this situation is resolved they need to

1382:

Per Warden. I also think that a calm centralized discussion of all the policy issues raised by Gibraltarpedia would be fruitful - there are significant issues, but all the different fora get in the way of discussion. It has mainly been rather shallow and directed at individual(s) so far.

2066:

That's a major point there. Because it's broader, that means that GibaraltarpediA doesn't actually fit inside Wikiproject Gibraltar and any attempt to merge them just doesn't make any sense. Unless you're trying to merge the other direction, but there's even more issues with that idea.

3460:

What message do you think this sends to the overwhelming majority of the project: the engaged new editors, the collaborating GLAMs, the potential future collaborations? Are they going to be punished for success in sharing free knowledge? Sounds like a strong and very wrong message.

274:

geographic projects which are slightly but not fundamentally different from existing ones is rather pointless and confusing (with e.g. two "Gibraltar"-project tags on many talk pages, making it hard to see for the less experienced editor where they should go with their questions).

654:

Morris-) are obviously highly contentious issues at the moment and the community at large needs to discuss them and decide about them. The only use for this project at the moment is as a PR vehicle for a commercial enterprise, and this has no place on Knowledge (XXG), I'm afraid.

2671:

our editorial content might be affected in order to please the partner, or to avoid offending them. That is an important reason why we do not carry advertising. With genuine GLAMs that is not a problem, because their aims are aligned with ours: making information available free.

2852:

It is just silly to be filling talk pages with tags for two projects that obviously have a massive overlap in scope. The easy solution is to consider Gibraltarpedia the same way we do with geographic "task forces" in large countries like India. Take for example the tags at

1206:

Stop how, exactly? Do you think that such activities depend on the Gibraltarpedia pages existing? If those pages are deleted as this proposal suggests, do you think that the work that's currently ongoing will suddenly grind to a halt? To put it bluntly: this proposal has

57:

Those who want it kept might not care much, but given that it appears Gibraltar doesn't want them, a forced marriage is likely to be a recipe for disaster, given that it's favour by less than a quarter of the commenters, I don't see how that outcome can be preferred.

2099:

A WikiProject is a group of editors that collaborate on encyclopedic work at a collection of pages devoted to the management of a specific topic or family of topics within Knowledge (XXG). A WikiProject is a group of people, not a set of pages, a subject area, or a

52:- about half the editors favour keep, with a substantial minorities also favouring some sort of "no outcome" result, merger into Wikiproject Gibraltar, or outright deletion. There isn't really much in the way of precedent to guide any sort of close here, either. 3332:

This seems like a case of "it's done enough damage, destroy the project". I'm not voting either way on this for the moment but I do think that it should be downsized and it should stop offering tangible prizes for edits without consent of the Wikimedia Foundation.

2106:"Forcing" WikiProject Gibraltar to absorb GibraltarPediA via an MfD is not on. That's for the two groups of editors to decide, as well as the degree to which they choose to collaborate. And in any case GibraltarPediA is currently a GLAM project not a WikiProject. 2950:

and inform themselves about how projects work on Knowledge (XXG) before making arguments in favour of deleting an active, productive project based on misunderstandings of a longstanding and highly productive feature of Knowledge (XXG) editing and collaboration.

2454:

I agree that it's not a silly discussion, though its a silly nomination and many silly comments have been made in its support. However, that a new editor sees it as a silly discussion tells us something we should hear, about how Knowledge (XXG) conducts itself.

3626:

build or to destroy? Then the second question is: Is the project in question here to build or to destroy/harm? We know the answer to that one. If you make it a political agenda to delete articles of a particular project you don't have to be surprised that the

964:

and all subpages. Its purpose is inviting people to engage in COI editing. If I created a "Corporate Outreach" program that encouraged large corporations to write about themselves on Knowledge (XXG), I'd be rightfully hung out to dry. GLAM is no different.

3545:

Any reason why these things couldn't have been done within the existing Gibraltar project? As for the training to comply with wikipolicies and guidelines, I hope that they do a better job than what most of the experienced members of the project are doing at

535:

is the cultural institution in question. The tourism authorities are lending support, but the collaboration was initiated though the museum. As for the controversy, it's a one-week wonder; the media has already lost interest. It's not a story that has legs.

513:, that it is a cock up and not a grand conspiracy; if you want to get rich and powerful, investment banking seems like a much more effective way of doing it than anything Knowledge (XXG)-related). Sometimes the community has to readjust. This happened with 1364:

are very off-putting. But deleting GibraltarPediA now without giving them a chance to restructure and address various concerns seems precipitate. It may be that in the end they won't be able to address these concerns, but they should have a chance to try.

2969:

I wish you would not assume long-standing contributors are ignorant of what a Wikiproject is. Wikiprojects that run counter to community-wide values have been shut down before, and will continue to be shut down, regardless of the outcome of this MfD.

474:: If it were not for the direct notification of concerned editors like Prioryman, I wouldn't have even known that this political witch hunt was taking place. As one of the blacklisted DYK contributors, I, for one, very much appreciate the notification. 84:, which is how I ended up there on my first date with my (now) wife. A neutral, encyclopaedic article nonetheless promoted the location. There needs to be acknowledgement of this fact and a way to deal with it - but I don't see it in this discussion. 2945:

for just a few of them. There seems to be a real misunderstanding in this discussion about what WikiProjects are and what they do. They exist as places for editors working in a specific area to organize their collaboration. I wish everyone would read

2940:

It's not a question of every city wanting a page. It's a question of groups of editors who wish to collaborate on and expand coverage of particular cities having a space to do so. Knowledge (XXG) has many, many of these city-focused WikiProjects. See

509:

current state. That Wikimedia UK and others couldn't see that there would be an issue with this kind of thing eventually shows that someone massively failed to understand both the Knowledge (XXG) community and public perception (and I do believe, per

3569:

will notice that I only commented to point out the fallacy/strawmans argument that any current news article refering to contruction of a road in the 19th century is "routine". This to me is a clear example of "I want this deleted - no matter how".

2509:

I agree that a community RfC is the way to go. Would you like to draft one? It seems to me you have a good grasp of the issues surrounding these projects – both the benefits and concerns – without being wedded to either the pro or the contra view.

2039:

It has happened before (a large, active WikiProject nominated for deletion), and the motivation of several of the participants was similarly based on a dislike for the project and its perceived "agenda". The result was an overwhelming "Keep". See

1918:

if it can better describe the involvement from GLAMs that are related to the project. I am leaning to agree with Tom and others that this project should be put on ice, but I think we should give everyone involved a bit more time to rescue this.

2160: 2146:

First of all, Prioryman is the founder and an active member of WikiProject Gibraltar (one of the few). His action is entirely appropriate. WikiProjects have the right to define their scope as well as their collaborations. Again please see the

1999:

and kept for historical purposes, but that clearly wouldn't apply in this case as Gibraltarpedia is anything but inactive. Finally, there have been rare occasions when WikiProjects have been redirected or merged due to inactivity (see e.g.

2586:- Close this MFD as neither "Keep" nor "Delete". GibralterpediA is a bigger issue than this MFD could ever hope to deal with, and closing as either result sets a precedent that the (inevitable) RFC will have to fight against. Wrong venue. 1643:

rotten from stem to stern, and every one of those DYKs has to be scrutinized or stricken. Then where are you going to keep the list of what all these articles are? Might as well be right where it is, on this page that's been nominated.

2692:

also help defuse this situation if there were a clear statement of the relationships between this project, the English Knowledge (XXG), Wikimedia UK, Victuallers Ltd, and the websites www.gibraltarpedia.org, qrwp.org and QRpedia.org.

2676:

Like a GLAM, this project is also attracting editors and providing content, and that is good, but the vital difference here is that the partner is a commercial organization whose aim is to attract tourists, and their statements in the

2811:

The GLAM/Gibraltarpedia page is part of the ongoing public documentation of the Gibraltarpedia project. Since there is controversy about the results and intentions of the project, it's in all our interests to preserfve that record.

447:

of user Prioryman. He has been mass posting to every contributor in the project a message inviting them here, instead of a central notification at the talkpage of the project. Coming from an experienced user is cause for alarm. See

915:

like this one to suggest other solutions, like merging, turning it into a taskforce, keeping the project but merging the template, ... This is supposed to be a constructive, open-minded discussion, not a straight yes-no vote.

3062:

This is not a GLAM initiative, and actually has very little to do with GLAM. I don't have a problem with the project itself, nor with the MonmouthpediA sister project or any future similar project; however, it should not be

517:: we had a big old debate about it and wrapped it up nice and calmly. We need to put Gibraltarpedia on ice for a while, have a big debate about the issues it has raised and then restart it once we have resolved the issues. — 2177:

of the Council Guide. If you want to insist that there is no difference between GLAM projects and other WikiProjects, then what the WikiProject Guide says is all the more valid concerning the flawed rationale for this MfD.

2041: 2001: 607:

discussions about this project and our wider and greatly beneficial scheme of collaborations with outside bodies, we don't need to throw this baby out with that bathwater. Deleting the project now would disrupt the

1274:, if they want it, rather than English Knowledge (XXG). To the extent the project can be merged, merge into existing WikiProjects. After the merge, terminate the project and delete the pages of GibraltarpediA. -- 338:

please. While this project came to my attention due to the many discussions about it, my MfD is purely based on the fact that I see no need for or benefit in having both projects, despite your explanation here.

2402:

contribute in ANY positive way to anything. The people who started this whole argument (not the current discussion but the whole Let's-delete-Gibraltarpedia thing) seem to forget some important points.

3035:

Nobody (well, hardly anybody) objects to outreach to GLAM organizations; the difference is that (even if the Gibraltar Museum is involved), this is outreach to a Ministry of Tourism whose objective is

2132:. No header like "For articles relating specifically to Gibraltar, see the Gibraltar project" can of course be found on the GibraltarpediA project. And since when is a GLAM project not a Wikiproject? 2533:

I'd like too, but I currently have too many spinning plates and shouldn't take that on as well. Maybe next week if no else ha done so by the time I've run a training course I'm delivering on Monday.

2294:

Interesting scenario ;). WikiProject Gibraltar with its brand new members (refugees) can then decide to do all the stuff that GibraltarPedia did. They could even change their talk page template to:

2157:

if a WikiProject says that an article is within their scope, then you may not force them to remove the banner. No editor may prohibit a group of editors from showing their interest in an article

866:

in due course, no hurry. GibraltarpediA has created lots of new pages, and we need them identified and credited. In the long run, the fewer project links at the head of a talk page, the better.

1959: 776:

That seems sensible to me; Wikiproject Military History has region, subject and period-specific task forces which operate in that way. There's certainly no good reason to delete this project.

2816:

GLAM/Gibraltarpedia does not duplicate Wikiproject Gibraltar: one is a collaborative project involving GLAM institutions (hence the name) and the other is purely internal to Knowledge (XXG).

62: 2259:

Their scope is not defined by you or anyone else on the basis of the last 10 articles they've produced or even the last 100. The kinds of activities they coordinate are also very different.

2825:

The discussion about the pace of the project ("freezing") does not even seem to belong in a debate about whether or not to delete the page. At the very least, they're in the wrong forum.

2280:

tourists and therefore be a valuable resource, you must also delete that project - that is, if you agree with the rationale for deleting this one. Can you poke a hole in that reasoning?

2257:"the British Overseas Territory of Gibraltar, the Strait of Gibraltar, the Spanish municipalities along the coast of the Bay of Gibraltar, the northernmost coast of Morocco and Ceuta." 987:

I can scarcely believe that you're implying that galleries, libraries, archives & museums and "large corporations" are the same thing. Are you trying to troll this discussion? --

1791:

measure coverage on Knowledge (XXG)). It is perfectly legitimate for partners such as GLAMs and pubic authorities to publicise the fact that they're working collaboratively with us.

153: 3192:. We shouldn't get hung up on debates about whether a botanical garden is a GLAM institution or not. There are lots of institutions which we might want to work with, such as the 2899:

No rational reason to delete and there is absolutely no evidence that this project is damaging to Knowledge (XXG). It might be useful for all those who oppose to be familar with

1705: 1598: 2155:"A WikiProject's members have the exclusive right to define the scope of their project, which includes defining an article as being outside the scope of the project. Similarly, 3551: 124: 2706:

qrwp.org is being transferred by Roger Bamkin to Wikimedia UK. He is retaining QRpedia.org. There has been some discussion of this on the UK list and Wikimedia UK wiki.

120: 3227:

now, the point is to recognise that not all collaborations are desirable, and that we need a way to decide which ones are and who can make that decision and commit us.

2044:. Makes interesting reading. And the overlap with another project is not a valid reason to delete an active project, especially since GibraltarPediA's stated scope is 1011:

that GLAM project is "doing it wrong" and should be closed (if it can't be rapidly turned around). I'm pretty sure that most GLAM projects aren't "doing it wrong".

73:

substantially upweight that argument (though it'd probably be unnecessary, as under those circumstances deletion would probably hold a strong majority of !votges).

112: 3400:

issues may be in order, all it needs is for a concerned party to put it together, but this MFD cannot be used to wipe out an entire project, problematic or not.

3678:

Speaking of knowledge, perhaps now is the time to provide that mythical "current news article refering to contruction of" Gibraltar "road in the 19th century"?

1340:. I say this because of the two projects, GibraltarPediA is the larger (both in terms of membership and scope) and by far the most active. Has anyone looked at 2922:

This has nothing to do with Knowledge (XXG), and should never have been here. What if every city and every company wants a Wiki page too? This is ridiculous.

693:

I agree. It's a very strange rationale that proposes deleting an active, established project because a moribund one exists with a similar but narrower scope.

2988:

A project to improve articles on Knowledge (XXG), which has apparently been very successful, has "nothing to do with Knowledge (XXG)"? Sounds self-refuting.

1086:

I'm not sure that any part of GLAM is representative of "the community". The community didn't ask for GLAM, it was just sort of foisted on the community.

426:; they all are clearly purely Gibraltar related. Please enlighten me: why wouldn't the Gibraltar project be sufficient and perfectly appropriate for them? 1910:

in that there is a reasonable commitment from GLAMs to the project. IMO GibraltarpediA should not call itself a WikiProject as it is not approved by the

1951: 844:

We need to put Gibraltarpedia on ice for a while, have a big debate about the issues it has raised and then restart it once we have resolved the issues.

3480: 1955: 2425:

It's not a "silly discussion" if there's this much constructive commentary on it. Don't attack the forum just because you don't like the discussion.

1270:- As a collective of indefinite activities well beyond the scope of English Knowledge (XXG), GibraltarpediA seems to be a project better suited for 800:. The page in question contains much more material, including several substantial subpages, and just uses the templated image as a banner heading. 2124:(emphasis mine), see" is added by Prioryman at the top of the Gibraltar project. A removal of this (not by me) was undone by Prioryman with a very 2004:) but again that wouldn't apply in this case. Bottom line – there is quite simply nothing in policy or precedent that would support this proposal. 3121:

The "M" in GLAM is only one of four components; there is no requirement for a museum to be involved in collaborations with the other three types.

1204:"Any activities being explicitly conducted by members of the project, under the banner of the project, in Knowledge (XXG), or in Gibraltar, stop." 2218:

define what activities they will undertake and which other projects they wish to collaborate with and on what terms. A general discussion about

353:

Monmouthpedia covers a clear subset of a larger project, not some unclearly defined region centered on the same thing as an existing project. A

2947: 2148: 2088: 1540:(Wikiproject Israel, Wikipoject Palestine, even Wikiproject philately) are fine. Wikiprojects are already prohibited, on the other hand, from 1292: 354: 263: 1683:

about, sure. But can you show me actual evidence that any of the articles, hooks, or the actual page nominated here has actually committed

1615:

How do those estimates of minimal benefit for Gibraltar tie in with (a) the Gibraltar tourist people's great enthusiasm, (b) Roger Bamkin's

1507:(XXG) pages with a recently invented name of a PR campaign which has its intellectual property owned by a non-WMF, third-party consultancy. 116: 1348:, which it is supposed to maintain, hasn't been updated since 2008, including the "Recent news" section. If the stated goal of this MfD is 1138: 1012: 162: 17: 3137: 2471: 1807: 1689:"An article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view." 1564: 1116: 636: 566: 192: 2361: 759: 1341: 301: 259: 3081:

I was under the impression that the Gibraltar Museum's involvement made it a GLAM project, as that is after all a GLAM institution.

2654: 3763: 3716: 3701: 3687: 3673: 3659: 3642: 3618: 3597: 3578: 3563: 3550:, the AfD and the DRV, as that one sets an extremely poor example. But you are probably well aware of this, having contributed to 3540: 3514: 3492: 3470: 3451: 3424: 3409: 3394: 3379: 3342: 3306: 3280: 3236: 3213: 3163: 3141: 3116: 3090: 3076: 3048: 3030: 2997: 2979: 2960: 2931: 2912: 2887: 2866: 2844: 2793: 2770: 2752: 2722: 2701: 2621: 2595: 2572: 2549: 2528: 2504: 2475: 2449: 2420: 2391: 2368: 2317: 2289: 2268: 2250: 2232: 2212: 2187: 2141: 2115: 2078: 2057: 2028: 2013: 1971: 1944: 1925: 1870: 1838: 1811: 1778: 1739: 1721: 1699: 1674: 1653: 1629: 1610: 1583: 1568: 1531: 1516: 1499: 1474: 1459: 1444: 1423: 1396: 1374: 1326: 1283: 1221: 1198: 1180: 1161: 1120: 1095: 1081: 1062: 1045: 1035: 1005: 991: 974: 953: 924: 905: 884: 858: 828: 809: 785: 771: 750: 732: 702: 684: 663: 640: 589: 570: 545: 526: 483: 466: 435: 381: 366: 348: 330: 291: 93: 3188:

The GLAM acronym should not be taken too literally. For example, it has been suggested that we might have some GLAM activity at

3057: 3015:

and others is surprising and not a little worrying. Outreach to GLAM and similar organisations is crucial to our development. --

1911: 1895: 1787:

Monmouthpedia (its literally a multiple of the amount of press articles and social media traffic discussing the launch; it does

1263: 107: 99: 2942: 2120:

On the other hand, starting a new project and forcing the old one inside it is perfectly on? "For the GibraltarpediA project,

1903: 1754:

marketing Gibraltar as a tourist product through Knowledge (XXG)... effectively marketing but done at the lowest possible cost

1100:

There as no "foisting"; the GLAM initiative came from within the community; and has wide community - and foundation - support

309: 2787: 2746: 2615: 2566: 2522: 1859:

have dedicated a ton of time to make articles on a number of topics and they're getting attacked for it. It's just shameful.

1685:"Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise." 878: 1597:: I've written an essay on the issue of Gibraltarpedia's supposed ability to produce commercial benefits for Gibraltar; see 313: 178: 1191:

being explicitly conducted by members of the project, under the banner of the project, in Knowledge (XXG), or in Gibraltar,

758:. The issue here seems to be that there are two projects with a lot of overlap. Replace the template with one like that on 550:

The Gibraltar tourism authorities may or may not fall under GLAM, but this project involves unambiguous GLAM institutions.

2355: 1880:

GibraltarpediA.org was registered on 23-June-2012 by organisation "Victuallers" (which I believe is a for-profit owned by

1299: 497:

Close the project, archive the page; stop the damn car, let's sit down and have a long chat about it calmly and rationally

423: 3781: 3204:, which might not fit exactly. The essence of the idea is that it is a partnership with some respectable institution. 40: 3505: 3297: 3154: 3107: 2713: 2540: 2495: 77: 3385:

Is the Monmouth GLAM any different? Or the Palace of Versailles... which is a commercial for-profit Hotel nowadays.

2732: 1137:

collects their thoughts and develops a coherent roadmap for how to deal with paid outreach/consulting in the future.

2237:

You claim that they are significantly different in scope and focus. How does this match with what I said and linked

1744:

Just so. "Monetising articles" is not the point, the point is the purpose and effect of the whole project: when the

1194:

understand that it is not happening as an officially-sanctioned activity in formal connection with this project. --

415: 2416: 1344:? It lists 8 members, of which only one is still a frequent editor at Knowledge (XXG). Its talk page is moribund. 151:

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is

2304: 224: 3209: 2173:

to force mergers of projects against the wishes of their members is inappropriate. You might also want to read

1295: 996:

A conflict of interest is a conflict of interest. It doesn't matter if the organization is for-profit or not.

805: 728: 719: 3609:

accept in good faith is this persistent, unjustified attempt to delete this project and its related articles.

3442:

have to eat! ..but most of us do not expect wikipedia- or wikipedia-associated projects to feed us.) Cheers,

1253: 3664:

Welcome to Pokemonpedia! Because that is what weill be the only thing left when all knowledge is destroyed.

3466: 3133: 2993: 2840: 2467: 2440: 1803: 1560: 1147: 1112: 1021: 632: 562: 2642: 2174: 1907: 1849:

as they have different focuses, with GibraltarpediA being much larger than what the Wikiproject focuses on.

208: 182: 3627: 3500: 3363: 3292: 3222:

Yes, we shouldn't get hung up on exact definitions. The test is something like: is the proposed partner's

3149: 3102: 2956: 2882: 2708: 2697: 2535: 2490: 2313: 2264: 2228: 2183: 2111: 2073: 2053: 1967: 1865: 1709: 1370: 874: 698: 504:: is it a gallery, a library, an archive, a museum or a cultural institution? Can't see it myself.) There 1662: 514: 167: 29:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below.

3777: 2650: 2412: 680: 36: 2927: 2693: 3036: 2223:

absorb it whether they want to or not. I'm afraid we will just have to agree to disagree on this one.

1745: 3697: 3669: 3638: 3574: 3536: 3405: 3374: 3338: 2908: 2862: 2406:

and sharing the knowledge. This is what Knowledge (XXG) is about after all, isn't it? It is not just

1921: 1492: 1439: 1389: 1321: 1279: 1271: 946: 824: 522: 3100:

GLAM we shouldn't try to shoehorn them into the GLAM model, even if sometimes they include a GLAM.

1769:", it is disingenuous to start claiming now that there is no commercial or promotional aspect here. 854:

following Mogism's suggestion, above; that's a very good way to allow overlapping collaboration. --

444: 3205: 3086: 2009: 1940: 1885: 1717: 1606: 1455: 1408: 1217: 1176: 1050:

Sorry for piling on, but there is a difference. Cultural institutions are non-profit organizations

901: 801: 724: 541: 399: 377: 326: 81: 63:

Knowledge (XXG):Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_September_25#Template:WikiProject_GibraltarpediA

3631: 3462: 3124: 2989: 2836: 2782: 2741: 2610: 2561: 2517: 2458: 2426: 2308:

to it as well. Joking aside, it does illustrate how misguided this whole MfD is, at least to me.

2087:

Yes. In my view the stated rationale for bringing this to MfD is very flawed. Note this from the

1794: 1551: 1536:

Perhaps you should find out how Wikprojects work before sounding off? Wikiprojects with partisan

1512: 1252:- GibraltarpediA says "The project aims to cover xxx in as many languages as possible" Why can't 1189:

Oh come on mate, it's not that hard. Editing Knowledge (XXG) continues as normal. Any activities

1103: 763: 623: 553: 214: 145: 2733:

http://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/09/28/joint-statement-from-wikimedia-foundation-and-wikimedia-uk/

3614: 3605: 3547: 3201: 2952: 2877: 2591: 2387: 2309: 2260: 2224: 2179: 2107: 2068: 2049: 1993: 1963: 1860: 1834: 1470: 1419: 1366: 1311: 1077: 1059: 868: 694: 659: 479: 462: 411: 387: 262:

and adds a few parts covered by other projects (Spain and Marocco), was created. According to

3064: 1915: 1891: 1545: 961: 501: 317: 3488: 3447: 3232: 3197: 3072: 3044: 3012: 2923: 2766: 2646: 1881: 1774: 1625: 1345: 1067:

This is absolutely throwing the baby out with the bathwater. If one were to read up on what

781: 767: 746: 676: 532: 395: 2125: 797: 715: 335: 280:

It is not about the editors, nor about the articles: it is simply about the project as such

3776:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's

3693: 3665: 3634: 3570: 3532: 3401: 3368: 3334: 3023: 3008: 2904: 2858: 2731:

Note the joint statement by Wikimedia Foundation and Wikimedia UK published this evening:

1735: 1670: 1487: 1433: 1384: 1315: 1275: 980: 939: 820: 584: 518: 510: 88: 35:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's

3630:

principle applies even in cases of articles where you might have some argument. See also

3476: 1727: 1357: 1353: 3438:: need to send a strong message on not stretching ethical borders. (Btw; News flash: We 2220:"the community denying a group of editors the right to create nearly-duplicate projects" 796:

It is not a template which has been nominated for deletion - templates are discussed at

3712: 3683: 3655: 3593: 3559: 3420: 3390: 3193: 3082: 2975: 2631: 2379: 2246: 2208: 2137: 2024: 2005: 1936: 1713: 1602: 1579: 1527: 1451: 1213: 1172: 1091: 1001: 970: 920: 897: 537: 431: 419: 407: 373: 362: 344: 322: 287: 3746: 3647: 3263: 2777: 2736: 2605: 2556: 2512: 2285: 2161:

Knowledge (XXG):Requests for comment/Wikiproject tags on biographies of living people

1899: 1761: 1695: 1649: 1616: 1508: 2903:

and embrace those efforts to further the goals of the movement in a positive way. --

3610: 2587: 2383: 1856: 1830: 1466: 1415: 1291: 1073: 1055: 655: 475: 458: 242: 230: 198: 1783:

That benefit-in-kind was not derived from Monmouthpedia, but from press coverage

258:

There doesn't seem to be a good reason why this project, which duplicates all of

177:

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to

3484: 3443: 3228: 3189: 3068: 3040: 2854: 2762: 1770: 1621: 777: 742: 403: 391: 3475:

Eh? Most of us have not become involved in editing wikipedia as part of a push

2275:

So far as I know, there's no precedent for WikiProjects closing themselves and

1356:. They also need to get out of bed with the Ministry of Tourism. Articles like 3016: 1890:

We have a long tradition of allowing GLAMs to set up a project workarea under

1731: 1666: 577: 85: 2404:

The time you have spent hating you could have spent improving Knowledge (XXG)

1068: 304:

back in 2007 and I am strongly opposed to this request. The two projects are

61:

The talkpage template is excessively gaudy, but it's had it's own discussion

3708: 3679: 3651: 3589: 3555: 3416: 3386: 2971: 2636: 2242: 2204: 2133: 2020: 1575: 1523: 1087: 997: 966: 916: 427: 358: 340: 283: 2042:

Knowledge (XXG):Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Conservatism

2002:

Knowledge (XXG):Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Dragon Quest

714:

It is quite normal for projects to have multiple pages and subpages. Per

3741: 3258: 3011:. The vast difference of opinion between Mike's and my view, and that of 2281: 1691: 1645: 1195: 1042: 988: 855: 2554:

Sounds good. I have a feeling this will still be here in a week's time.

68:

The concern about COI editing is legitimate, but absent any evidence of

2830:

Knowledge (XXG)'s mission in the fullest sense. Uzma Gamal above seems

500:

not sure how the Gibraltar tourism authorities fall under the remit of

357:

would perhaps be a feasible new geographical scope; this one isn't.

3770:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.

3037:

marketing Gibraltar as a tourist product through Knowledge (XXG)

2775:

Oh, I quite agree. I just mentioned it for completeness' sake.

2255:

Like it or not, the clearly stated scope of GibraltarpediA is:

140: 1350:"an attempt to keep some structure in the WikiProject jungle" 819:

is any chance an entire project is just going to be deleted.

2900: 171:(agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, 161:

among Knowledge (XXG) contributors. Knowledge (XXG) has

846:

And they are substantial issues. It's not a bad project

3552:

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Flat Bastion Road

3253: 3247: 2238: 2194:

Your reference above is about a project deciding which

2129: 2019:

no precedent on how to handle it one way or the other.

1246: 1242: 1041:

knowledge by highly skilled cultural professionals. --

620:

offering, and make available more open-licensed media.

612:

contributions being made by both volunteer editors and

455: 452: 449: 132: 128: 1884:) and this 'GLAM' page was created on 27 June 2012 by 1450:

given that Gibraltar is underrepresented here anyway.

1248:

I'm not seeing this as a WikiProject for Wikipedians.

1052:

with educational missions and subject matter expertise

1726:

The government of Gibraltar, to its credit, has been

1706:

User:Prioryman/Gibraltarpedia, monetisation and myths

1599:

User:Prioryman/Gibraltarpedia, monetisation and myths

616:

paid advisors to improve the encyclopedia, publicise

3554:(where you sadly never responded to my question). 1620:£2m payback on £50K investment" in Monmouthpedia? 3355:"a partnership with some respectable institution" 2298:WikiProject Gibraltar, the home of GibraltarPedia 43:). No further edits should be made to this page. 3784:). No further edits should be made to this page. 443:: I'm very concerned about the less than subtle 2666:– per Achowat. It is too late to stop now, but 741:then try to have a more sensible conversation. 2198:are in their scope, not deciding that another 2399:Stop wasting your time with silly discussions 1952:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Council/Proposals 1902:itself, I assume that GibraltarpediA is like 191:Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected 8: 2122:which includes this project within its scope 1764:claims that his previous project generated " 1730:about the commercial aspect of the project. 1898:and, while GibraltarpediA is clearly not a 65:- which I believe should be deferred to. 3058:Knowledge (XXG):Wikiproject GibraltarpediA 1989:for inactive WikiProjects to be marked as 1414:so that we don't obscure past bad ideas. 264:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Council/Guide# 165:regarding the encyclopedia's content, and 355:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Mediterranean 3692:Then ask the person that brought it up. 185:on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. 3747: 3264: 321:have been made if not for that factor. 18:Knowledge (XXG):Miscellany for deletion 843: 3483:, but never mentions Spain? Cheers, 850:, and can certainly be rescued. Also 302:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Gibraltar 260:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Gibraltar 7: 1960:simultaneously in the proposal stage 1958:were up and running while they were 1337:revisit this issue in a month's time 3740:You two. Take it somewhere else. — 1912:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Council 1896:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Council 1264:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject QRpedia 457:among almost 20 of these messages. 108:Knowledge (XXG):GLAM/GibraltarpediA 100:Knowledge (XXG):GLAM/GibraltarpediA 48:The result of the discussion was 1762:the project leader's LinkedIn page 760:Talk:Madrid Atocha railway station 310:Knowledge (XXG):GLAM/MonmouthpediA 24: 3481:they want to involve North-Africa 2378:. Although I started the article 314:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Wales 3477:to "marked" a place for tourists 3257:? Those do not pass the test. — 1758:Gibraltar's Knowledge (XXG) site 1290: 979: 144: 3583:Apart from the fact that there 3335:The C of E. God Save The Queen! 1704:Exactly. As I've documented at 3707:these accusations completely. 3415:new RfC on the scope of GLAM. 3164:15:26, 30 September 2012 (UTC) 3142:14:17, 30 September 2012 (UTC) 3117:12:30, 30 September 2012 (UTC) 3091:07:49, 30 September 2012 (UTC) 3077:05:48, 30 September 2012 (UTC) 3049:09:10, 30 September 2012 (UTC) 3031:04:05, 30 September 2012 (UTC) 2998:12:04, 30 September 2012 (UTC) 2961:05:22, 30 September 2012 (UTC) 2932:00:49, 30 September 2012 (UTC) 2913:21:11, 29 September 2012 (UTC) 2888:22:49, 29 September 2012 (UTC) 2867:20:25, 29 September 2012 (UTC) 2845:09:10, 29 September 2012 (UTC) 2794:18:03, 29 September 2012 (UTC) 2771:09:19, 29 September 2012 (UTC) 2753:22:28, 28 September 2012 (UTC) 2723:21:08, 28 September 2012 (UTC) 2702:17:19, 28 September 2012 (UTC) 2622:14:34, 28 September 2012 (UTC) 2596:13:48, 28 September 2012 (UTC) 2573:18:03, 29 September 2012 (UTC) 2550:21:08, 28 September 2012 (UTC) 2529:13:01, 28 September 2012 (UTC) 2505:12:10, 28 September 2012 (UTC) 2476:11:31, 29 September 2012 (UTC) 2450:21:28, 28 September 2012 (UTC) 2421:10:10, 28 September 2012 (UTC) 2392:09:36, 28 September 2012 (UTC) 2369:07:33, 28 September 2012 (UTC) 2318:16:41, 28 September 2012 (UTC) 2290:15:50, 28 September 2012 (UTC) 2269:14:40, 28 September 2012 (UTC) 2251:13:43, 28 September 2012 (UTC) 2233:13:16, 28 September 2012 (UTC) 2213:12:30, 28 September 2012 (UTC) 2188:09:07, 28 September 2012 (UTC) 2169:In any case, my point is that 2142:08:22, 28 September 2012 (UTC) 2116:07:49, 28 September 2012 (UTC) 2079:07:34, 28 September 2012 (UTC) 2058:07:10, 28 September 2012 (UTC) 2029:06:54, 28 September 2012 (UTC) 2014:06:17, 28 September 2012 (UTC) 1972:06:47, 28 September 2012 (UTC) 1945:06:06, 28 September 2012 (UTC) 1926:04:37, 28 September 2012 (UTC) 1871:03:52, 28 September 2012 (UTC) 1839:02:21, 28 September 2012 (UTC) 1812:11:24, 29 September 2012 (UTC) 1779:09:21, 28 September 2012 (UTC) 1767:£2m payback on £50K investment 1740:06:40, 28 September 2012 (UTC) 1722:06:06, 28 September 2012 (UTC) 1700:02:17, 28 September 2012 (UTC) 1675:01:02, 28 September 2012 (UTC) 1654:00:16, 28 September 2012 (UTC) 1630:00:09, 28 September 2012 (UTC) 1611:22:56, 27 September 2012 (UTC) 1569:11:16, 29 September 2012 (UTC) 1532:16:05, 28 September 2012 (UTC) 1517:22:54, 27 September 2012 (UTC) 1500:22:48, 27 September 2012 (UTC) 1475:02:57, 28 September 2012 (UTC) 1460:22:56, 27 September 2012 (UTC) 1445:20:50, 27 September 2012 (UTC) 1424:18:32, 27 September 2012 (UTC) 1397:17:28, 27 September 2012 (UTC) 1375:15:30, 27 September 2012 (UTC) 1327:15:01, 27 September 2012 (UTC) 1284:14:54, 27 September 2012 (UTC) 1222:21:41, 27 September 2012 (UTC) 1199:15:39, 27 September 2012 (UTC) 1181:14:45, 27 September 2012 (UTC) 1162:14:27, 27 September 2012 (UTC) 1121:11:07, 29 September 2012 (UTC) 1096:19:27, 27 September 2012 (UTC) 1082:15:14, 27 September 2012 (UTC) 1063:14:28, 27 September 2012 (UTC) 1046:14:25, 27 September 2012 (UTC) 1036:14:23, 27 September 2012 (UTC) 1006:14:16, 27 September 2012 (UTC) 992:14:14, 27 September 2012 (UTC) 975:14:04, 27 September 2012 (UTC) 954:13:57, 27 September 2012 (UTC) 925:14:07, 27 September 2012 (UTC) 906:13:36, 27 September 2012 (UTC) 885:12:58, 27 September 2012 (UTC) 859:14:09, 27 September 2012 (UTC) 829:18:08, 30 September 2012 (UTC) 810:12:41, 27 September 2012 (UTC) 786:11:33, 27 September 2012 (UTC) 772:10:28, 27 September 2012 (UTC) 751:09:59, 27 September 2012 (UTC) 733:09:50, 27 September 2012 (UTC) 703:20:21, 27 September 2012 (UTC) 685:18:46, 27 September 2012 (UTC) 664:09:45, 27 September 2012 (UTC) 641:09:43, 27 September 2012 (UTC) 590:12:08, 27 September 2012 (UTC) 571:09:43, 27 September 2012 (UTC) 546:09:38, 27 September 2012 (UTC) 527:09:33, 27 September 2012 (UTC) 467:10:09, 27 September 2012 (UTC) 436:10:03, 27 September 2012 (UTC) 382:09:38, 27 September 2012 (UTC) 367:09:28, 27 September 2012 (UTC) 349:09:24, 27 September 2012 (UTC) 331:09:20, 27 September 2012 (UTC) 292:09:00, 27 September 2012 (UTC) 1: 1914:, but it is OK to stay under 1679:This is something I might be 1432:locally-owned) businesses. -- 424:Gibraltar-Vatican Joint Issue 181:on the part of others and to 2048:than WikiProject Gibraltar. 842:. I agree with Tom Morris - 3764:17:57, 4 October 2012 (UTC) 3717:06:45, 4 October 2012 (UTC) 3702:17:40, 3 October 2012 (UTC) 3688:12:18, 3 October 2012 (UTC) 3674:11:54, 3 October 2012 (UTC) 3660:10:52, 3 October 2012 (UTC) 3643:10:38, 3 October 2012 (UTC) 3619:22:26, 4 October 2012 (UTC) 3598:10:15, 3 October 2012 (UTC) 3579:10:03, 3 October 2012 (UTC) 3564:09:15, 3 October 2012 (UTC) 3541:09:00, 3 October 2012 (UTC) 3515:14:11, 5 October 2012 (UTC) 3493:17:11, 4 October 2012 (UTC) 3471:18:35, 3 October 2012 (UTC) 3452:23:52, 2 October 2012 (UTC) 3425:21:58, 1 October 2012 (UTC) 3410:21:43, 1 October 2012 (UTC) 3395:21:32, 1 October 2012 (UTC) 3380:17:32, 1 October 2012 (UTC) 3343:18:28, 2 October 2012 (UTC) 3307:21:53, 4 October 2012 (UTC) 3281:20:40, 1 October 2012 (UTC) 3237:17:25, 1 October 2012 (UTC) 3214:09:32, 1 October 2012 (UTC) 2980:21:37, 1 October 2012 (UTC) 1617:claims on his LinkedIn page 1584:14:47, 1 October 2012 (UTC) 1254:Knowledge (XXG):Translation 484:21:18, 4 October 2012 (UTC) 300:, of course. I established 94:08:57, 6 October 2012 (UTC) 78:Category:Museums in Toronto 3804: 3067:to an unrelated project. 1908:Knowledge (XXG):GLAM/HOPAU 76:To editorialise a little, 3604:I have not looked at the 2805:Keep for multiple reasons 1935:started this discussion. 1544:in a partisan manner, by 1239:Embrace, aspire, and aim: 599:While we do need to have 515:Knowledge (XXG):Esperanza 416:Devil's Tower (Gibraltar) 308:identical, any more than 3773:Please do not modify it. 2302:They can add a nice big 720:Bristol Hotel, Gibraltar 32:Please do not modify it. 3357:, as the Colonel said. 2821:knowledge to everyone. 1746:other party's publicity 1212:what happens off-wiki. 651:Knowledge (XXG)-related 223:; accounts blocked for 193:single-purpose accounts 163:policies and guidelines 3628:The Boy Who Cried Wolf 3364:An Enemy of the People 2948:What is a WikiProject? 2681:make quite clear that 1894:without going through 1710:Gibraltar War Memorial 1954:. Some projects like 1904:WP:GLAM/MonmouthpediA 1342:WikiProject Gibraltar 1308:Shut this sucker down 673:Monmouthpedia --: --> 2850:Merge templates only 1661:: Clearly violates 1548:and other policies. 1312:lipstick on this pig 1272:Wikimedia Foundation 318:Knowledge (XXG):GLAM 3349:Convenience break 2 2679:Gibraltar Chronicle 1886:user:Mrjohncummings 1750:Gibraltar Chronicle 1574:mission, for sure. 1362:Gibraltar Chronicle 1296:Delicious carbuncle 756:Merge the templates 649:: There is nothing 400:Geraldine Finlayson 175:by counting votes. 154:not a majority vote 82:Museum of Inuit Art 3632:First they came... 3353:A GLAM project is 2901:Wikimedia Outreach 1756:", and refers to " 1354:this sort of thing 1314:to change that. -- 1241:From its write up, 3606:Flat Bastion Road 3548:Flat Bastion Road 3202:Royal Institution 3056:Keep but move to 2659: 2645:comment added by 2447: 2365: 2149:WikiProject Guide 2089:WikiProject Guide 1980:Convenience break 1522:particular POV. 1145: 1019: 412:Line Wall Curtain 388:Solomon Abudarham 256: 255: 252: 179:assume good faith 3795: 3775: 3761: 3760: 3756: 3752: 3744: 3512: 3508: 3503: 3377: 3371: 3304: 3300: 3295: 3278: 3277: 3273: 3269: 3261: 3256: 3250: 3198:National Theatre 3161: 3157: 3152: 3140: 3131: 3127: 3114: 3110: 3105: 3028: 3021: 2885: 2880: 2790: 2785: 2780: 2749: 2744: 2739: 2720: 2716: 2711: 2658: 2639: 2618: 2613: 2608: 2569: 2564: 2559: 2547: 2543: 2538: 2525: 2520: 2515: 2502: 2498: 2493: 2474: 2465: 2461: 2446: 2441: 2438: 2413:BulgarianLlanita 2367: 2363: 2358: 2076: 2071: 1998: 1992: 1924: 1882:user:Victuallers 1868: 1863: 1810: 1801: 1797: 1687:The policy says 1567: 1558: 1554: 1495: 1442: 1436: 1413: 1407: 1392: 1346:Portal:Gibraltar 1324: 1318: 1294: 1159: 1144: 1139: 1119: 1110: 1106: 1033: 1018: 1013: 983: 883: 881: 871: 639: 630: 626: 587: 582: 569: 560: 556: 533:Gibraltar Museum 396:Victualling Yard 312:is identical to 250: 238: 222: 206: 187: 157:, but instead a 148: 141: 137: 136: 91: 34: 3803: 3802: 3798: 3797: 3796: 3794: 3793: 3792: 3788: 3782:deletion review 3771: 3758: 3754: 3748: 3742: 3510: 3506: 3501: 3375: 3369: 3351: 3302: 3298: 3293: 3275: 3271: 3265: 3259: 3252: 3246: 3159: 3155: 3150: 3129: 3123: 3122: 3112: 3108: 3103: 3024: 3017: 3007:. I agree with 2883: 2878: 2788: 2783: 2778: 2747: 2742: 2737: 2718: 2714: 2709: 2640: 2630:The reason why 2616: 2611: 2606: 2603:– per Achowat. 2567: 2562: 2557: 2545: 2541: 2536: 2523: 2518: 2513: 2500: 2496: 2491: 2463: 2457: 2456: 2442: 2435: 2431: 2427: 2360: 2354: 2074: 2069: 1996: 1990: 1982: 1956:Women's History 1922:John Vandenberg 1920: 1866: 1861: 1799: 1793: 1792: 1659:Delete or merge 1556: 1550: 1549: 1498: 1493: 1440: 1434: 1411: 1405: 1395: 1390: 1322: 1316: 1156: 1152: 1148: 1140: 1108: 1102: 1101: 1030: 1026: 1022: 1014: 879: 869: 867: 852:merge templates 628: 622: 621: 585: 578: 558: 552: 551: 240: 228: 212: 196: 183:sign your posts 110: 106: 103: 89: 41:deletion review 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 3801: 3799: 3790: 3787: 3786: 3738: 3737: 3736: 3735: 3734: 3733: 3732: 3731: 3730: 3729: 3728: 3727: 3726: 3725: 3724: 3723: 3722: 3721: 3720: 3719: 3623: 3622: 3621: 3524: 3523: 3522: 3521: 3520: 3519: 3518: 3517: 3455: 3454: 3432: 3431: 3430: 3429: 3428: 3427: 3350: 3347: 3346: 3345: 3326: 3325: 3324: 3323: 3322: 3321: 3320: 3319: 3318: 3317: 3316: 3315: 3314: 3313: 3312: 3311: 3310: 3309: 3284: 3283: 3240: 3239: 3217: 3216: 3194:National Trust 3175: 3174: 3173: 3172: 3171: 3170: 3169: 3168: 3167: 3166: 3053: 3052: 3051: 3001: 3000: 2986: 2985: 2984: 2983: 2982: 2964: 2963: 2935: 2934: 2916: 2915: 2893: 2892: 2891: 2890: 2870: 2869: 2847: 2801: 2800: 2799: 2798: 2797: 2796: 2756: 2755: 2728: 2727: 2726: 2725: 2688: 2687: 2673: 2672: 2664:Take no action 2632:Gibraltarpedia 2625: 2624: 2601:Take no action 2598: 2584:Take no action 2581: 2580: 2579: 2578: 2577: 2576: 2575: 2482: 2481: 2480: 2479: 2478: 2433: 2429: 2395: 2394: 2380:Gibraltarpedia 2372: 2371: 2347: 2346: 2345: 2344: 2343: 2342: 2341: 2340: 2339: 2338: 2337: 2336: 2335: 2334: 2333: 2332: 2331: 2330: 2329: 2328: 2327: 2326: 2325: 2324: 2323: 2322: 2321: 2320: 2300: 2295: 2167: 2166: 2165: 2104: 2103: 2102: 2093: 2092: 2082: 2081: 2061: 2060: 2034: 2033: 2032: 2031: 1981: 1978: 1977: 1976: 1975: 1974: 1947: 1929: 1928: 1889: 1874: 1873: 1851: 1850: 1842: 1841: 1824: 1823: 1822: 1821: 1820: 1819: 1818: 1817: 1816: 1815: 1814: 1656: 1634: 1633: 1632: 1592: 1591: 1590: 1589: 1588: 1587: 1586: 1504: 1503: 1502: 1490: 1481: 1480: 1479: 1478: 1477: 1399: 1387: 1377: 1329: 1304: 1303: 1287: 1286: 1231: 1230: 1229: 1228: 1227: 1226: 1225: 1224: 1184: 1183: 1165: 1164: 1154: 1150: 1131: 1130: 1129: 1128: 1127: 1126: 1125: 1124: 1123: 1065: 1048: 1038: 1028: 1024: 977: 956: 932: 931: 930: 929: 928: 927: 909: 908: 888: 887: 861: 836: 835: 834: 833: 832: 831: 813: 812: 791: 790: 789: 788: 753: 735: 723:GLAM subpage. 708: 707: 706: 705: 688: 687: 666: 643: 594: 593: 592: 573: 548: 511:Hanlon's Razor 494: 493: 492: 491: 490: 489: 488: 487: 486: 438: 420:The Rock Hotel 408:Anthony Dudley 351: 254: 253: 149: 139: 138: 102: 97: 59: 58: 46: 45: 25: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3800: 3791: 3785: 3783: 3779: 3774: 3768: 3767: 3766: 3765: 3762: 3757: 3751: 3745: 3718: 3714: 3710: 3705: 3704: 3703: 3699: 3695: 3691: 3690: 3689: 3685: 3681: 3677: 3676: 3675: 3671: 3667: 3663: 3662: 3661: 3657: 3653: 3649: 3646: 3645: 3644: 3640: 3636: 3633: 3629: 3624: 3620: 3616: 3612: 3607: 3603: 3602: 3601: 3600: 3599: 3595: 3591: 3586: 3582: 3581: 3580: 3576: 3572: 3567: 3566: 3565: 3561: 3557: 3553: 3549: 3544: 3543: 3542: 3538: 3534: 3529: 3526: 3525: 3516: 3513: 3509: 3504: 3496: 3495: 3494: 3490: 3486: 3482: 3478: 3474: 3473: 3472: 3468: 3464: 3463:MartinPoulter 3459: 3458: 3457: 3456: 3453: 3449: 3445: 3441: 3437: 3434: 3433: 3426: 3422: 3418: 3413: 3412: 3411: 3407: 3403: 3398: 3397: 3396: 3392: 3388: 3384: 3383: 3382: 3381: 3378: 3372: 3366: 3365: 3360: 3356: 3348: 3344: 3340: 3336: 3331: 3328: 3327: 3308: 3305: 3301: 3296: 3288: 3287: 3286: 3285: 3282: 3279: 3274: 3268: 3262: 3255: 3249: 3245:Yes. What is 3244: 3243: 3242: 3241: 3238: 3234: 3230: 3225: 3221: 3220: 3219: 3218: 3215: 3211: 3207: 3203: 3199: 3195: 3191: 3187: 3186: 3185: 3184: 3183: 3182: 3181: 3180: 3179: 3178: 3177: 3176: 3165: 3162: 3158: 3153: 3145: 3144: 3143: 3139: 3135: 3130:Pigsonthewing 3126: 3120: 3119: 3118: 3115: 3111: 3106: 3099: 3094: 3093: 3092: 3088: 3084: 3080: 3079: 3078: 3074: 3070: 3066: 3061: 3059: 3054: 3050: 3046: 3042: 3038: 3034: 3033: 3032: 3029: 3027: 3022: 3020: 3014: 3010: 3006: 3003: 3002: 2999: 2995: 2991: 2990:MartinPoulter 2987: 2981: 2977: 2973: 2968: 2967: 2966: 2965: 2962: 2958: 2954: 2949: 2944: 2939: 2938: 2937: 2936: 2933: 2929: 2925: 2921: 2918: 2917: 2914: 2910: 2906: 2902: 2898: 2895: 2894: 2889: 2886: 2881: 2874: 2873: 2872: 2871: 2868: 2864: 2860: 2856: 2851: 2848: 2846: 2842: 2838: 2837:MartinPoulter 2833: 2828: 2824: 2819: 2815: 2810: 2806: 2803: 2802: 2795: 2792: 2791: 2786: 2781: 2774: 2773: 2772: 2768: 2764: 2760: 2759: 2758: 2757: 2754: 2751: 2750: 2745: 2740: 2734: 2730: 2729: 2724: 2721: 2717: 2712: 2705: 2704: 2703: 2699: 2695: 2690: 2689: 2684: 2680: 2675: 2674: 2669: 2665: 2662: 2661: 2660: 2656: 2652: 2648: 2644: 2638: 2633: 2629: 2623: 2620: 2619: 2614: 2609: 2602: 2599: 2597: 2593: 2589: 2585: 2582: 2574: 2571: 2570: 2565: 2560: 2553: 2552: 2551: 2548: 2544: 2539: 2532: 2531: 2530: 2527: 2526: 2521: 2516: 2508: 2507: 2506: 2503: 2499: 2494: 2486: 2483: 2477: 2473: 2469: 2464:Pigsonthewing 2460: 2453: 2452: 2451: 2448: 2445: 2439: 2437: 2424: 2423: 2422: 2418: 2414: 2409: 2405: 2400: 2397: 2396: 2393: 2389: 2385: 2381: 2377: 2374: 2373: 2370: 2366: 2357: 2352: 2349: 2348: 2319: 2315: 2311: 2307: 2306: 2301: 2299: 2296: 2293: 2292: 2291: 2287: 2283: 2278: 2274: 2273: 2272: 2271: 2270: 2266: 2262: 2258: 2254: 2253: 2252: 2248: 2244: 2240: 2236: 2235: 2234: 2230: 2226: 2221: 2216: 2215: 2214: 2210: 2206: 2201: 2197: 2193: 2192: 2191: 2190: 2189: 2185: 2181: 2176: 2172: 2168: 2164: 2162: 2158: 2153: 2152: 2150: 2145: 2144: 2143: 2139: 2135: 2131: 2128:edit summary 2127: 2123: 2119: 2118: 2117: 2113: 2109: 2105: 2101: 2097: 2096: 2095: 2094: 2090: 2086: 2085: 2084: 2083: 2080: 2077: 2072: 2065: 2064: 2063: 2062: 2059: 2055: 2051: 2047: 2043: 2038: 2037: 2036: 2035: 2030: 2026: 2022: 2017: 2016: 2015: 2011: 2007: 2003: 1995: 1987: 1984: 1983: 1979: 1973: 1969: 1965: 1961: 1957: 1953: 1948: 1946: 1942: 1938: 1933: 1932: 1931: 1930: 1927: 1923: 1917: 1913: 1909: 1905: 1901: 1900:GLAM (sector) 1897: 1893: 1887: 1883: 1879: 1876: 1875: 1872: 1869: 1864: 1858: 1853: 1852: 1847: 1844: 1843: 1840: 1836: 1832: 1828: 1825: 1813: 1809: 1805: 1800:Pigsonthewing 1796: 1790: 1786: 1782: 1781: 1780: 1776: 1772: 1768: 1763: 1759: 1755: 1752:talks about " 1751: 1747: 1743: 1742: 1741: 1737: 1733: 1729: 1725: 1724: 1723: 1719: 1715: 1711: 1707: 1703: 1702: 1701: 1697: 1693: 1690: 1686: 1682: 1678: 1677: 1676: 1672: 1668: 1664: 1660: 1657: 1655: 1651: 1647: 1642: 1638: 1635: 1631: 1627: 1623: 1618: 1614: 1613: 1612: 1608: 1604: 1600: 1596: 1593: 1585: 1581: 1577: 1572: 1571: 1570: 1566: 1562: 1557:Pigsonthewing 1553: 1547: 1543: 1539: 1535: 1534: 1533: 1529: 1525: 1520: 1519: 1518: 1514: 1510: 1505: 1501: 1496: 1489: 1485: 1482: 1476: 1472: 1468: 1463: 1462: 1461: 1457: 1453: 1448: 1447: 1446: 1443: 1437: 1430: 1427: 1426: 1425: 1421: 1417: 1410: 1403: 1400: 1398: 1393: 1386: 1381: 1378: 1376: 1372: 1368: 1363: 1359: 1355: 1351: 1347: 1343: 1339: 1338: 1333: 1330: 1328: 1325: 1319: 1313: 1309: 1306: 1305: 1302:) likes this. 1301: 1297: 1293: 1289: 1288: 1285: 1281: 1277: 1273: 1269: 1265: 1260: 1259:QRpedia codes 1255: 1251: 1247: 1243: 1240: 1236: 1233: 1232: 1223: 1219: 1215: 1210: 1209:absolutely no 1205: 1202: 1201: 1200: 1197: 1192: 1188: 1187: 1186: 1185: 1182: 1178: 1174: 1169: 1168: 1167: 1166: 1163: 1160: 1158: 1146: 1143: 1135: 1132: 1122: 1118: 1114: 1109:Pigsonthewing 1105: 1099: 1098: 1097: 1093: 1089: 1085: 1084: 1083: 1079: 1075: 1070: 1066: 1064: 1061: 1057: 1053: 1049: 1047: 1044: 1039: 1037: 1034: 1032: 1020: 1017: 1009: 1008: 1007: 1003: 999: 995: 994: 993: 990: 986: 982: 978: 976: 972: 968: 963: 960: 957: 955: 952: 951: 950: 945: 944: 943: 937: 934: 933: 926: 922: 918: 913: 912: 911: 910: 907: 903: 899: 895: 892: 891: 890: 889: 886: 882: 877: 876: 872: 865: 862: 860: 857: 853: 849: 845: 841: 838: 837: 830: 826: 822: 817: 816: 815: 814: 811: 807: 803: 799: 795: 794: 793: 792: 787: 783: 779: 775: 774: 773: 769: 765: 761: 757: 754: 752: 748: 744: 739: 736: 734: 730: 726: 721: 717: 713: 710: 709: 704: 700: 696: 692: 691: 690: 689: 686: 682: 678: 672:Derby --: --> 670: 667: 665: 661: 657: 652: 648: 644: 642: 638: 634: 629:Pigsonthewing 625: 619: 615: 611: 606: 602: 598: 595: 591: 588: 583: 581: 574: 572: 568: 564: 559:Pigsonthewing 555: 549: 547: 543: 539: 534: 530: 529: 528: 524: 520: 516: 512: 507: 503: 498: 495: 485: 481: 477: 473: 470: 469: 468: 464: 460: 456: 453: 450: 446: 442: 439: 437: 433: 429: 425: 421: 417: 413: 409: 405: 401: 397: 393: 389: 385: 384: 383: 379: 375: 370: 369: 368: 364: 360: 356: 352: 350: 346: 342: 337: 334: 333: 332: 328: 324: 319: 315: 311: 307: 303: 299: 296: 295: 294: 293: 289: 285: 281: 275: 272: 267: 265: 261: 248: 244: 236: 232: 226: 220: 216: 210: 204: 200: 194: 190: 186: 184: 180: 174: 170: 169: 164: 160: 156: 155: 150: 147: 143: 142: 134: 130: 126: 122: 118: 114: 109: 105: 104: 101: 98: 96: 95: 92: 87: 83: 79: 74: 71: 66: 64: 55: 54: 53: 51: 44: 42: 38: 33: 27: 26: 19: 3789: 3772: 3769: 3753: 3750: 3739: 3648:Godwin's law 3584: 3527: 3499: 3439: 3435: 3367:, folks). -- 3362: 3358: 3354: 3352: 3329: 3291: 3270: 3267: 3223: 3148: 3138:Andy's edits 3134:Talk to Andy 3125:Andy Mabbett 3101: 3097: 3055: 3026:(Discussion) 3025: 3018: 3004: 2953:Voceditenore 2919: 2896: 2849: 2831: 2826: 2822: 2817: 2813: 2808: 2804: 2776: 2735: 2707: 2694:JohnCD (alt) 2682: 2678: 2667: 2663: 2641:— Preceding 2627: 2626: 2604: 2600: 2583: 2555: 2534: 2511: 2489: 2484: 2472:Andy's edits 2468:Talk to Andy 2459:Andy Mabbett 2443: 2428: 2407: 2403: 2398: 2375: 2350: 2310:Voceditenore 2305:one of these 2303: 2297: 2276: 2261:Voceditenore 2256: 2225:Voceditenore 2219: 2199: 2195: 2180:Voceditenore 2175:this section 2171:using an MfD 2170: 2156: 2154: 2121: 2108:Voceditenore 2098: 2050:Voceditenore 2045: 1985: 1964:Voceditenore 1877: 1845: 1826: 1808:Andy's edits 1804:Talk to Andy 1795:Andy Mabbett 1788: 1784: 1765: 1757: 1753: 1749: 1688: 1684: 1680: 1663:WP:PROMOTION 1658: 1640: 1636: 1594: 1565:Andy's edits 1561:Talk to Andy 1552:Andy Mabbett 1541: 1537: 1483: 1428: 1401: 1379: 1367:Voceditenore 1361: 1349: 1336: 1335:for now and 1334: 1331: 1307: 1267: 1258: 1249: 1238: 1234: 1208: 1203: 1190: 1149: 1142:This is also 1141: 1133: 1117:Andy's edits 1113:Talk to Andy 1104:Andy Mabbett 1051: 1023: 1016:This is also 1015: 984: 958: 948: 947: 941: 940: 938:Per Warden. 935: 893: 873: 863: 851: 847: 839: 755: 737: 711: 695:Voceditenore 668: 650: 646: 637:Andy's edits 633:Talk to Andy 624:Andy Mabbett 617: 614:legitimately 613: 609: 604: 600: 596: 579: 567:Andy's edits 563:Talk to Andy 554:Andy Mabbett 505: 496: 471: 440: 305: 297: 279: 276: 270: 268: 257: 246: 234: 225:sockpuppetry 218: 207:; suspected 202: 188: 176: 172: 166: 158: 152: 75: 69: 67: 60: 50:No consensus 49: 47: 31: 28: 3370:Orange Mike 3224:primary aim 3190:Kew Gardens 2855:Talk:Bhopal 2647:Matthew gib 1728:very honest 1435:Orange Mike 1380:Strong keep 1317:Orange Mike 1250:Translation 936:Strong keep 712:Speedy Keep 677:Victuallers 618:Wikimedia's 404:Europa Road 392:John Cortes 3694:Agathoclea 3666:Agathoclea 3635:Agathoclea 3571:Agathoclea 3533:Agathoclea 3402:Beeblebrox 3065:coatracked 3009:Mike Cline 2905:Mike Cline 2859:Beeblebrox 2417:talk to me 2356:This, that 1681:suspicious 1619:of " : --> 1488:Smallbones 1409:historical 1385:Smallbones 1276:Uzma Gamal 821:Beeblebrox 669:Keep/Merge 519:Tom Morris 445:canvassing 159:discussion 3778:talk page 3083:Prioryman 2943:this list 2637:Gibraltar 2362:the other 2126:WP:OWNish 2100:category. 2006:Prioryman 1937:Prioryman 1714:Prioryman 1603:Prioryman 1538:interests 1494:smalltalk 1452:Prioryman 1391:smalltalk 1214:Prioryman 1173:Prioryman 898:Prioryman 538:Prioryman 374:Prioryman 323:Prioryman 215:canvassed 209:canvassed 168:consensus 80:contains 37:talk page 3780:or in a 3511:Chequers 3303:Chequers 3160:Chequers 3113:Chequers 3013:Jørgen88 2924:Jørgen88 2719:Chequers 2655:contribs 2643:unsigned 2546:Chequers 2501:Chequers 2277:refusing 2196:articles 1994:inactive 1509:Tijfo098 985:Comment: 610:positive 605:reasoned 269:This is 247:username 241:{{subst: 235:username 229:{{subst: 219:username 213:{{subst: 203:username 197:{{subst: 39:or in a 3330:Comment 2588:Achowat 2436:anguard 2408:another 2384:Ipigott 2200:project 2046:broader 1986:Comment 1916:WP:GLAM 1892:WP:GLAM 1878:Comment 1831:Carrite 1827:Comment 1760:", and 1748:in the 1595:Comment 1546:WP:NPOV 1542:editing 1484:comment 1467:Nyttend 1429:comment 1416:Nyttend 1360:in the 1157:anguard 1074:LoriLee 1069:WP:GLAM 1056:Dominic 1031:anguard 962:WP:GLAM 894:Comment 586:(talk) 502:WP:GLAM 472:Comment 441:Comment 211:users: 121:history 3485:Huldra 3444:Huldra 3436:Delete 3251:? And 3229:JohnCD 3206:Warden 3098:museum 3069:Risker 3041:JohnCD 2920:Delete 2879:Silver 2763:JohnCD 2364:(talk) 2359:, and 2070:Silver 1862:Silver 1771:JohnCD 1622:JohnCD 1134:Freeze 959:Delete 848:per se 840:Freeze 802:Warden 798:WP:TFD 778:Nick-D 764:Mogism 743:Nick-D 725:Warden 716:WP:OWN 647:Delete 336:WP:AGF 278:ones. 70:actual 3507:Spiel 3299:Spiel 3156:Spiel 3109:Spiel 3019:Bduke 2884:seren 2832:proud 2715:Spiel 2542:Spiel 2497:Spiel 2075:seren 1906:and 1867:seren 1766:: --> 1732:Cla68 1667:Cla68 1268:Merge 1235:Merge 949:Vesey 875:rew D 864:Merge 656:Yazan 645:(ec) 459:Yazan 189:Note: 129:watch 125:links 16:< 3713:talk 3709:Fram 3698:talk 3684:talk 3680:Fram 3670:talk 3656:talk 3652:Fram 3639:talk 3615:talk 3611:Anne 3594:talk 3590:Fram 3575:talk 3560:talk 3556:Fram 3537:talk 3528:Keep 3502:Ϣere 3489:talk 3467:talk 3448:talk 3421:talk 3417:Gigs 3406:talk 3391:talk 3387:Gigs 3376:Talk 3359:This 3339:talk 3294:Ϣere 3254:this 3248:this 3233:talk 3210:talk 3151:Ϣere 3104:Ϣere 3087:talk 3073:talk 3045:talk 3005:Keep 2994:talk 2976:talk 2972:Gigs 2957:talk 2928:talk 2909:talk 2897:Keep 2863:talk 2841:talk 2767:talk 2710:Ϣere 2698:talk 2683:they 2668:move 2651:talk 2628:Keep 2592:talk 2537:Ϣere 2492:Ϣere 2485:Keep 2444:Wha? 2432:ven 2388:talk 2376:Keep 2351:Keep 2314:talk 2286:talk 2265:talk 2247:talk 2243:Fram 2239:here 2229:talk 2209:talk 2205:Fram 2184:talk 2159:per 2138:talk 2134:Fram 2130:here 2112:talk 2054:talk 2025:talk 2021:Fram 2010:talk 1968:talk 1962:. - 1941:talk 1857:Anne 1846:Keep 1835:talk 1775:talk 1736:talk 1718:talk 1696:talk 1671:talk 1650:talk 1637:Keep 1626:talk 1607:talk 1580:talk 1576:Gigs 1528:talk 1524:Gigs 1513:talk 1471:talk 1456:talk 1441:Talk 1420:talk 1402:Keep 1371:talk 1358:this 1332:Keep 1323:Talk 1300:talk 1280:talk 1218:talk 1177:talk 1153:ven 1092:talk 1088:Gigs 1078:talk 1027:ven 1002:talk 998:Gigs 971:talk 967:Gigs 942:Ryan 921:talk 917:Fram 902:talk 880:alby 825:talk 806:talk 782:talk 768:talk 747:talk 738:Keep 729:talk 699:talk 681:talk 660:talk 603:and 601:calm 597:Keep 580:Tony 542:talk 531:The 523:talk 480:talk 476:Anne 463:talk 432:talk 428:Fram 422:and 378:talk 363:talk 359:Fram 345:talk 341:Fram 327:talk 298:Keep 288:talk 284:Fram 133:logs 117:talk 113:edit 86:Wily 3743:Hex 3440:all 3260:Hex 3200:or 3132:); 2827:(5) 2823:(4) 2818:(3) 2814:(2) 2809:(1) 2789:466 2748:466 2617:466 2568:466 2524:466 2466:); 2282:Wnt 1802:); 1789:not 1692:Wnt 1646:Wnt 1641:was 1559:); 1196:Hex 1111:); 1043:Hex 989:Hex 870:And 856:Hex 631:); 561:); 306:not 271:not 243:csp 239:or 231:csm 199:spa 173:not 3759:❞) 3755:?! 3749:(❝ 3715:) 3700:) 3686:) 3672:) 3658:) 3650:. 3641:) 3617:) 3596:) 3585:is 3577:) 3562:) 3539:) 3491:) 3469:) 3450:) 3423:) 3408:) 3393:) 3373:| 3341:) 3276:❞) 3272:?! 3266:(❝ 3235:) 3212:) 3196:, 3136:; 3089:) 3075:) 3047:) 3039:. 2996:) 2978:) 2959:) 2930:) 2911:) 2865:) 2843:) 2807:- 2769:) 2700:) 2657:) 2653:• 2594:) 2470:; 2419:) 2390:) 2316:) 2288:) 2267:) 2249:) 2241:? 2231:) 2211:) 2186:) 2163:." 2151:: 2140:) 2114:) 2056:) 2027:) 2012:) 1997:}} 1991:{{ 1970:) 1943:) 1837:) 1806:; 1785:of 1777:) 1738:) 1720:) 1712:. 1698:) 1673:) 1652:) 1628:) 1609:) 1601:. 1582:) 1563:; 1530:) 1515:) 1473:) 1458:) 1438:| 1422:) 1412:}} 1406:{{ 1373:) 1320:| 1282:) 1266:. 1220:) 1179:) 1115:; 1094:) 1080:) 1004:) 973:) 923:) 904:) 827:) 808:) 784:) 770:) 749:) 731:) 701:) 683:) 662:) 635:; 565:; 544:) 525:) 506:is 482:) 465:) 454:, 451:, 434:) 418:, 414:, 410:, 406:, 402:, 398:, 394:, 390:, 380:) 365:) 347:) 329:) 290:) 282:. 249:}} 237:}} 227:: 221:}} 205:}} 195:: 131:| 127:| 123:| 119:| 115:| 3711:( 3696:( 3682:( 3668:( 3654:( 3637:( 3613:( 3592:( 3573:( 3558:( 3535:( 3487:( 3465:( 3446:( 3419:( 3404:( 3389:( 3337:( 3231:( 3208:( 3128:( 3085:( 3071:( 3060:. 3043:( 2992:( 2974:( 2955:( 2926:( 2907:( 2861:( 2839:( 2784:N 2779:J 2765:( 2743:N 2738:J 2696:( 2649:( 2612:N 2607:J 2590:( 2563:N 2558:J 2519:N 2514:J 2462:( 2434:M 2430:S 2415:( 2386:( 2312:( 2284:( 2263:( 2245:( 2227:( 2207:( 2182:( 2136:( 2110:( 2091:: 2052:( 2023:( 2008:( 1966:( 1939:( 1833:( 1798:( 1773:( 1734:( 1716:( 1694:( 1669:( 1648:( 1624:( 1605:( 1578:( 1555:( 1526:( 1511:( 1497:) 1491:( 1469:( 1454:( 1418:( 1394:) 1388:( 1369:( 1298:( 1278:( 1216:( 1175:( 1155:M 1151:S 1107:( 1090:( 1076:( 1060:t 1058:· 1029:M 1025:S 1000:( 969:( 919:( 900:( 823:( 804:( 780:( 766:( 745:( 727:( 697:( 679:( 658:( 627:( 557:( 540:( 521:( 478:( 461:( 430:( 376:( 361:( 343:( 325:( 286:( 251:. 245:| 233:| 217:| 201:| 135:) 111:( 90:D

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge (XXG)

:Miscellany for deletion/Knowledge (XXG):GLAM/GibraltarpediA - Knowledge (XXG)

Index