279:
In the short term we could reestablish first principles by the adoption of a mechanistic formula whereby the number of parameters in any one infobox are limited to, say, eight (or even six). This is not a revolutionary idea; it is similar in purpose to the existing MOS guideline that restricts the number of paragraphs in an article's lead, with the aim of keeping the lead in brief summary form. If infoboxes were likewise limited, editors' minds would focus on what really needed to be included, rather than on how to extend the box. In the longer term, however, an altogether more fundamental change might be considered, along the lines of an idea that has already been floated by
1808:
judgment, but there are other similar ones editors deal with. A couple more related complaints: biographies that put birth (and sometimes death) dates and other details like cities into the lead, the body, and the infobox. Only in perhaps a few very long and complex articles can that make any sense. Worse yet are company articles I have been dealing with recently that have a litany of all the "chief this or that officers", often without any sources, and probably out of date fairly quickly. Talk about vanity, when little startups of "three kids and an app" can give themselves all grandiose titles. Thanks for this much-needed discussion.
231:
some infoboxes have become, how much room they take up and how much detail is crammed into them. Some are simply enormous; far from being convenient, quick-reference points conveniently placed in the top right-hand corner of their parent article, they have become huge columns reaching deep into the body of the article. Apart from anything else, this can foul up presentation by squeezing the text and mispositioning images. In some cases, the article itself appears to be almost subordinate to the box.
998:
121:
111:
1890:
we'd be doing the world a disservice if we insisted on removing things that many people might want to look up. International dialling codes, GDP figures, presidents, independence dates - all these things are available elsewhere, but not necessarily in the same place, and not in a place you can predict. If I want the timezone of Tuvalu, I *know* I can find it instantly without even going to Google just by whacking
2052:
article content grows, so should the lead summary grow proportionately, and the TOC generally grows as well. It seems like this would leave a large enough box exposed to be useful yet define an acceptable limit. And I personally dislike articles with long TOCs and a bunch of blank space to their right. I am perplexed that many editors prefer no infobox at all, to that alternative, but that's just me. Cheers.
37:
131:
91:
141:
204:
2026:
is not available? Should lead sections be bloated to accommodate an arbitrary design aesthetic? Also, a global limit on the number of parameters will lead only to more intricate template designs, not smaller infoboxes. (For example, some take the latitude and longitude data as up to 8 parameters while others need editors to use the intricate
101:
244:. While all these extra facts obviously are relevant, few of them could be said to represent the "key" information on the subject. Another problem area that I encounter in my reviewing travels is political biographies, where infoboxes are often of inordinate length and complexity. Way back in 2008 I cut my reviewing teeth on the
2297:
I began the article by recognising the usefulness of infoboxes in making available certain kinds of data in a convenient form. My argument is not against infoboxes in general, but against the bloated boxes that have developed over the years, contrary to the original intention. As to your opera boxes,
2272:
Some people will want to read the complete article, others may just want to find a date/language/author of the story. I am willing to serve both. The author's navbox is at the bottom, so the one on top is redundant, and I don't believe an infobox instead would "damage" the article. Project opera just
2051:
Your questions are valid considerations. To clarify my intent; I was thinking of tying an overflow with a vertical scroll bar to the TOC bottom. I'm not suggesting a limit on parameters, or that an editor should choose x from y available. The reason I suggested the bottom of the TOC is because as the
2025:
But "falling below the table of contents" on whose monitor? And at what resolution? If the infobox contains an image (such as a photo of the subject, a logo, or other relevant pic) should it contain less information than a similar infobox for a company with a smaller logo or a person for whom a photo
1984:
I suppose it would require an RFC on the matter, and it may be a necessary thing. Perhaps the infobox should be restricted from falling below the table of contents? I believe most editors don't intentionally intend for an infobox to subsume the article but instead believe that if the template has the
1939:
also provides an outstanding amount of data just by typing a country's name in (seriously, check it out), and it's in a convenient format that allows you to perform calculations, compare a list of nations, make graphs, etc. I just don't see how a static page like
Knowledge (XXG) can ever compare with
1732:
Fully agree. But when I tried to do just that was quickly reverted. Unfortunately resistance to any kind of slimming is much greater than tolerance of fattening, so infoboxes (as well as articles, navbars, category lists) keep growing and growing and growing while readers read less and less and less.
234:
Let's look at a few specifics. Articles on countries are, I imagine, frequently consulted by casual readers in search of basic facts: location, population, capital city, language, currency, form of government. Unfortunately, most "country" articles have infoboxes which go way beyond the provision of
214:
for? As a regular reviewer at PR and FAC I look at a lot of articles, which means that I see plenty of infoboxes. They have been a feature of WP articles for years now, and it seems obvious that they can provide a useful service to readers who want a few specific facts about a subject, rather than an
2312:
I thank your for both recognising "the usefulness of infoboxes" and envisioning a time when operas will have them. The time that their use was introduced in the project's manual of style has come (18 June 2013, as noted on the Carmen talk). - In an opera, typically you get a time and location of the
2257:
Because when we first started
Knowledge (XXG) we cared greatly about reaching people with different approaches to learning. We had a number of discussion on learning styles and how it related to how information was presented, how colors could be used and what information should be wikilinked. All of
2159:
Food for thought: the German
Knowledge (XXG) community repeatedly opposed using infoboxes in biography articles. Exceptions were only made for sportspeople, astronauts and a few other cases, where there is numerical data such as no. of wins/goals/hits/olympic medals/space trips, etc.. that is better
1874:
Many people here are writing that they sometimes look up some particular bit of information, but that's not a good enough reason to put it in that spot. We can't possibly include every bit of information in a database format on top of an article just because someone, somewhere might have use for it.
1830:
example, but someone of his career and stature would naturally have more information in the infobox to display. I think the op-ed should have made the point that infoboxes should not evolve to replace/supplement navboxes, which is where this is heading. Ultimately, control of what fields belong in
1717:
Amen! Infoboxes should be the basic facts about a subject, and not a dumping ground for any bit of information that can be communicated in four words or less. I strongly support any effort to cut them down. Infobox devotees should start a parallel website for non-encyclopedic, non-cited data about a
1278:
One of the key points of the article is that many infoboxes are neither quick nor convenient due to the unreasonable level of detail they contain for something giving a quick snapshot of a topic. Collapsing detail into relevant sections that readers can rapidly scan and expand as desired serves that
239:
is one example, typical of many. Its infobox includes mottoes, anthem titles and translations, two sets of GDP calculations, Gini ranking, HDI ranking, ISO code and much else besides. Some of this information will require the use of links, often to articles that aren't at all easy to follow â try
222:
project was started, designed to foster encyclopedia-wide cooperation. The project page summarises the nature of infoboxes as: "a quick and convenient summary of the key facts about a subject, in a consistent format and layout". The particular words "quick", "convenient", and "key facts" all imply
2116:
Excellent op-ed, I agree entirely. One thing you don't mention is (mostly in historical articles) the tendency of infoboxes to introduce inaccuracy - people feel compelled to complete all the fields even where the information is uncertain or just not easily summarized in one or two words. The House
1889:
Actually, I'm pretty sure most encyclopedias do have something akin to an infobox on most of their more important topics. I seem to recall the printed
Britannica having something of that nature anyway. And of course, I'm not arguing for the inclusion of every single little obscure fact, but I think
1768:
has changed matters. It should have been mentioned, but alas you may not have really known why it is important to
Wikipedians. Wikidata is important for many of the reasons you gave. This has become a standard usage of infoboxes, to cram as much data as possible. Pushing the data into Wikidata will
1507:
The question I am addressing here is whether, for buildings with known addresses in cities, the geographic coordinates represent "key information" about the building, such as justifies inclusion in an infobox. It's not a matter of whether you or a few other souls might find it convenient to have it
278:
The issue of concern is the extent to which infoboxes are becoming generally less efficient in fulfilling the function for which they were initially introduced. I believe it is time to reconsider the tendency towards overdetailing that has developed in recent years, and to look for a new approach.
262:
article, where the infobox is relatively short. Among the "essential" information it provides are the theatre's geographic co-ordinates! In what sense is this "key information" about the theatre? It is about as pointless as it gets. I thought this might be a once-off aberration, a case of editorial
230:
The fundamental idea is clear: keep the box simple, and limit it to essentials. At some point down the line, however, these basic principles seem to have been abandoned, in favour of an approach akin to "the more the merrier". As I go through my reviewing duties I can't help noticing just how big
2006:
You make an excellent point, as does
Amakuru, above. I began this article by reminding editors that infoboxes were originally intended to be short, sweet and to the point - key headline information. Unfortunately the designers have tended to add more and more parameters; editors cannot be blamed
1851:
I agree with what Chris says above, and I'll freely admit that I use infoboxes a lot when I'm browsing
Knowledge (XXG) for information. You may think that GDP and GDP per capita is excessive information but I do look that stuff up and going to the country article and scanning the infobox is by far
1608:
Regarding "newish editors" and the way that infoboxes sometimes distract from article content, one of my particular pet peeves regards editors (mostly newish) who systematically excise significant information from the article text because it "repeats" information that is in the infobox. 'Nuf said.
1297:
I've been looking over the shoulders of friends and colleagues as they interact with
Knowledge (XXG) for many years, and every single one has been surprised by the button in navboxes, and the ones that are making their way into Infoboxes (and data tables, and galleries), when I suggest that they
253:
is another example. A particular issue is the dubious practice of recording in the infobox not only every political office ever held by the subject, but also the names of each predecessor and successor in these offices. Much of this information is entirely inconsequential; is it a key fact that
1807:
agree totally that infobox bloat has become a cancer. As much editing, a very valuable skill is deciding what to leave out. As discussed above, one set of coordinates is probably fine for many articles. One good start would be to scale infoboxes to article size. This could be quite a subjective
1685:
on that article; it's already in the succession boxes at the foot of the article. That infobox should also display persona biography (dates of birth and death, etc.) ahead of posts held. Discussion on how best to remedy these issues should take place on the template's talk page. I've started a
1788:
While I would agree that coordinates should not be in an infobox if they also appear at the top-right of the article page I would strongly dispute that the information is not important. The location of, say, a building is its prime identifier â it my be rebuilt, renamed, re-purposed, or even
2077:
I completely agree with this article. Infoboxes have become total cruft piles. It's gotten so bad that I don't even add infoboxes to biography articles any more. In most cases, they are better off without them. Making the content collapsable will just make the problem worse, not better.
1546:
Thanks for this article Brian - I've been feeling the same thing. A problem with large/complex infoboxes is that they also can turn into resource-sinks, with editors (and especially newish editors) tending to focus on the infobox rather than the body of the article.
2036:
template to place it on 1 parameter. The display is the same but the functionality and ease of editing is vastly different.) Knowing that, what benefit to the reader or the encyclopedia is gained by "fixing a limit to the number of parameters" in any one infobox? -
2007:
for thinking that these have to be be filled. That is why I have suggested fixing a limit to the number of parameters per infobox, which would force attention on what is really key information, and also help to restore some uniformity to the appearance of articles.
1252:
Collapsing infoboxes, or parts therein, is a bad idea. It defeats the purpose of providing our readers with a quick and convenient overview; and it makes it likely that editors who are updating facts in the body will see that they also need to to so in the infobox.
1750:(Iâm surprised it is not mentionned in the piece, actually), perhaps we do not need to cram infoboxes with all possible data â just like we do not need to stuff articles with image galleries, as we can simply link to a category or gallery on Wikimedia Commons. No?
1664:
Ack, that
Winston Churchill one is horrible. That said, as we can see from the discussion above, any attempt to chop them back down to the basics will be difficult because everyone will have two cents to contribute on their own favourite bits of information.
2241:
without one, rather than a real sense of what's useful. I agree with the comments on the talk pageâ"These infoboxes will continue to be badly implemented until the box protagonists start asking themselves what the boxes are actually supposed to accomplish."
2221:
redundantâand it's not clear why someone would need a tabular format for these five random facts rather than reading the lead and getting the whole story. How many living, breathing human beings will ever be in a position where they need to know the date of
1410:
Let me add my voice in agreement with Brian here. Although I am inclined to agree with
Dravecky's point as well: co-ordinates seem like a sensible thing to be in an infobox, especially since the link allows a map of the location to be viewed. â
30:
Infoboxes: time for a fresh look?: The fundamental idea of an infobox is clear: keep it simple and limited to essentials. At some point, however, these basic principles seem to have been abandoned, in favour of an approach akin to "the more the
257:
Infoboxes should not be the repositories of any odd bits of information related to the subject. Indeed, sometimes information that is not just inessential but downright absurd finds its way into them. I had reason recently to look at the
2216:
I don't think that's the right place for the author's navbox, but neither do I think the proposed infobox can be justified. Every single word of that infobox is written succinctly, point by point, in the first paragraph. It's
1773:
Maybe we can start creating "VerboseInfobox" versions for the bottom of the page to replace those rather numerous succession boxes currently in use? (Hopefully that automatically pull the relevant information from Wikidata.)
2258:
that seems to be forgotten nowadays. Yes I can sit down a read a book on cod but other will never get farther then an infobox. Yes I can read a four-color map with red and green but some color-blind person won't be able to.
1300:
Editors are too often using "collapsible section" as a way of burying a dispute over whether or not to include something in an article. It's a bad habit for us, and a disservice to (at least a percentage of) the readers.
1954:
And one of the places Google (and no doubt, WA) gets such information is from our infoboxes. We're good at proving structured data, and our infobox data is used by many other services; that's our forte as well.
248:
article, and I commented then that the infobox was confusing and overcomplicated with detail. It still is, and the same criticism can be made of most articles for statesmen who enjoyed long and active careers.
1934:
Google's gotten pretty reliable about this type of data. You can type "timezone tuvalu" or "gdp tuvalu" into your search bar and Google will give it to you instantly without having to navigate to another page.
1860:, those are the purview of respective wimiprojects. Butt would I change them? No, I don't think so. Apart from the aforementioned Gini index I personally think all of it is potentially useful. Thanks  â
1789:
demolished: its location is its main and unchanging definition. I recall that I have myself in the distant past used the Knowledge (XXG) coordinates of the Empire State Building to find out where it was.
1460:. They would for example be vital information for an article about a mountain in Antarctica. I am saying that they are pointless information for buildings that have fixed locations in cities; what is the
1027:
977:
2160:
or easier displayed in tables/infoboxes than written out in text. Overall opinion seems to be that most persons' life is too complex to condense it into a few numbers and facts without much context. --
1052:
1594:
articles in which there has been endless bickering over which countries to include and which order they should appear, and very little work to improve or maintain the quality of the actual articles.
1047:
1078:
275:, whose infobox records the co-ordinates twice, for no clear reason. I am sure that a general audit of infoboxes would throw up many similar instances of redundant or insignificant information.
2343:, not as a recommendation, and indeed members have objected to its use on several articles and removed it, leading to discussions on the talk pages of the articles concerned, where they belong.
1037:
1032:
77:
215:
in-depth study. What is the population of Salzburg? Who was Henry II of England married to? How many first-class wickets did Jack Hobbs take? The infoboxes are there to give these answers.
587:
582:
1464:
of knowing what the geographic coordinates of the Coliseum Theatre are? And how can this be justifid as "key information" on the subject such as to justify its appearance in the infobox?
1015:
1822:
I disagree with this op-ed. I like infoboxes and we should have them on every article. They bring out key facts for those that don't want to read the article itself. Your example of
923:
907:
902:
886:
881:
865:
849:
822:
806:
790:
785:
769:
764:
759:
743:
738:
733:
717:
712:
707:
691:
686:
681:
676:
671:
644:
639:
634:
618:
613:
597:
592:
566:
561:
556:
551:
535:
530:
525:
520:
504:
499:
494:
489:
484:
468:
463:
458:
453:
448:
432:
427:
422:
406:
401:
396:
391:
386:
370:
365:
360:
355:
339:
2143:
be pin-pointed. But please donât hide that link to maps away in an info box: just stick it up in the default place, the top right-hand corner. Then everyone will know where to look.
1009:
56:
45:
2121:
which some will remember (aides editing Knowledge (XXG) to agree with what their party leader had said) all arose because the infobox mistated what is in in fact just unknown.
1586:
Fair point: My concern is that endless disputes over some infoboxes can distracts attention away from things which actually need fixing. I'm thinking of the infoboxes for the
1912:). Collapsible sections are very problematic, and using them to brush disputes under the carpet is a bad habit that we need to examine, and should research how (or whether)
1022:
218:
The initial MOS guideline on infoboxes was posted on 10 March 2006; by 1 January 2007 a number of WP projects were incorporating them into articles, and on that date the
2336:
2462:
318:
176:
1894:
into my 'puter. Some people seem to have suggested having collapsible sections for the more minor facts - I think that might just solve everyone's issues... Â â
1431:
I find coordinates useful in infoboxes. It's a pity that Brian seems only to have considered his own personal preferences, and not the circumstances of others.
283:: the development of a Micropedia version of the encyclopedia, that would obviate the need for infoboxes altogether. Now, that would indeed be revolutionary.
21:
1623:
Oh yes. I have seen an IP delete most of the lead section of a city article on the grounds that it was duplicating the infobox. Cart before horse or what?--
2437:
1769:
go a long way towards solving this problem, as it will provide a structured way to store, and recall, this rather important, yet in some ways superfluous,
227:
guideline gives broadly the same message, while adding a significant rider: "The less information contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose".
2432:
2427:
180:
1321:
Funny stuff! I didn't twig to the satire until the bit about geographic coordinates being out of place in an infobox for a geographic location. And the
1482:
don't see the need for coordinates in an infobox about a building in a city, so think those of us who do should be deprived of their usefulness there.
1940:
the sites that do this much better. Maybe we should eliminate the infobox and just link to Wolfram so we can focus on the prose, which is our forte. â
2422:
2139:
being an obvious exceptionâand where they are located is often interesting, and pin-pointable by coordinates linked to maps. So, in general, they
2298:
their time may comeâprovided the discussion is led by editors with a knowledge of and love for music and opera and the issue is not forced.
2335:
to writing articles on opera-related subjects. It is not part of the official Knowledge (XXG) Manual of Style. The infobox has been listed
1826:
was a poor choice since the infobox doesn't protrude past the first level 2 heading on the article. I can see where you're going with the
1345:, not actually a clever scheme to randomly duplicate listed data? Brilliant. I look forward to more comedy at this level in the future. -
1971:
1831:
the infoboxes resides with the wikiprojects. Weak wikiprojects result in editors being too bold and letting things get out of control.
1706:
1577:
1498:
1447:
1399:
1269:
1359:
Well, it's not as clever as it might be: the co-ordinates really don't need to be listed twice in what is already a massive infobox. â
1687:
1419:
1367:
2417:
997:
50:
36:
17:
1179:
I think people just need to start using collapsible infoboxes where only the most important information is shown uncollapsed. e.g.
2136:
309:
1755:
1679:
1413:
1361:
1198:
1508:
there, it's whether its importance merits inclusion. However, I realise that you will never understand or accept this.
1718:
subject. The predecessor/successor information is particularly silly and I would be happy to eliminate it completely. â
2387:
I think this contribution is absolutely spot on and should lead to action. Thanks to Brian Boulton for writing it.
1985:
parameter and the sourced information is available that it should be included. That has always been my assumption.
1561:
Editors are free to choose the aspects of Knowledge (XXG) to which they devote their efforts. Why should they not?
271:âand found that these landmarks, too, have their co-ordinates proudly displayed in their infoboxes, as does the
195:
191:
1339:
1222:
1218:
1214:
2396:
2374:
2352:
2326:
2307:
2292:
2267:
2251:
2211:
2185:
2169:
2152:
2130:
2109:
2087:
2064:
2046:
2016:
1997:
1975:
1949:
1925:
1903:
1884:
1869:
1846:
1817:
1799:
1783:
1759:
1739:
1727:
1710:
1669:
1659:
1632:
1618:
1603:
1581:
1556:
1531:
1517:
1502:
1473:
1451:
1426:
1403:
1374:
1354:
1310:
1292:
1273:
1243:
1234:
1208:
1192:
1168:
1142:
1133:
1109:
2443:
2408:
1839:
2331:
I'd like to clarify a couple of things that Gerda has said about WikiProject Opera. We have a page which is a
1751:
2365:
Again, everything in the infobox is in the first paragraph. "reading the complete article" isn't required. â
1967:
1702:
1628:
1573:
1494:
1443:
1395:
1265:
162:
Brianboulton is a British Wikipedian and has been editing since 2007. Aside from his prolific reviewing at
2348:
2322:
2303:
2288:
2277:
2207:
2148:
2012:
1653:
1513:
1469:
1230:
1204:
allowed me to include an extra image and hide statistical information that many readers won't care about.
1164:
1129:
2165:
2105:
1380:
1329:
1322:
1105:
302:
272:
2313:
action. A simple infobox could do just that: position a subject in history and geography at a glance (
268:
2060:
1993:
1648:
1188:
219:
2370:
2247:
1945:
1880:
1833:
1813:
1723:
1239:
Depends on the article. For the ship article, there is really only one parameter, so I hid it all.
2229:
s first performance but care so little about the subject that they can't read a single paragraph?
1217:
to collapsed boxes that don't reveal the parameters to the reader. Incidentally, I just collected
2263:
2042:
1958:
1921:
1693:
1624:
1564:
1527:
1485:
1434:
1386:
1350:
1306:
1256:
94:
2344:
2318:
2314:
2299:
2284:
2203:
2144:
2126:
2083:
2008:
1899:
1865:
1827:
1509:
1465:
1290:
1226:
1160:
1125:
1074:
250:
154:
124:
2392:
2181:
2161:
2135:
Excellent op-ed, yes. But I disagree on one point. Buildings are rather static on the earthâ
2101:
1796:
1779:
1614:
1599:
1552:
1101:
280:
241:
167:
104:
2056:
1989:
1184:
259:
163:
134:
2194:
That's what I do by adding an infobox to most of my articles, and everybody may look if
2366:
2243:
2030:
1941:
1876:
1809:
1719:
1666:
2456:
2259:
2176:
Thank you Brian. Let's shift the cruft and concentrate on writing/improving articles.
2093:
2038:
1917:
1523:
1346:
1302:
1240:
1205:
1139:
295:
287:
1852:
the quickest way to do it. I was not really responsible for the boxes on my own FAs
2122:
2079:
1895:
1861:
1645:
Great article Brian. I agree wholeheartedly. Also agree with Nick's comment above.
1587:
1280:
264:
245:
211:
114:
1456:
You miss the point. I am not saying that coordinates should not be in infoboxes
144:
2388:
2199:
2177:
1853:
1792:
1775:
1735:
1610:
1595:
1591:
1548:
1121:
224:
2202:
suggested (instead of a navbox that repeats content from the footer navbox), --
2097:
1936:
1909:
1908:
See my comment above, and many conversations elsewhere (many of which link to
1100:
Congrats on bringing the Dispatches back, and a very good job indeed Brian. â
263:
over-enthusiasm, so I checked the articles for other well-known buildingsâthe
2100:" didn't even reach the main page before another editor added an infobox. â
170:, he has contributed to 73 featured articles on the English Knowledge (XXG).
2233:
I get the impression that people want infoboxes because the article looks
1675:
I agree that the succession/ prime minister information is superfluous in
1765:
1747:
1823:
236:
203:
2283:, and I would like to see it used and tried, comments are welcome. --
2195:
2118:
1857:
1180:
882:
6: Tools, part 1: References, external links, categories and size
291:
55:
2096:, and bare hours after it hit DYK it already had an infobox. "
1279:
purpose rather well. I don't think it's 'a bad idea' at all.
1159:
thought-provoking piece. Thanks to both Brian and you. Best,
2198:
would not be more attractive and informative with the short
996:
640:
10: Historic election proves groundbreaking on the Main Page
635:
8: Halloween Main Page contest generates new article content
202:
35:
1522:
Coordinates are extremely useful for mobile phone users. --
254:
Lord Weir preceded Winston as Secretary for Air in 1919?
183:
with a proposal for a future dispatch can note it on the
614:
6: Interview with Matthewedwards, Featured list director
454:
9 (late): Featured content from schools and universities
1090:
1083:
1063:
1891:
2117:
of Commons Brown/Cameron spat over the birth-date of
887:
20: Tools, part 2: Internal links and page histories
433:
21: Monthly updates of styleguide and policy changes
1197:I like collapsible infoboxes as well. Using one on
1088:If your comment has not appeared here, you can try
970:
963:
943:
936:
916:
895:
874:
858:
842:
835:
815:
799:
778:
752:
734:
2: WikiProject Ships Featured topic and Good topics
726:
700:
664:
657:
627:
606:
593:
15: Interview with Ruhrfisch, master of Peer review
575:
544:
513:
477:
441:
415:
379:
348:
332:
325:
1916:use them, and possibly discourage more strongly. â
1478:On the contrary; I addressed your point directly:
500:26: Reliable sources in content review processes
485:2: Styleguide and policy changes, April and May
924:15: A guide to the Good Article Review Process
552:9 (late): Style guide and policy changes, July
791:11: WikiProject Birds reaches an FA milestone
371:25: A snapshot of featured article categories
303:
8:
672:3: Inside the minds of Featured list writers
645:24: Featured article writersâthe inside view
223:a degree of selectivity in information. The
531:21: History of the Featured article process
179:section, which was last published in 2010.
967:
940:
839:
661:
521:7: Style guide and policy changes for June
329:
310:
296:
288:
2463:Knowledge (XXG) Signpost archives 2013-07
2406:Make sure we cover what matters to you â
687:24: Reviewing featured picture candidates
588:8: Style guide and policy changes, August
495:23: Evolution of the 1.0 assessment scale
1875:That's not what an encyclopedia's for. â
1325:"example" which is simply the result of
903:11: Tools, part 3: Style tools and wikEd
18:Knowledge (XXG):Knowledge (XXG) Signpost
1091:
1067:
718:23: Hundredth Featured sound approaches
526:14: Interview with botmaster Rick Block
71:
765:13: Let's get serious about plagiarism
1379:I've removed the duplicate data from
951:10: Infoboxes: time for a fresh look?
908:18: Common issues seen in Peer review
823:2: Knowledge (XXG) remembers the Wall
760:6: New FAC and FAR nomination process
562:18: Choosing Today's Featured Article
340:28: Banner year for Featured articles
29:
7:
392:13 (late): Vintage image restoration
619:13: The latest on featured articles
505:30: Sources in biology and medicine
366:18: FA promotion despite adversity
319:Featured content dispatch workshop
57:
28:
1073:These comments are automatically
423:7: Reviewers achieving excellence
175:This week sees the return of the
72:Infoboxes: time for a fresh look?
744:16: New FAC and FAR appointments
739:9: 100 Featured sounds milestone
536:28: Find reliable sources online
139:
129:
119:
109:
99:
89:
1221:, see if you think it's funny.
1155:Apart from that minor point, a
682:17: FA writersâthe 2008 leaders
428:14: Featured article milestones
2273:made a consise box available,
1892:http://en.wikipedia.org/Tuvalu
1084:add the page to your watchlist
786:4: Re-examining Featured lists
1:
598:22: Reviewing non-free images
459:12: Changes at Featured lists
407:31: Featured content overview
1383:. It took seconds to do so.
708:8: April Fools 2009 mainpage
402:24: Taming talk page clutter
168:featured article candidacies
356:4: New methods to find FACs
2479:
1138:Uh, yesâmy fault. Thanks!
978:30: The Forgotten Featured
850:8: Fewer reviewers in 2009
464:19: Good article milestone
397:17: Changes at peer review
2397:16:55, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
2375:23:27, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
2353:10:15, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
2327:23:44, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
2308:14:00, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
2293:13:29, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
2268:13:16, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
2252:23:29, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
2212:16:30, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
2186:13:50, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
2170:21:57, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
2153:12:15, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
2131:11:30, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
2110:04:46, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
2088:04:40, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
2065:10:15, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
2047:09:08, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
2017:08:35, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
1998:06:06, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
1976:21:33, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
1950:20:56, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
1926:20:33, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
1904:19:16, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
1885:22:21, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
1870:21:26, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
1847:17:06, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
1818:16:41, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
1800:15:40, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
1784:14:57, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
1760:13:43, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
1740:01:50, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
1728:13:10, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
1711:12:42, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
1670:11:44, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
1660:10:41, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
1633:17:26, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
1619:00:09, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
1604:23:22, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
1582:10:53, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
1557:10:09, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
1532:18:48, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
1518:14:35, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
1503:13:55, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
1474:13:50, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
1452:10:53, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
1427:09:59, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
1404:10:53, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
1375:09:59, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
1355:09:21, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
1311:23:18, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
1293:14:15, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
1274:10:53, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
1244:16:48, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
1235:09:51, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
1209:08:51, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
1193:07:59, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
1169:07:44, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
1143:07:36, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
1134:07:34, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
1110:07:26, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
557:11: Reviewing free images
1219:my thoughts on the topic
677:10: December themed page
1120:reviewing rather than "
387:3: April Fools mainpage
1081:. To follow comments,
1001:
713:16: How busy was 2008?
583:1 (8): Featured topics
567:25: Interview with Mav
449:2 (late): Did You Know
361:11: Great saves at FAR
207:
40:
1381:Empire State Building
1323:Empire State Building
1000:
273:Empire State Building
206:
39:
2237:with an infobox and
1764:I agree with above,
1680:Infobox officeholder
1335:being nested inside
1215:collapsed parameters
1077:from this article's
770:20: Valued pictures
469:26: Featured sounds
269:St Paul's Cathedral
2409:leave a suggestion
2092:I tried that with
1068:Discuss this story
1028:WikiProject report
1002:
235:these essentials.
208:
46:â Back to Contents
41:
1828:Winston Churchill
1746:Now that we have
1738:
1423:
1371:
1288:
1202:-class battleship
1092:purging the cache
1053:Discussion report
990:
989:
986:
985:
959:
958:
932:
931:
866:15: GA Sweeps end
831:
830:
653:
652:
251:Winston Churchill
51:View Latest Issue
2470:
2446:
2411:
2315:example pictured
2282:
2276:
2228:
2035:
2029:
1974:
1965:
1961:
1845:
1842:
1836:
1798:
1795:
1734:
1709:
1700:
1696:
1688:discussion there
1684:
1678:
1580:
1571:
1567:
1501:
1492:
1488:
1450:
1441:
1437:
1425:
1421:
1416:
1402:
1393:
1389:
1373:
1369:
1364:
1344:
1340:infobox building
1338:
1334:
1328:
1287:
1284:
1283:
1272:
1263:
1259:
1095:
1093:
1087:
1066:
1048:Featured content
1020:
1012:
1005:
968:
941:
840:
662:
490:9: Main page day
330:
312:
305:
298:
289:
189:
157:
143:
142:
133:
132:
123:
122:
113:
112:
103:
102:
93:
92:
63:
61:
59:
2478:
2477:
2473:
2472:
2471:
2469:
2468:
2467:
2453:
2452:
2451:
2450:
2449:
2448:
2447:
2442:
2440:
2435:
2430:
2425:
2420:
2413:
2407:
2403:
2402:
2280:
2274:
2226:
2033:
2027:
1963:
1957:
1956:
1840:
1834:
1832:
1791:
1790:
1698:
1692:
1691:
1682:
1676:
1569:
1563:
1562:
1490:
1484:
1483:
1439:
1433:
1432:
1418:
1412:
1391:
1385:
1384:
1366:
1360:
1342:
1336:
1332:
1326:
1298:click on the .
1285:
1281:
1261:
1255:
1254:
1116:Don't you mean
1097:
1089:
1082:
1071:
1070:
1064:+ Add a comment
1062:
1058:
1057:
1056:
1013:
1008:
1006:
1003:
991:
982:
955:
928:
912:
891:
870:
854:
827:
811:
795:
774:
748:
722:
696:
692:31: In the news
649:
623:
602:
571:
540:
509:
473:
437:
411:
375:
344:
321:
316:
260:London Coliseum
187:
158:
152:
151:
150:
149:
140:
130:
120:
110:
100:
90:
84:
81:
70:
66:
64:
54:
53:
48:
42:
32:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
2476:
2474:
2466:
2465:
2455:
2454:
2441:
2436:
2431:
2426:
2421:
2416:
2415:
2414:
2405:
2404:
2401:
2400:
2399:
2384:
2383:
2382:
2381:
2380:
2379:
2378:
2377:
2363:
2362:
2361:
2360:
2359:
2358:
2357:
2356:
2355:
2189:
2188:
2173:
2172:
2156:
2155:
2133:
2114:
2113:
2112:
2074:
2073:
2072:
2071:
2070:
2069:
2068:
2067:
2020:
2019:
2001:
2000:
1982:
1981:
1980:
1979:
1978:
1932:
1931:
1930:
1929:
1928:
1849:
1835:Chris Troutman
1820:
1802:
1786:
1762:
1744:
1743:
1742:
1715:
1714:
1713:
1662:
1643:
1642:
1641:
1640:
1639:
1638:
1637:
1636:
1635:
1544:
1543:
1542:
1541:
1540:
1539:
1538:
1537:
1536:
1535:
1534:
1408:
1407:
1406:
1377:
1319:
1318:
1317:
1316:
1315:
1314:
1313:
1299:
1250:
1249:
1248:
1247:
1246:
1176:
1175:
1174:
1173:
1172:
1171:
1148:
1147:
1146:
1145:
1113:
1112:
1072:
1069:
1061:
1060:
1059:
1055:
1050:
1045:
1040:
1038:News and notes
1035:
1033:Traffic report
1030:
1025:
1019:
1007:
995:
994:
993:
992:
988:
987:
984:
983:
981:
980:
974:
972:
965:
961:
960:
957:
956:
954:
953:
947:
945:
938:
934:
933:
930:
929:
927:
926:
920:
918:
914:
913:
911:
910:
905:
899:
897:
893:
892:
890:
889:
884:
878:
876:
872:
871:
869:
868:
862:
860:
856:
855:
853:
852:
846:
844:
837:
833:
832:
829:
828:
826:
825:
819:
817:
813:
812:
810:
809:
803:
801:
797:
796:
794:
793:
788:
782:
780:
776:
775:
773:
772:
767:
762:
756:
754:
750:
749:
747:
746:
741:
736:
730:
728:
724:
723:
721:
720:
715:
710:
704:
702:
698:
697:
695:
694:
689:
684:
679:
674:
668:
666:
659:
655:
654:
651:
650:
648:
647:
642:
637:
631:
629:
625:
624:
622:
621:
616:
610:
608:
604:
603:
601:
600:
595:
590:
585:
579:
577:
573:
572:
570:
569:
564:
559:
554:
548:
546:
542:
541:
539:
538:
533:
528:
523:
517:
515:
511:
510:
508:
507:
502:
497:
492:
487:
481:
479:
475:
474:
472:
471:
466:
461:
456:
451:
445:
443:
439:
438:
436:
435:
430:
425:
419:
417:
413:
412:
410:
409:
404:
399:
394:
389:
383:
381:
377:
376:
374:
373:
368:
363:
358:
352:
350:
346:
345:
343:
342:
336:
334:
327:
323:
322:
317:
315:
314:
307:
300:
292:
201:
200:
172:
148:
147:
137:
127:
117:
107:
97:
86:
85:
82:
76:
75:
74:
73:
68:
67:
65:
62:
49:
44:
43:
34:
33:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2475:
2464:
2461:
2460:
2458:
2445:
2439:
2434:
2429:
2424:
2419:
2410:
2398:
2394:
2390:
2386:
2385:
2376:
2372:
2368:
2364:
2354:
2350:
2346:
2342:
2339:simply as an
2338:
2334:
2330:
2329:
2328:
2324:
2320:
2316:
2311:
2310:
2309:
2305:
2301:
2296:
2295:
2294:
2290:
2286:
2279:
2278:infobox opera
2271:
2270:
2269:
2265:
2261:
2256:
2255:
2254:
2253:
2249:
2245:
2240:
2236:
2231:
2225:
2220:
2215:
2214:
2213:
2209:
2205:
2201:
2197:
2193:
2192:
2191:
2190:
2187:
2183:
2179:
2175:
2174:
2171:
2167:
2163:
2158:
2157:
2154:
2150:
2146:
2142:
2138:
2137:London Bridge
2134:
2132:
2128:
2124:
2120:
2115:
2111:
2107:
2103:
2099:
2095:
2094:Annie Landouw
2091:
2090:
2089:
2085:
2081:
2076:
2075:
2066:
2062:
2058:
2055:
2050:
2049:
2048:
2044:
2040:
2032:
2024:
2023:
2022:
2021:
2018:
2014:
2010:
2005:
2004:
2003:
2002:
1999:
1995:
1991:
1988:
1983:
1977:
1973:
1969:
1964:Pigsonthewing
1960:
1953:
1952:
1951:
1947:
1943:
1938:
1937:Wolfram Alpha
1933:
1927:
1923:
1919:
1915:
1911:
1907:
1906:
1905:
1901:
1897:
1893:
1888:
1887:
1886:
1882:
1878:
1873:
1872:
1871:
1867:
1863:
1859:
1855:
1850:
1848:
1843:
1837:
1829:
1825:
1821:
1819:
1815:
1811:
1806:
1803:
1801:
1797:
1794:
1787:
1785:
1781:
1777:
1772:
1767:
1763:
1761:
1757:
1753:
1749:
1745:
1741:
1737:
1731:
1730:
1729:
1725:
1721:
1716:
1712:
1708:
1704:
1699:Pigsonthewing
1695:
1689:
1681:
1674:
1673:
1671:
1668:
1663:
1661:
1658:
1657:
1656:
1652:
1651:
1644:
1634:
1630:
1626:
1622:
1621:
1620:
1616:
1612:
1607:
1606:
1605:
1601:
1597:
1593:
1589:
1585:
1584:
1583:
1579:
1575:
1570:Pigsonthewing
1566:
1560:
1559:
1558:
1554:
1550:
1545:
1533:
1529:
1525:
1521:
1520:
1519:
1515:
1511:
1506:
1505:
1504:
1500:
1496:
1491:Pigsonthewing
1487:
1481:
1477:
1476:
1475:
1471:
1467:
1463:
1459:
1455:
1454:
1453:
1449:
1445:
1440:Pigsonthewing
1436:
1430:
1429:
1428:
1424:
1415:
1409:
1405:
1401:
1397:
1392:Pigsonthewing
1388:
1382:
1378:
1376:
1372:
1363:
1358:
1357:
1356:
1352:
1348:
1341:
1331:
1324:
1320:
1312:
1308:
1304:
1296:
1295:
1294:
1291:
1289:
1277:
1276:
1275:
1271:
1267:
1262:Pigsonthewing
1258:
1251:
1245:
1242:
1238:
1237:
1236:
1232:
1228:
1224:
1220:
1216:
1212:
1211:
1210:
1207:
1203:
1201:
1196:
1195:
1194:
1190:
1186:
1182:
1178:
1177:
1170:
1166:
1162:
1158:
1154:
1153:
1152:
1151:
1150:
1149:
1144:
1141:
1137:
1136:
1135:
1131:
1127:
1124:" reviewing?
1123:
1119:
1115:
1114:
1111:
1107:
1103:
1099:
1098:
1094:
1085:
1080:
1076:
1065:
1054:
1051:
1049:
1046:
1044:
1041:
1039:
1036:
1034:
1031:
1029:
1026:
1024:
1021:
1017:
1011:
1004:In this issue
999:
979:
976:
975:
973:
969:
966:
962:
952:
949:
948:
946:
942:
939:
935:
925:
922:
921:
919:
915:
909:
906:
904:
901:
900:
898:
894:
888:
885:
883:
880:
879:
877:
873:
867:
864:
863:
861:
857:
851:
848:
847:
845:
841:
838:
834:
824:
821:
820:
818:
814:
808:
805:
804:
802:
798:
792:
789:
787:
784:
783:
781:
777:
771:
768:
766:
763:
761:
758:
757:
755:
751:
745:
742:
740:
737:
735:
732:
731:
729:
725:
719:
716:
714:
711:
709:
706:
705:
703:
699:
693:
690:
688:
685:
683:
680:
678:
675:
673:
670:
669:
667:
663:
660:
656:
646:
643:
641:
638:
636:
633:
632:
630:
626:
620:
617:
615:
612:
611:
609:
605:
599:
596:
594:
591:
589:
586:
584:
581:
580:
578:
574:
568:
565:
563:
560:
558:
555:
553:
550:
549:
547:
543:
537:
534:
532:
529:
527:
524:
522:
519:
518:
516:
512:
506:
503:
501:
498:
496:
493:
491:
488:
486:
483:
482:
480:
476:
470:
467:
465:
462:
460:
457:
455:
452:
450:
447:
446:
444:
440:
434:
431:
429:
426:
424:
421:
420:
418:
414:
408:
405:
403:
400:
398:
395:
393:
390:
388:
385:
384:
382:
378:
372:
369:
367:
364:
362:
359:
357:
354:
353:
351:
347:
341:
338:
337:
335:
331:
328:
324:
320:
313:
308:
306:
301:
299:
294:
293:
290:
286:
284:
282:
276:
274:
270:
266:
261:
255:
252:
247:
243:
238:
232:
228:
226:
221:
216:
213:
205:
199:
197:
193:
184:
182:
178:
173:
171:
169:
165:
160:
159:
156:
155:Brian Boulton
146:
138:
136:
128:
126:
118:
116:
108:
106:
98:
96:
88:
87:
79:
60:
52:
47:
38:
23:
19:
2345:Voceditenore
2340:
2332:
2319:Gerda Arendt
2300:Brianboulton
2285:Gerda Arendt
2238:
2234:
2232:
2230:
2223:
2218:
2204:Gerda Arendt
2145:Ian Spackman
2140:
2053:
2009:Brianboulton
1986:
1972:Andy's edits
1968:Talk to Andy
1959:Andy Mabbett
1913:
1804:
1770:
1707:Andy's edits
1703:Talk to Andy
1694:Andy Mabbett
1654:
1649:
1646:
1588:World War II
1578:Andy's edits
1574:Talk to Andy
1565:Andy Mabbett
1510:Brianboulton
1499:Andy's edits
1495:Talk to Andy
1486:Andy Mabbett
1479:
1466:Brianboulton
1461:
1457:
1448:Andy's edits
1444:Talk to Andy
1435:Andy Mabbett
1400:Andy's edits
1396:Talk to Andy
1387:Andy Mabbett
1330:infobox NRHP
1270:Andy's edits
1266:Talk to Andy
1257:Andy Mabbett
1227:Gerda Arendt
1200:Pennsylvania
1199:
1161:Voceditenore
1156:
1126:Voceditenore
1117:
1042:
1016:all comments
1010:10 July 2013
950:
285:
277:
265:Eiffel Tower
256:
246:Shimon Peres
233:
229:
217:
209:
186:
174:
161:
58:10 July 2013
2444:Suggestions
2162:Kam Solusar
2102:Crisco 1492
1854:Paul Kagame
1592:Pacific War
1102:Crisco 1492
1075:transcluded
281:Dr. Blofeld
198:the editor.
164:peer review
2219:completely
2098:Padamu Jua
2057:John Cline
1990:John Cline
1910:MOS:ACCESS
1650:Cliftonian
1414:This, that
1362:This, that
1185:Tobias1984
1122:profligate
1043:Dispatches
807:12: Sounds
220:WP:Infobox
181:Volunteers
177:dispatches
83:Share this
78:Contribute
69:Dispatches
22:2013-07-10
2438:Subscribe
2367:Designate
2244:Designate
1942:Designate
1877:Designate
1810:W Nowicki
1752:Jean-Fred
1720:Designate
1667:Lankiveil
1420:the other
1368:the other
1213:I prefer
1079:talk page
212:infoboxes
210:What are
192:talk page
31:merrier".
2457:Category
2433:Newsroom
2428:Archives
2260:Rmhermen
2039:Dravecky
1918:Quiddity
1766:Wikidata
1748:Wikidata
1524:NaBUru38
1347:Dravecky
1303:Quiddity
1225:is ;) --
1118:prolific
242:this one
185:Signpost
125:LinkedIn
105:Facebook
20: |
2200:infobox
2123:Johnbod
2080:Kaldari
1914:readers
1896:Amakuru
1862:Amakuru
1824:Denmark
1625:Charles
267:, and
237:Denmark
115:Twitter
2389:Opus33
2341:option
2224:Carmen
2196:Carmen
2178:Smerus
2141:should
2119:Titian
1858:Rwanda
1793:Oosoom
1776:Int21h
1736:ELEKHH
1655:(talk)
1611:Orlady
1596:Nick-D
1549:Nick-D
1458:per se
1422:(talk)
1370:(talk)
1286:le_Jrb
1181:Reelin
135:Reddit
95:E-mail
2423:About
2337:there
2333:guide
2317:), --
2239:wrong
2235:right
2031:coord
1771:data.
1462:point
1023:Op-ed
196:email
16:<
2418:Home
2393:talk
2371:talk
2349:talk
2323:talk
2304:talk
2289:talk
2264:talk
2248:talk
2208:talk
2182:talk
2166:talk
2149:talk
2127:talk
2106:talk
2084:talk
2061:talk
2043:talk
2013:talk
1994:talk
1946:talk
1922:talk
1900:talk
1881:talk
1866:talk
1856:and
1841:talk
1814:talk
1780:talk
1756:talk
1724:talk
1629:talk
1615:talk
1600:talk
1590:and
1553:talk
1528:talk
1514:talk
1470:talk
1417:and
1365:and
1351:talk
1307:talk
1231:talk
1223:This
1189:talk
1183:. --
1165:talk
1157:very
1130:talk
1106:talk
964:2022
944:July
937:2013
836:2010
658:2009
326:2008
166:and
145:Digg
1966:);
1805:Yes
1701:);
1572:);
1493:);
1480:you
1442:);
1394:);
1264:);
971:Jan
917:Nov
896:Oct
875:Sep
859:Mar
843:Feb
816:Nov
800:Oct
779:May
753:Apr
727:Mar
701:Feb
665:Jan
628:Nov
607:Oct
576:Sep
545:Aug
514:Jul
478:Jun
442:May
416:Apr
380:Mar
349:Feb
333:Jan
225:MOS
194:or
153:By
80:â
2459::
2395:)
2373:)
2351:)
2325:)
2306:)
2291:)
2281:}}
2275:{{
2266:)
2250:)
2210:)
2184:)
2168:)
2151:)
2129:)
2108:)
2086:)
2063:)
2054::)
2045:)
2034:}}
2028:{{
2015:)
1996:)
1987::)
1970:;
1948:)
1924:)
1902:)
1883:)
1868:)
1816:)
1782:)
1758:)
1733:--
1726:)
1705:;
1690:.
1683:}}
1677:{{
1672:.
1631:)
1617:)
1609:--
1602:)
1576:;
1555:)
1530:)
1516:)
1497:;
1472:)
1446:;
1398:;
1353:)
1343:}}
1337:{{
1333:}}
1327:{{
1309:)
1268:;
1241:Ed
1233:)
1206:Ed
1191:)
1167:)
1140:Ed
1132:)
1108:)
190:s
2412:.
2391:(
2369:(
2347:(
2321:(
2302:(
2287:(
2262:(
2246:(
2242:â
2227:'
2206:(
2180:(
2164:(
2147:(
2125:(
2104:(
2082:(
2059:(
2041:(
2011:(
1992:(
1962:(
1944:(
1920:(
1898:(
1879:(
1864:(
1844:)
1838:(
1812:(
1778:(
1754:(
1722:(
1697:(
1647:â
1627:(
1613:(
1598:(
1568:(
1551:(
1526:(
1512:(
1489:(
1468:(
1438:(
1390:(
1349:(
1305:(
1301:â
1282:A
1260:(
1229:(
1187:(
1163:(
1128:(
1104:(
1096:.
1086:.
1018:)
1014:(
311:e
304:t
297:v
188:'
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
