Knowledge talk:Manual of Style/Lists/Archive 4

2607:

needed for that type of list, and I wanted feedback on that issue - should an exception be made for this type of list with respect to FLC's sourcing requirement? - no clear consensus was reached in that discussion. The geog list renom was made because the closing of the nom as "failed" seemed inappropriate (5 supports vs 2 opposes, and was closed by one of the opposers), and upon being requested to undo the closing the closer suggested a renom. The continued discussion clarified some issues and was very helpful, generating more specific feedback. By the way, because of it, the term "basic geography" was discovered to return about 37,000 hits on Google, so it appears to be a notable topic out there in the real world. If the renomination hadn't taken place, I might never have thought of looking. I've been able to source one of the sections of the list so far, and when I find more time, will likely be able to track down sources for the rest of the list. But I'm overdue for a wikibreak. :-) That Quiddity interprets these noms as poor editorship is an example of how judgemental and overly critical he can be.

2299:

Likewise, it's okay for a list to say that it is, in fact, a list - because it'll make sense in most realistic reuse scenarios, regardless of medium or rebranding. There's an evident ambiguity between lists and articles about real-world lists, but this is no thornier a problem than the conflict between individuals and movies named after those individuals - disambiguation can handle it. As for lists of lists, I think they're legitimate lists - lists aren't lists of real-world things, they're lists of articles, lists of topics, which can include other lists. Would rather see them remain in the name mainspace.

2587:

count. Another problem is that the !vote count on the Knowledge:Contents talk page (in favor of moving certain lists out of article space) is inconsistent with Knowledge's guideline on lists (the talk page of which we're on right now) which defines lists as articles. A third problem is that it isn't always clear over there which lists are being referred to, as the terms "lists of basic topics" and "lists of topics" can stand for the pages which have those phrases as their names, or can be interpretted directly as the entire sets of those lists. It is even more confusing when those statements are linkified.

35: 3258:. Likewise, it's madness to separate off a list of episodes or list of characters from the main article on the TV show, and then expect the list to be fully self-sufficient, assert its own notability, and not to rely mostly on primary sources, and then to delete the sub-article if/when it doesn't do all this. It's not supposed to be a stand-alone article; it's just part of the main article on a separate page. 2470:"His project" as in "project he founded and was actively working on". Why would you invoke WP:OWN the second you see a grammatical possessive used? The project is something The Transhumanist and others are working on in good faith, and doing a mass relocation of the articles within the project's scope without discussing it with anyone beforehand is pugilistic and disruptive 1303:

the article itself. "The criteria for membership in this list is:" That's a longwinded way and round-about way of defining the topic, and it seems totally inappropriate to have this line repeated in every list. The guideline should simply state that the topic should be defined well enough in the lead that the reader knows what the list is of.

229: 1081: 3421:

Some info isn't referenced at all, since it is self-evident. Knowledge requires sourcing for info that is not self-evident. Primary sourcing is acceptable for some uncontroversial info. Many list entries are uncontroversial. The primary sourcing is all that is needed. Spam fighters delete the primary

2999:

for more examples of the gross abuse of these List guidelines by deletionists who seem to never waver in their attempts to delete lists. These deletion attempts might be better treated as vandal blanking than anything else; they just waste time of editors who would otherwise be trying to improve WP.

2586:

is very misleading, because many of the counterarguments were never addressed, so the opinions of the posters are being tallied even though though those posters never returned to consider the replies to their posts. It is the strength of the reasons which need to be weighed, and not merely the !vote

2222:

guideline advises against references in the main namespace to Knowledge or any of its components; the word "list" in every list page title is self-referential in this regard, because it refers to a list in Knowledge rather than a list (such as a published list) in the external world. This means that

2132:

Lists are directly editable, and not subject to the item change delays experienced in category work (due to the necessity of saving each time an item is added to, deleted from, or moved to or from a category). In lists, items can be edited continuously without saves, and copied, deleted, or moved in

1632:

I never said they could. But they are not regular articles, they are lists. If they weren't different, they wouldn't have their own name. Hence, they are a type of article, because we can refer to them by type. "Stand-alone lists". Note that they can and do bypass at least one guideline, that of

775:

Even if the articles only include the years of a person's birth and death it's already added value beyond the information that categories can include. It's not always clear what "Encyclopedic" means when applied to lists. Particularly with lists, some of this information is really what you'd expect

327:

There really needs to be a way for a list to piggyback off the citations in a main article. I'm running into this a lot: editors insisting that a list that was clearly broken out of a main article due to size and style limitations still has to meet the exact same stringent requirements of a standard

111:

It strikes me that we have, fundamentally, two types of lists: lists that are indexes of notable subjects with articles, and lists that are compendiums of minor subjects without articles. I feel that this basic distinction should be addressed somehow in the list guidelines. For the line that got me

3379:

There shouldn't be votes taken from obscure discussions. I am against anything that lessens the access of lists to more readers. Otherwise the lists will not be maintained well. It takes a lot of drive-by editors from the hundreds of millions of wikipedia readers to keep up the millions of wikipedia

3249:

Lists (or any sub-articles) that are split off from main articles due to length are functionally part of that main article, not a distinct subject to be viewed in absolute isolation. It's really a failure on Knowledge to recognize that. For some reason, some editors insist that forking information

2594:

Keep in mind that I have never asserted ownership to the basic lists, by name or deed. I am the primary developer, it is true, only because very few people besides me have worked on them. I have always welcomed others to join in on the fun, and have undertaken a massive recruiting drive to attract

1344:

I was involved in the original discussion, in which the passage was rejected. If I remember right, there was an edit war over it then, as Jossi kept going straight to the guideline page regardless of the posts on the talk page. That's changing policy by brute force. Note that the guideline stated

1302:

It is not clear what "Statements of membership criteria" means. Taken literally, it would mean "instructions on what should and should not go in the list". But we don't include instructions in Knowledge articles on how to develop those articles. It also implies that we should use that language in

1927:

Anyway, my actual point was that your assertion above ("As per the current text in the guideline, a lead section in an embedded list is needed in situations where a lead is needed to explain/dispel ambiguities") was incorrect due to a change or revert you had performed just before, and that I asked

1405:

Skull and Bones, a secret society at Yale University, was founded in 1832. Until 1971, the organization published annual membership rosters, which were kept at Yale's library. In this list of notable Bonesmen, the number in parentheses represents the cohort year of Skull and Bones, as well as their

1284:

But that's not how policies and guidelines are created. The proposal process requires that they be adopted first. And your proposal was rejected, yet you kept adding it to the guideline itself directly anyways. I'm here to reverse your abuse of the system. Besides, the guideline already covered

651:

I think there needs to be differentiation here depending on whether or not a list is sortable. In an unsortable list, it makes sense that the normal policy is followed, and only the first mention is linked. But in a sortable list, if a reader re-sorts the list, then that first mention may now be at

3417:

Why are lists treated any differently from articles? In articles the topic must be notable. But every fact in the article does not have to be notable. Many facts in articles are not notable. The individual facts in articles often come from info buried in obscure journals, and are hardly notable in

3282:

I support the idea of moving all information about only to one type of list in its respective style guide page. A small amount of introductory information should remain in this general guide, and direct the reader to the more specific guide. I find Torc2's objections irrelevant to the issue. Those

2606:

Concerning the geog list noms, there is nothing incomprehensible about them - Quiddity seems to be overreacting - the reasons for those nominations are clearly presented in their opening statements. The geog list nom was submitted without references because it wasn't clear that sources were truly

263:

Are there any guidelines about categorized or hierarchical lists, specifically "Unsorted", "Miscellaneous" or "Other" headings? IMO this is far worse than a trivia section in an article, as the whole point of a categorized list is to organize by topic. For a specific example, I would like to point

901:

Also, be mindful of the number of entries on the list. If there's less than fifteen notable entries that can be represented on the list, it would be best to keep that list as a sub-section of its parent topic, rather than making a stand-alone list. For example, if a List of French Olympic curlers

3298:

between two editors regarding the inclusion of non-notable names, and adding people multiple times (e.g. adding a director/actor into the sections on directing and acting). I gave a third opinion there, but it doesn't seem to have quelled the fires. Is there a way to get a ruling on this sort of

1681:

I see now the problem clearly: There is no such a thing as a "special type of article". All pages in mainspace carry the same burden. The fact that an article is named "Lis of xxxx" means absolutely nothing as it pertains to the need to abide by our policies. A list about which membership is not

1245:

If the "verbiage" bothers you, please propose an alternative wording. The issue is clear: Lists need to have an unambiguous criteria for inclusion, and the criteria needs to be supported by sources, as per any other article in WP. When you say "topic" that does not explain anything. Many trivial

1230:

First off, I object to the erudite language this uses. "Statements of membership criteria"? When did we start talking like this? The issue here is the article's topic. Either a list item fits the topic, or it doesn't. If material is off-topic, it doesn't belong in an article. If a topic is

1096:

include unambiguous statements of membership criteria based on definitions made by reputable sources. This is particularly important in the case of difficult or contentious topics."? That might encourage editors not to choose to ignore the rule in the case of difficult or contentious topics, but

2298:

This is a misunderstanding, in my opinion, of WP:ASR. It's perfectly okay for an article to say "in this article" but not "in this Knowledge article" or "on this webpage" - we need to keep it independent of the medium and source, but not the fundamental form, based on how we intend to reuse it.

1213:

include unambiguous statements of membership criteria based on definitions made by reputable sources. This is particularly important in the case of difficult or contentious topics. Beware of those cases in which the definitions themselves are disputed. Many lists on Knowledge have been created

2439:

There was no consensus for the move, and he sure didn't notify me beforehand. Those 3 lists don't refer to Knowledge at all, the mover appears to believe that the inclusion of the word "list" or "glossary" in the title of the articles linked to, or "lists" in the page title itself, makes them

873:

Further, there should be at least three criteria for inclusion on a stand-alone list of people, or two criteria for inclusion on non-people related lists. For example, List of Armenian women nurses, or List of mountains in Peru. If there's two or less criteria for people-related lists, or one

3448:

fanatic spam fighters destroying many longstanding wikipedia pages in their efforts to block single links for list entries on a list page, they should solve the main problem of spam in the external links sections of articles. That is where multiple spam links are added. See my discussion at

2383:

That said, I don't like how Francis Schonken undertook a mass move of these articles without any apparent discussion beforehand, which has tremendous impact on The Transhumanist's List of Topics project. Give an editor a heads-up if you think something's amiss instead of going right for the

1330:

Many admins (jossi, jreferee, crum375, moonriddengirl, etc) have contributed to this segment, and edit warring on the page with them is both impolite and impractical - instead, take it to the talkpage first, as they/we keep requesting. Also, please don't use bad-faith-implying edit summaries

2521:

Re: OWN: The Transhumanist is an extremely enthusiastic and self-confident editor. He is quite careful to avoid statements of ownership, but his editing/writing-style does tend to give the impression of both ownership and adminship. He is generally a very good editor, except when he does

835:

Categorization was intended to take over many of the functions of lists, especially the much larger ones. However, since categorization is beset with flaws like lack of visibility and search difficulties for new or casual users, lists are the best option for indexing information at

2668:

that the 4 index pages do not belong in mainspace, by Prodego, Rbellin, Moe Epsilon, W.Marsh, The Placebo Effect, Scott5114, Phoenix 15, Dbachmann, GUllman, Carcharoth, and myself, and implied support from Coredesat's AfD. Only yourself and Phoebe oppose the idea. Not that I'm

1931:

I conclude that you don't agree with the current guideline text with regard to the obligation to provide a lead section for every embedded list. Or what did you want to say, apart from pointing out that I used the word "change" where I should have used the word "revert"?

533:. Most or all of them are already categories, which is the appropriate way to handle this. Further, the argument that the creator advances that they are a useful place for red links is a bogus argument, since a more appropriate place for red links is project pages like 2534:

of these moves, but it would have been a good idea to at least check the lists' talkpages first, all of which should have a pointer to the aforementioned discussion on namespaces; or to have independently started a move discussion prior to moving what are highly-visible

312:

I know there has been some controversy in the past as to whether lists need to be cited. I have been taking uncited lists and checking the articles for citations and gathering the results. The results are that in most cases only 1/3 to 1/2 of the articles are cited. See

2502:

of work to these contents lists, and because I've hotly debated many things with him in the past, I've tried to let consensus develop first, and advocated against anyone being bold. HOWEVER, based on the current state of the discussion at the aforementioned page, there

1362:

There is not need to get all worked up because there are disputes in AfDs (what is new?) I am sure that we can find a suitable wording that refers to a lead and that refers to a need to specify in the lead what is the criteria for inclusion. We need to put a stop to

1345:

the same thing twice. Once by instructing to define the topic in the lead section. And again by describing it as stating inclusion criteria. This has caused a lot of confusion in AfDs, because nobody seems to even know what a statement of inclusion criteria is.

1713:

I do not think that we are that far apart in our understanding, and the current wording may be sufficient to highlight the concerns I was expressing. May be a lead to this guideline can summarize the salient points of this guideline, including the fact that lists

3375:

In a previous section I saw a discussion about moving lists to various spaces. I think discussions about lists should be here, not buried in obscure village pump pages, user pages, notice boards, etc.. This is the talk page for list guidelines and decisions.

547:

Hmm, without yet having on opinion on these list. There is no problem at having red links in articles though, a wikiproject in general is not a better place for those. Unless you were speaking about these entries in particular, then never mind of course. :)

1489:

This is a list of people whose leadership has been characterized as based on charismatic authority by listed sources. Charismatic authority is a sociological concept and one of three forms of authority as defined by Max Weber's tripartite classification of

1077:

To my mind, that suggests that the guideline should attempt to be as clear and consistent as possible. If there's good reason to ignore the recommendation, so be it, but I'd prefer that people didn't ignore it on the sole basis that it is incomprehensible.

3074:

there are already substantial secondary sources in the main article.) They still wouldn't be able to use OR, but it should be sufficient, for example, for a list characters in a TV show to be entirely derived from the show itself without worrying about

2846:, Or is the notability assumed or inherited from the main article? (Or some middle-ground, like a lower notability threshold if the main article sufficiently asserts notability?) If it has to be proved, how would you do it in an article like that? 515:

I have now added references to each article. I created their corresponding categories in most instances, and created the lists to appear in those categories to provide a way to include musicians that currently have no articles on Knowledge as of yet.

3138:. What would be left is only the material that applies to both (like the section on how to format lists), as well as an intro. that distinguishes between the two list types and directs the reader to either page as appropriate. Thoughts/reactions? 1154:

There used to be a section describing how to format a list, including the punctuation at the end of a list item, and whether the first letter of an item of a list should be capitalized. Has it been moved elsewhere? Is there yet any such guideline?

3463:

A single primary-source link is used for a list entry without a separate wikipedia page. It is the same single primary-source link used on separate blue-linked pages put on lists. Either way it is still only one link total to the primary source.

3283:

objections pertain only to the question of when lists should be considered stand-alone. That is a separate issue. The concept of a distinction is already established, and there are already specific guides for stand-alone lists and embedded lists.

3052:

I think it's as simple as inserting a line that says sub-articles (including lists and articles that are split off from main articles due to size) are still considered part of the content of the main article, so any AfD considerations due to

3350:

Alright, that makes sense. There's an open RFC for the page, but like most RFCs, it's not getting any responses. What about listing a name multiple times - is there any sort of Wiki ruling on that? Surely this issue has come up before... —

2914:

Alphabetical should be the last resort for subdividing a list. I would reorganize the Presidents list by fictional medium/genre/work, not by fictional character, and then split into "in movies", "in television", and "in literature &

2903:

170 kb in length. I have suggested splitting it up by various sections of the alphabet. But some others do not agree citing other examples of lists being split up resulting in bad lists. Is there any consensus or precedent on this?

3250:

means the forks are completely separate topics, rather than conceding that sub-articles and split articles are just a pragmatic way to organize information on a single topic. It's really kind of ridiculous to expect something like

2523: 3459:

I point out there that the simple solution is to push for the elimination of the right of unregistered users to add links to the external links sections of articles. That is where the vast majority of multiple linking occurs.

2992: 2474:. Personally, I'm probably in favor of moving them, but taking an action like this without prior discussion is initiating an edit war on a massive scale. Starting fights like this is nothing but a negative for Knowledge.-- 874:

criteria for non-people related lists (ex. List of Pakistani women or List of Chevrolets), they should exist only as index lists, where sub-lists related to that particular topic can be archived. A good example of this is

2550:

are. Unless reliable sources can be found, I don't know what else to advocate doing with them. I don't think The Transhumanist is going to like that idea though, as they won't be visible enough (E.g. no articles link to

2023:

Firstly, inexperienced users are more likely encounter the list than the category: finding and using categories involves a bit of understanding of how Knowledge works. I certainly found this to be true when I was a

2590:

With respect to the math list featured review, we should wait until after the guideline contradiction is clarified, because at this moment it is not entirely clear what constitutes a self-reference and what does

2371:

I'm not sure who's agreeing with who here, but what I read at ASR definitely seems to indicate that language like "This article attempts to list all lists collecting articles about mathematics in Knowledge" from

776:

to see in an almanac, but that's definitely within our scope. In general, I see no valid reasons to delete these lists, particularly the ones that are well maintained (which is not all of them, but is some!) --

1056:

Well, it probably reflects the status as a guideline, which are often viewed as recommendations rather than strictly enforced rules. The "especially" indicates situations in which the recommendation is to not

845:

are often utilized during AfDs because official guidelines are lacking on what to do with certain kinds of lists. This results in the inconsistent deletion of some lists and sometimes dramatic arguments over

2616:

In light of the possibility of developing "basic" topics such as "basic geometry" and "basic history" as encyclopedic subjects, moving the various basic topic lists to portal space at this time is premature.

2897:

What is the preferred length for a list? I know that for prose articles its usually best to split up large articles if they become difficult to work with. Does the same hold true for lists? For example,

2527: 1214:

without any membership criteria, and editors are left to guess about what or who should be included only from the name of the list. Even if it might "seem obvious" what qualifies for membership in a list,

3066:, because we'd be acknowledging that these really are just a part of a larger article instead of something to be viewed and judged in complete isolation. (Another implication of this is that sub-articles 1406:

graduation year from Yale. As there are no official rosters published post 1971, membership for later years is highly speculative, and has attracted conspiracy theorists who claim them to be a power elite.

3057:

or similar rules must consider the articles as one. In other words, notability doesn't have to be reproven for list articles as long as they are clearly derived from an article that already does satisfy

2254:. Our guidelines need to be in agreement as to where lists and lists of lists belong so that their location remains stable and not subject to being moved by editors enforcing one guideline over another. 530: 501:

I said they were not speedyable. But deletable, perhaps, I don't see the purpose of just a list when a category could do that. If it had some content about the list items maybe, but those are just lists.

272:), with an "Other oils" section. This section will not be interesting for people to read. Just glancing at it, I see that further headings could be made for "Medicine", "Cosmetics" and "Insecticides". 2679:

4. That was hyperbole and I regret it. I do believe that article needs actual references though, but many of the editors that responded at the FLC shared my concerns, so I won't repeat them here. --

3299:

thing based on Knowledge policy? Can some people from here go over and comment on there? I'm just looking to put an end to their edit war, so really any sort of advice would be helpful. Thanks! —

2958: 3104:" This illustrates why I rarely get involved in list discussions anymore because of the near-psychotic nature of some spam fighters. This is not a personal attack. It is a generalization about 484: 1461:

I inadvertantly left out the word "no". Sorry for the typo. What I was saying was, that the reason for deletion given was "no inclusion criteria", even though the title made it obvious.

1391:"statement of inclusion criteria", is a statement made in the lead in which it is explained what the list is about, and what criteria, if any, is needed to add a list member. For example: 2996: 1199:

Those segments never achieved consensus. You simply kept adding them directly to the guideline, in defiance of the prevailing consensus. I'm moving them here for further discussion:

3414:

fanatic spam-fighters are destroying longstanding wikipedia lists by deleting the vast majority of list entries on list pages because many of the list entries use primary sourcing.

2869:

into account; subarticles, especially lists, get split off to keep the main article from being overlong, then get deleted due to not satisfying the current language of WP:N. It's a

2498:

explains it quite well. As I've explained elsewhere, The Transhumanist is the only editor who makes a strong stance against moving them out of article-space. As he has contributed a

1958: 2518:, or review, or something. It is inadequately cited, and is self-referencing. (Someone please do so. I don't know enough about the topic itself or about Featured-ness to do so) 2335:

Exactly. Articles are allowed to refer to themselves as articles. The ASR guideline is intended to address self-referencing the Knowledge project itself, or its website-nature.

1991: 3328:

might apply too. The simple solution to getting non-notable names off the list is to challenge whether they're really Cuban-American and demand a secondary source that meets

1266:

Regarding your consensus challenge, that wording has been there for a while and as such, it represents consensus. If you or any other editor challenges it, let's discuss.

314: 2672:

1c. Your reply to GUllman is the first comment to mention any specific list of basic lists, and the only other mention thereafter is your comment at the end, beginning "

1664:

I challenge these editors that are removing the reference that stand-alone lists are articles to explain the reason behind their reluctance to accept that obvious fact.

964:. I'm bringing it up here before implementing such a change to see if there are objections. :) (And also to ask anyone else interested in joining the conversation at [[ 354:

Could someone please explain why the following lists were proposed for speedy deletion? I fail to see how these lists differ from any variety of musical lists. Thanks. (

1953:

One thing that is noticeably absent from this guideline is the acknowledgement that we also include stand-alone lists which are not just "lists of links". For example,

2560: 1961:. These are often a collection of stub or stub-like mini-articles, which may not be individually notable enough for separate articles, but are notable as a group. I'd 1493: 1484: 1498:

This is a list of countries (and some territories) by the annual prevalence of opiates abuse as percentage of the population aged 15-64 (unless otherwise indicated).

195:

is cleared up by the notice at the top of the page. The use of "guideline" in the title is unnecessary, non-standard, and (in my opinion) even awkward. Comments? --

317:

to see the results. Using wikilinks as a source does not work because Knowledge is not a reliable source, and the articles are often unsourced or just plain wrong.

3453: 98: 90: 85: 73: 68: 63: 965: 961: 931: 817: 790: 716: 1074:

Hmm. Well, it occurs to me that if someone decides to ignore the recommendation, they can equally ignore the recommendation not to ignore the recommendation.

1014: 2129:

better, because lists can be longer (not subject to the same subsegmentation as categories), and are great for monitoring changes to the articles they list.

2552: 1843:

As per the current text in the guideline, a lead section in an embedded list is needed in situations where a lead is needed to explain/dispel ambiguities.

1997: 3387: 2899: 2515: 2348: 1682:

obvious would fail our policy of WP:V and in some cases will violate WP:NOR, that is why we need a statement in the lead that states inclusion criteria.

2133:

blocks. Therefore a listworker can develop, monitor, and maintain many times more entries than a category worker can handle in the same amount of time.

1529:, which states a series of reasons why a particular publication might be regarded as important, thus providing an good sense of an inclusion criteria. 831:

The aforementioned discussion drew insight from several notable, experienced Wikipedians, and has thus far seemed to come to the following conclusions:

1865:) again, three minutes before your talk page comment you changed it to implicate that all lists (including embedded lists) should have a lead section. 2547: 906:

Likewise, if the article grows to 150 or so entries, it would be prudent to explore sub-listing as a way to keep the list from becoming overwhelming.

1042:

include unambiguous statements of membership criteria based on definitions made by reputable sources, especially in difficult or contentious topics."

3332:

requirements. If they're not notable, they probably won't be able to be verified, and then they can be removed. You probably need to take this to

2707:

It occurred to me that this might be possible, even if not necessarily a good idea. What are your thoughts on the benefits and drawbacks of this?--

1317:

I've rewritten the inclusion criteria bit so that it is understandable. The meaning is still there, but it is much clearer what that meaning is.

577:

each have encyclopediac content that go far beyond mere "links". Yet they are still up for deletion as though they are lacking something unknown. (

757: 1637:, while there are other guidelines that pertain to regular articles don't pertain to lists (such as the formatting of material into paragraphs). 2961:. I think there needs to be some sort if method for splitting such lists or some sort of size limit for lists...can you imagine what a list of 2715: 1557:, which is unsourced, leaves the list open for POV pushing and demonstrates the need to have such an inclusion criteria presented in the lead. 652:

the end, and the link largely useless to the reader. So in sortable lists, I think it makes sense that every mention of an article be linked.

298:) to put into such lists. My basic idea is this: if an item cannot be categorized then it probably does not belong on that categorical list. 1231:

unclear, it needs to be made clear in the lead. We do not need to invent new jargon to cover this. The guideline already covered this in

410: 162: 21: 3131: 2792: 2010:

I've seen a couple of lists that are exact mirrors of a category. Is there a point to having two articles with identical information? --

1021: 953: 450: 127: 2787:

It's basically a proposal to move lists of lists out of article space, and would significantly affect Knowledge's list guidelines (see

1131:

So changed. Of course, Knowledge being what it is, could soon be unchanged. Or changed further. But at the moment, it's up there. :) --

529:

These lists are all still deletable since they are basically just lists of links, tarted up. They have been nominated for deletion at

3130:

I think it makes sense to do some surgery to this page: basically moving all of the content that applies only to stand-alone lists to

2242:" have been moved to the portal namespace, apparently because they are all lists of lists. I believe they are articles as defined by 1397:

This is a list of philosophers working in the Christian tradition in Western Europe during the medieval period. See also scholasticism

574: 430: 420: 2977: 2556: 2344: 395: 348: 3135: 2763: 2047:

The point is to recognise that Knowledge is a work in progress, not to view it as a static document like a printed encyclopedia.

2040:

items which might not have sufficient individual notability, or sufficient sourced material, for a separate article of their own.

1526: 1447:

Exactly. If there is a dispute it meas that it is not so "absolutely clear". If it was, you would not have a dispute, would you?

562: 425: 365: 2265:, or by some other remedy, so that editors are aware of them, and to prevent conflicts between list builders and ASR enforcers. 2142:

Lists are scrollable (categories are chopped into small subcategories, and long categories are displayed one category at a time)

764:) already do? I'd put it up for AfD but as it's a mammouth task wanted to check that it hadn't already been discussed before. → 591:

May I ask how you unambiguously determine the difference between Electric/Texas/Dirty blues using independent reliable sources?

2755: 2377: 2208: 1400: 1392: 927: 735: 699: 534: 435: 405: 390: 380: 2882:

into account, though at this time, I don't know how to approach it. I know it's a problem but don't yet know the solution.--

761: 257: 51: 17: 2873:

situation, and it presents a very real danger to our ability to present any subject in greater depth than 50k worth of text.

828:, which has caused a measurable amount of controversy and contention between so-called "deletionists" and "inclusionists". 2943: 908: 880: 570: 566: 400: 385: 375: 1184:

I have restored the long-standing formulation related to the need to have inclusionary criteria clearly stated in lists.

897: 869: 3295: 1954: 1223: 445: 415: 370: 1733:

I agree with Jossi that lists are no different than any other article and need to meet all content policies, including

1479:

If a topic is well chosen, the list name may be self-explanatory, but this is not always the case. For example compare

2770:. Its scope is currently a few hundred pages, and potentially a few thousand pages. Feedback would be appreciated. -- 2511: 2373: 2339: 2247: 1554: 962:

User:Sidatio/Conversations/On_list_guidelines#Alternate_proposal:_clarification_and_alteration_of_up_to_three_policies

816:

Recently, there have been several inconsistencies noted in Articles for deletion regarding lists. The conversation at

187:. It was changed to its current title in April 2006 (I could find no discussion regarding the move) with the summary: 3294:

Hey. First off, my apologies if this is posted in the wrong place. There's been a sizable edit war going on over at

2595:

more editors to these lists, because they are far too much for one person to handle. For perspective, Britannica's

3316:

I don't see any reason at all the list should contain non-notable names, and the rule to cite for this is probably

2567:

I've spent an hour re-writing this, so hopefully it is clear and calm and concise enough for everyone. Thoughts? --

631:; should he only be linked at his first mention (episode 1), or in multiple episodes episode 1, 2, 5, 9 and 13)? -- 42: 1754: 932:

User:Sidatio/Conversations/On list guidelines#Categories need to be a tool, not a source of navigation frustration

597: 455: 3224: 3176: 3143: 2835: 1480: 141: 113: 2145:

Lists are are supported by a list-based table of contents system, which itself has all the benefits listed above

1802: 1793: 1470:

Please explain what a "statement of inclusion criteria is", and how it differs from a definition of the topic.

2879: 2189: 440: 269: 144:

and its subsections are a very thoughtful discussion of the issues. See also the top sections of my user page:

3153:

Are lists that are split off from main articles only due to size problems considered stand-alone or embedded?

1919:

the section to a version that implicated that all lists (including embedded lists) should have a lead section.

1431:

It's not at all clear to what you are referring to. I keep running into AfDs where nominators claim there is

466:. These pages are not speedyable. The tags should be removed, and the person tagging should be told about the 1922:

Concerning the lead sections of embedded lists I changed back to what was there before 19:59, 7 October 2007

1809: 3288: 2665: 2491: 2355: 1975:

I went ahead and made the text more generic while sticking to the original formulation as much as possible.

820:

seems to indicate this stems from a lack of guidance from one of the few official guidelines on the topic -

624: 3476: 3431: 3399: 3362: 3345: 3310: 3267: 3228: 3202: 3180: 3162: 3147: 3117: 3083: 3039: 3020: 3004: 2981: 2949: 2919: 2908: 2886: 2855: 2820: 2781: 2743: 2720: 2690: 2646: 2611: 2571: 2478: 2464: 2448: 2426: 2422:

Right. They are self-referential because they are self-referential, not because they are lists of lists.--

2409: 2392: 2362: 2324: 2303: 2292: 2192: 2174: 2051: 2014: 1979: 1969: 1936: 1898: 1872: 1852: 1837: 1766: 1727: 1706: 1691: 1673: 1659: 1641: 1626: 1599: 1585: 1566: 1538: 1507: 1474: 1465: 1456: 1441: 1416: 1376: 1349: 1339: 1321: 1307: 1289: 1275: 1259: 1239: 1193: 1173: 1159: 1135: 1110: 1101: 1087: 1069: 1050: 1024: 1002: 972: 938: 798: 780: 769: 746: 723: 706: 685: 656: 645: 610: 581: 555: 541: 520: 506: 491: 474: 358: 341: 321: 302: 241: 222: 213: 201: 169: 152: 134: 120: 2798: 2624: 2608: 2445: 2270: 2152: 1886: 1814: 1781: 1638: 1471: 1462: 1438: 1346: 1318: 1304: 1286: 1236: 265: 3472: 3427: 3395: 3113: 2972: 2709: 2543: 2461: 2235: 1933: 1869: 1834: 1833:

Can anyone demonstrate what kind of lead section (if any) would be beneficial to such embedded lists? --

1170: 2227:, but lists (and lists of lists) are allowed by this list guideline which designates them as articles. 1822: 1798: 1020:

Come look at the deetion review, and help shape weather having a category means there cant be a list.--

1742: 592: 503: 471: 318: 3220: 3172: 3139: 3032: 1994: 276: 2456:

Regarding " The Transhumanist's project" (quoted from above): nobody seems to be worried about the

2218:

defines lists and lists of lists as articles; and the main namespace is where articles belong. The

1487:. So, lists whose title is not so tight as per this example need an inclusion for criteria such as: 2767: 2185: 1132: 1098: 969: 842: 825: 642: 635: 487:

on this topic, and if allowed to pass this could become par for the course for deletionist types. (

3000:

Could improvements be made in the List Guidelines to stomp on such attempts faster and easier?

2776: 2738: 2685: 2583: 2239: 979: 875: 739: 662: 552: 299: 3337: 3259: 3194: 3154: 3080: 3017: 2847: 2063:

structure (headings, subheadings, special order of presentation other than alphabetical sorting)

333: 1363:

malicious/irrelevant/un-encyclopedic/trivial lists so that lists in Knowledge are developed as

207:

Silence = consent? Absent any objections, I will perform the move within the next 24 hours. --

3352: 3300: 3036: 2939: 2916: 2883: 2843: 2759: 2475: 2423: 2389: 1613:

Lists are not a special kind of article, as lists reside in Knowledge article's mainspace and

1156: 1066: 237: 209: 197: 3468: 3423: 3391: 3251: 3109: 2967: 948:

Given the confusion I've seen in AfD discussions, I'd like to add the following sentence to

166: 149: 145: 2136:

Lists are articles and have all the benefits they have, such as being in the main namespace

1576:

Which list was in AfD in which the argument for deletion was "lack of inclusion criteria"?

3341: 3263: 3198: 3158: 2905: 2870: 2851: 2788: 2507:

a consensus that they belong outside articlespace. I'm quite happy to let the moves stand.

2258: 2231: 2204: 2011: 1894: 1862: 1848: 1826: 1723: 1702: 1697:

Note that this is a style guide and not a policy, and as such it cannot trump the latter.

1687: 1669: 1655: 1622: 1595: 1581: 1562: 1534: 1503: 1452: 1412: 1372: 1271: 1255: 1189: 1166: 949: 903: 850:

In light of these findings, the discussion has produced the following proposed solutions:

628: 337: 295: 284: 184: 177: 2401:

Those two examples are self-references, but this guideline itself isn't contradictory to

2460:

implications of such assertion. Could we sort this out first? Who owns which project? --

2795:. Your input is needed to analyze the benefits of and problems caused by doing this. 2122:

Lists are supported by edit histories, and are easier to monitor for disappearing items

2048: 1962: 1634: 1232: 1219: 821: 639: 632: 578: 517: 488: 485:

Knowledge:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Bands_and_musicians#List_of_Folk-blues_musicians

355: 280: 3016:

out of an article series due to notability? This has totally gotten out of control.

1965:, but I thought I'd first get discussion on how such an explanation should be worded. 824:. This has led to several AfDs for lists being judged by points raised in essays like 3333: 3325: 3321: 3317: 3255: 3063: 2771: 2758:, a complex issue which I've tried to summarize. It concerns pages in mainspace like 2733: 2680: 2568: 2457: 2441: 2402: 2359: 2317: 2309: 2300: 2262: 2251: 2224: 2180: 2093: 1590:(BTW, such argument in an AfD is silly. If there is no inclusion criteria, add one). 1336: 1058: 957: 777: 743: 549: 467: 463: 219: 3102:

out of an article series due to notability? This has totally gotten out of control.

978:

You don't need extensive discussion to add a link from this page to another page :)

2934: 2866: 2676:". So there should not be any confusion for any of the aforementioned participants. 1976: 1966: 1062: 935: 720: 703: 653: 279:), and can also mean that the item does not meet the requirements of the list (see: 131: 2139:

They can be linked to from articles (links to categories are frowned upon at best)

1485:

List of charismatic leaders as defined by Max Weber's classification of authority

1218:

Some lists are not appropriate, either because it's impossible to specify clear,

700:

Knowledge: Village pump (policy)#Proposal to make a policy or guideline for lists

3329: 3076: 3059: 3054: 3001: 2862: 2839: 2596: 2406: 2321: 2257:

This contradiction needs to be removed by referring to the relevant passages of

1986:

Please consider whether the word 'notable' can be included in the name of a list

1734: 1247: 934:. We look forward to as much input from the community as we can get. Thank you. 117: 50:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

3035:

that would make it aware of the existence (and worthiness) of list articles?--

2385: 1890: 1844: 1719: 1698: 1683: 1665: 1651: 1618: 1591: 1577: 1558: 1530: 1499: 1448: 1408: 1368: 1267: 1251: 1185: 1107: 1084: 1047: 332:

of the article that spawned it. It just doesn't seem like good policy to me.

2962: 2354:

The main discussion of what namespace these Contents pages belong in, is at

192: 3388:

Knowledge:Village pump (policy)/Archive 14#Index lists and primary sourcing

2957:

On a related note, there is the ongoing project that resulted in this Afd:

2555:, and I presume they cannot do so?). There are not enough editors watching 2119:

They can be linked together in ways and in patterns that categories cannot.

1617:

actual articles. As such, lists cannot bypass any of our content policies.

1403:, in which a more lengthy lead was needed, given the related controversy : 1246:

lists are about "topics" that either do not meet notability guidelines, or

3454:

MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2007/12#www.sbmkpm.com.2Fgraph.html

715:: Due to large response, this discussion has moved to a dedicated page at 2993:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/List of cities in Germany starting with S

922:

Devise and request more visible and robust search options for categories.

902:

only turns up five or six notable entries, keep those entries as part of

3108:

spam fighters. They are destroying many longstanding wikipedia pages. --

2376:

and "This is a list of abstract algebra topics, by Knowledge page" from

1437:

inclusion criteria specified, when the title makes it perfectly clear.

3062:. Lists and sub-articles would be judged in AfD more leniently due to 2116:

Lists have other benefits which make them more useful than categories:

794: 765: 538: 760:

encyclopaedic? Do they they add any value beyond what the categories (

228: 2661:

1a. Please notify anyone whose feedback you still need then, because:

2060:

Andy is correct. In addition, lists can also be expanded to include:

1815:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Janacek_operas

1801:

article has a lead section (as any other article), the embedded list

1335:"), or falsely assert that this is some kind of unilateral action. -- 1097:

clears up the ambiguous statement about unambiguous statements. :D --

1780:

The concept of lead section (in Knowledge context) is explained in

1399:, which makes it clear what this list is about. Another example is 742:

pages, and specifically on the namespace they belong in. Thanks. --

2932:. I agree - in movies, television, etc is the way to go here. -- 736:

Knowledge:Village pump (policy)#Contents pages, and lists of lists

163:

Knowledge talk:Notability/Archive 15#Lists require notable entries

2099:

inline citations (footnotes) to verify includability of each item

930:. For comments and input on the long-term solution, please go to 290:

Could some guideline be made about this? I would love to have an

3134:, and all of the content that applies only to embedded lists to 2031:

to expand in ways the category cannot. Expansion could include:

1928:

you to have a look at the wording of the current guideline text.

1080: 1046:

What exactly does "especially" mean in the context of "always"?

789:

I guess my main concerns are already being discussed elsewhere (

531:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/List of Electric blues musicians

1885:

No. You changed it before that. The wording was there added by

1285:

this -- your addition was entirely redundant. And confusing.

189:

make purpose of page clearer, clear up confusion with Help:List

894: 866: 29: 3193:

I think that's a huge mistake and totally counterproductive.

2959:

Knowledge:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Philippine_actresses

1985: 1949:

What about stand-alone lists which are not "lists of links"?

1235:. There's no reason to restate it in long-winded verbage. 2838:. Is it realistic to expect the list article has to prove 1990:

If interested, please join a discussion on the above topic

2356:

Knowledge talk:Contents#Contents pages, and lists of lists

2320:

IMO applies to this situation if anything more is needed.

2092:

templates throughout to help assist navigation (such as {{

3254:

to assert its notability without depending whatsoever on

2621:

I hope this has helped clarified the current situation.

2089:

images throughout the article to help illustrate concepts

1092:

Would you find it more readable if it said, "List should

275:

These sections can make the article look unreliable (see:

183:

I propose that the title of this page be changed back to

3422:

sourcing, and then say the list entry is not sourced. --

2997:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/List of rivers of India

2730: 2727: 2495: 1923: 1866: 1553:

A good example of a list without inclusion criteria is

1332: 968:

to please chime in. The conversation is flagging. :))--

142:

Knowledge talk:Notability#Lists require notable entries

2703:

Has the idea of a List namespace ever been considered?

2308:

I agree, especially considering the first sentence of

1959:

List of minor Heroes characters with special abilities

2563:

to develop a consensus there. Suggestions are needed.

2542:, is that they become tabs/subpages of portals, like 2472:

even if the relocation may be prove to be appropriate

315:

User:Until(1 == 2)/Wikilinks are not references#Notes

2834:

Say a list is broken out of a main article. such as

2490:

The namespace they belong in, is being discussed at

2312:: "Avoid self-references within Knowledge articles 888:

Introduce the following paragraph into section 2.4:

860:

Introduce the following paragraph into section 2.3:

483:Also, there is a dangerous discussion being had at 1777:Embedded lists don't usually have a lead section. 756:Are lists in the category (and sub-categories) of 2582:To say that a consensus has been reached over at 2561:Knowledge talk:WikiProject Lists of basic topics 2246:. Knowledge has many lists of lists, including 1797:is a list that doesn't have a lead section. The 1494:List of countries by prevalence of opiates abuse 1861:Maybe read the relevant part of the guideline ( 1817:for transclusions of that list. The list has a 950:Knowledge:Lists#Criteria for inclusion in lists 2861:I've been concerned about this issue myself. 2105:a see also section (at the end of the article) 2027:Secondly and more crucially, the list has the 1222:inclusion criteria, or for other reasons; see 926:Please comment on the short-term proprosal at 627:should people get multiple links. For example 1106:I'd find that a tremendous improvement, yes. 966:User:Sidatio/Conversations/On_list_guidelines 818:User:Sidatio/Conversations/On list guidelines 791:User:Sidatio/Conversations/On list guidelines 719:. We could always use more opinions, though! 717:User:Sidatio/Conversations/On list guidelines 8: 2358:, which we'd welcome further feedback at. -- 1427:What is a "statement of inclusion criteria"? 1250:, and as such violate our content policies. 1015:Knowledge:Deletion review/Log/2007 August 31 287:in those, which I know makes it look worse. 2842:completely independently of the article on 2756:Knowledge:Village pump (policy)#Index Lists 2553:Special:Whatlinkshere/Portal:Energy/Explore 1527:List of important publications in sociology 2900:List_of_fictional_United_States_Presidents 2878:I would favor a rewriting of WP:N to take 2603:to complete, and Knowledge is much larger. 2516:Knowledge:Featured list removal candidates 2349:Knowledge:Featured list removal candidates 2102:a references section (recommended reading) 2069:linked annotations and parenthetical notes 807:Proposed addtions to WP:LIST up for review 130:is better appropriate for such a mention. 3219:Can you elaborate a little more? Thanks. 2928:Well, last resort for subdividing a list 2548:Portal:Science/Categories and Main topics 2250:, and they are all in clear violation of 960:)." My reasonings are set out in full at 3371:Article space, portal space, list space. 3336:though to get more eyes on the article. 2526:without references for Featured status, 2223:all lists in the main namespace violate 1367:and do not bypass our content policies. 191:. However, any potential confusion with 3070:be allowed to use only primary sources 2351:, as standards have changed since 2005. 1825:") as explained in (and conforming to) 694:New list guideline expansion discussion 112:thinking in this direction, please see 3031:What changes would we need to make to 2965:or American actors would look like? -- 2230:Due to this contradiction, the pages " 48:Do not edit the contents of this page. 1813:is an embedded list by template. See 411:List of Contemporary blues musicians‎ 159:That discussion is now archived here: 7: 3380:pages and lists. Especially lists. 2732:. See also the thread following. -- 2540:suggestion for the Basic topic lists 1805:however doesn't have a lead section. 956:for further clarification (see also 451:List of New Orleans blues musicians‎ 3132:Knowledge:Lists (stand-alone lists) 2793:Knowledge:Lists (stand-alone lists) 1650:Please respond rather than revert. 954:Knowledge:Lists (stand-alone lists) 944:Proposed addition; seeking feedback 421:List of West Coast blues musicians‎ 128:Knowledge:Lists (stand-alone lists) 3406:Primary sourcing for list entries. 2444:. Someone please move them back. 575:List of Juke Joint blues musicians 431:List of East Coast blues musicians 396:List of Harmonica blues musicians‎ 277:List_of_edible_seeds#Miscellaneous 28: 3383:I also discuss things more here: 2557:Portal talk:Lists of basic topics 2345:Knowledge:Featured article review 2108:an external links section (ditto) 1216:explicit is better than implicit. 812:TO THE EDITING COMMUNITY AT LARGE 366:List of Electric blues musicians‎ 349:Lists of blues musicians by genre 3136:Knowledge:Lists (embedded lists) 2764:List of basic mathematics topics 1992:Knowledge Talk:WikiProject Lists 1787:Maybe some examples might help: 1773:Embedded lists and lead sections 1079: 563:List of Electric blues musicians 436:List of Boogie-Woogie musicians‎ 426:List of New York blues musicians 391:List of Blues revival musicians‎ 381:List of Chicago blues musicians‎ 252:Question about categorical lists 227: 33: 2378:List of abstract algebra topics 2209:Knowledge:Avoid self-references 1829:, but there is no lead section. 1401:List_of_Skull_and_Bones_members 1393:List of scholastic philosophers 928:User talk:Sidatio/Proto WP:LIST 730:RfC on Lists and Contents pages 535:Knowledge:WikiProject Musicians 406:List of Detroit blues musicians 256:I was redirected here from the 114:Wikipedia_talk:Notability#Lists 2530:. There was no need to notify 1756: 1746: 1022:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 904:Sport in France#Olympic Games. 762:Category:People by nationality 758:Lists of people by nationality 602: 593: 401:List of Swamp blues musicians‎ 376:List of Delta blues musicians‎ 18:Knowledge talk:Manual of Style 1: 3477:15:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC) 3432:15:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC) 3400:15:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC) 3363:13:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC) 3346:07:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC) 3311:04:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC) 3268:04:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC) 3229:03:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC) 3203:22:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC) 3118:14:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC) 2856:21:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC) 2821:21:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC) 2782:19:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC) 2744:19:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC) 2721:18:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC) 2691:06:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC) 2647:18:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC) 2612:07:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC) 2579:To address each point above: 2572:03:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC) 2522:incomprehensible things like 2514:probably needs to go through 2479:03:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC) 2193:14:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC) 2179:The guideline for this is at 1803:Leoš Janáček#Janáček's operas 1794:Leoš Janáček#Janáček's operas 1760: 1136:13:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC) 1111:13:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC) 1102:13:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC) 1088:13:02, 1 September 2007 (UTC) 1070:12:30, 1 September 2007 (UTC) 1051:12:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC) 1025:01:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC) 752:List of people by nationality 661:Yes, that sounds reasonable. 638:18:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)-- 598: 571:List of Dirty blues musicians 567:List of Texas blues musicians 456:List of Folk-blues musicians‎ 386:List of Urban blues musicians 371:List of Blues-rock musicians‎ 342:21:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC) 3296:Talk:List of Cuban Americans 3181:03:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC) 3163:21:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC) 3148:17:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC) 3084:09:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC) 3040:07:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC) 3021:05:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC) 3005:05:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC) 2982:01:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC) 2950:01:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC) 2920:22:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC) 2909:21:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC) 2887:22:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC) 2465:23:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 2449:22:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 2427:19:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 2410:19:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 2393:18:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 2363:18:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 2325:12:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 2304:08:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 2293:06:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 2175:22:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC) 2052:08:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC) 2015:18:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC) 1998:13:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC) 1980:01:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC) 1970:02:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC) 1863:Knowledge:Lists#Lead section 1744: 1224:Knowledge:Overcategorization 1204:The following makes no sense 600: 462:This is an incorrect use of 446:List of Jazz blues musicians 416:List of Jump blues musicians 308:Regarding citations in lists 2512:Lists of mathematics topics 2374:Lists of mathematics topics 2340:Lists of mathematics topics 2248:Lists of mathematics topics 1937:16:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC) 1899:15:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC) 1873:15:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC) 1853:14:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC) 1838:08:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC) 1767:20:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC) 1728:20:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC) 1707:20:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC) 1692:20:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC) 1674:20:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC) 1660:20:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC) 1642:20:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC) 1627:19:57, 7 October 2007 (UTC) 1600:20:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC) 1586:20:01, 7 October 2007 (UTC) 1567:19:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC) 1555:List of guerrilla movements 1539:19:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC) 1508:19:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC) 1481:List of charismatic leaders 1475:19:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC) 1466:19:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC) 1457:05:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC) 1442:00:27, 6 October 2007 (UTC) 1417:21:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC) 1377:21:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC) 1350:21:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC) 1340:20:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC) 1322:20:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC) 1308:20:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC) 1290:20:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC) 1276:20:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC) 1260:20:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC) 1240:20:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC) 1194:19:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC) 1174:08:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC) 1167:Knowledge:Lists#List styles 1160:11:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC) 1009:List of Norwegian Americans 1003:13:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC) 973:12:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC) 939:13:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC) 799:08:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC) 793:). Thanks for you reply. → 781:06:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC) 770:12:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC) 747:01:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC) 724:13:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC) 707:17:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC) 686:12:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC) 657:19:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC) 646:18:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC) 3492: 3437:List entries are not spam. 2664:1b. there is agreement at 1827:Knowledge:Lists#List title 258:Manual of Style discussion 2836:List of low-cost carriers 2674:Then there's the issue... 2318:WP:ASR#Neutral references 1955:List of Pokémon (481-493) 1150:List style and formatting 611:15:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 582:15:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 556:21:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC) 542:23:28, 22 July 2007 (UTC) 521:05:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC) 507:04:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC) 492:04:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC) 475:04:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC) 441:List of Slide guitarists‎ 359:03:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC) 322:20:44, 21 July 2007 (UTC) 242:00:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC) 223:23:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC) 214:22:35, 21 July 2007 (UTC) 153:10:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC) 135:23:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC) 121:22:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC) 3012:Agreed. Somebody AfD'd 2987:Abuse of List Guidelines 2880:Knowledge:Article series 2726:Last 2 discussions were 2440:self-referential as per 2314:to the Knowledge project 2078:customized columnization 1889:before you reverted it. 1525:Another good example is 1333:remove stealth additions 330:completely independently 303:19:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC) 202:05:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC) 170:13:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC) 126:Maybe the sub-guideline 3289:List of Cuban Americans 2666:Knowledge talk:Contents 2492:Knowledge talk:Contents 1810:template:Janacek operas 1248:that are not verifiable 1034:From the project page: 625:The Simpsons (season 1) 281:List_of_fruits#Unsorted 2203:Contradiction between 2020:Absolutely, there is: 1887:User:The Transhumanist 1782:Knowledge:Lead section 1496:that establishes that 1228: 1180:Criteria for inclusion 266:List of vegetable oils 3126:Surgery for this page 2544:Portal:Energy/Explore 2236:Lists of basic topics 2220:avoid self-references 1492:. Another example is 1220:neutral point-of-view 1207: 46:of past discussions. 2902:is a huge list : --> 2496:latest comment there 2380:is self-referential. 2342:needs to go through 2830:Notability of lists 2768:List of film topics 2316:" (emphasis mine). 2244:this list guideline 2006:Categories vs Lists 2599:took a large team 2584:Knowledge:Contents 2240:List of glossaries 2111:and probably more. 1395:has the criteria: 876:Lists of Americans 814: 740:Knowledge:Contents 107:Two types of lists 3467:A single link. -- 2947: 2844:low-cost carriers 2780: 2760:List of timelines 2750:Index lists - RfC 2742: 2689: 2609:The Transhumanist 2524:nominating a list 2510:As I said above, 2446:The Transhumanist 1897: 1851: 1726: 1705: 1690: 1672: 1658: 1639:The Transhumanist 1625: 1598: 1584: 1565: 1537: 1506: 1472:The Transhumanist 1463:The Transhumanist 1455: 1439:The Transhumanist 1415: 1375: 1365:any other article 1347:The Transhumanist 1319:The Transhumanist 1305:The Transhumanist 1287:The Transhumanist 1274: 1258: 1237:The Transhumanist 1192: 913: 912: 885: 884: 810: 623:On such lists as 283:). I did put the 104: 103: 58: 57: 52:current talk page 3483: 3441:A single link. 3359: 3356: 3307: 3304: 3252:List of drugs: K 2980: 2975: 2970: 2948: 2937: 2816: 2813: 2810: 2807: 2804: 2801: 2774: 2736: 2683: 2642: 2639: 2636: 2633: 2630: 2627: 2462:Francis Schonken 2288: 2285: 2282: 2279: 2276: 2273: 2188: 2170: 2167: 2164: 2161: 2158: 2155: 2066:subsection leads 1934:Francis Schonken 1893: 1870:Francis Schonken 1847: 1835:Francis Schonken 1762: 1758: 1750: 1748: 1722: 1701: 1686: 1668: 1654: 1621: 1594: 1580: 1561: 1533: 1502: 1451: 1411: 1371: 1270: 1254: 1188: 1171:Francis Schonken 1083: 999: 997: 995: 993: 991: 895: 867: 734:Please also see 682: 680: 678: 676: 674: 608: 606: 604: 595: 231: 146:User:Timeshifter 82: 60: 59: 37: 36: 30: 3491: 3490: 3486: 3485: 3484: 3482: 3481: 3480: 3439: 3408: 3373: 3357: 3354: 3326:WP:NOT#MEMORIAL 3305: 3302: 3292: 3221:UnitedStatesian 3173:UnitedStatesian 3140:UnitedStatesian 3128: 3098:Somebody AfD'd 2989: 2976: 2971: 2966: 2933: 2895: 2871:Procrustean bed 2832: 2814: 2811: 2808: 2805: 2802: 2799: 2789:Knowledge:Lists 2752: 2719: 2716:r e s e a r c h 2705: 2640: 2637: 2634: 2631: 2628: 2625: 2487: 2286: 2283: 2280: 2277: 2274: 2271: 2259:Knowledge:Lists 2232:Lists of topics 2212: 2205:Knowledge:Lists 2184: 2168: 2165: 2162: 2159: 2156: 2153: 2127:related changes 2008: 1995:UnitedStatesian 1988: 1951: 1775: 1611: 1429: 1206: 1182: 1152: 1061:the guideline. 1032: 1030:Lack of clarity 1011: 989: 987: 985: 983: 981: 946: 809: 754: 732: 696: 672: 670: 668: 666: 664: 629:David Silverman 621: 352: 310: 296:Template:Trivia 294:template (like 285:Template:expert 254: 185:Knowledge:Lists 181: 178:Knowledge:Lists 176:Moving back to 109: 78: 34: 26: 25: 24: 12: 11: 5: 3489: 3487: 3457: 3456: 3438: 3435: 3410:In many lists 3407: 3404: 3403: 3402: 3372: 3369: 3368: 3367: 3366: 3365: 3291: 3286: 3285: 3284: 3279: 3278: 3277: 3276: 3275: 3274: 3273: 3272: 3271: 3270: 3238: 3237: 3236: 3235: 3234: 3233: 3232: 3231: 3210: 3209: 3208: 3207: 3206: 3205: 3186: 3185: 3184: 3183: 3166: 3165: 3127: 3124: 3123: 3122: 3121: 3120: 3091: 3090: 3089: 3088: 3087: 3086: 3045: 3044: 3043: 3042: 3026: 3025: 3024: 3023: 2988: 2985: 2955: 2954: 2953: 2952: 2923: 2922: 2894: 2891: 2890: 2889: 2875: 2874: 2865:fails to take 2831: 2828: 2826: 2824: 2823: 2751: 2748: 2747: 2746: 2713: 2704: 2701: 2700: 2699: 2698: 2697: 2696: 2695: 2694: 2693: 2677: 2670: 2662: 2652: 2651: 2650: 2649: 2619: 2618: 2617: 2614: 2604: 2592: 2588: 2565: 2564: 2536: 2528:twice in a row 2519: 2508: 2486: 2485:A bold summary 2483: 2482: 2481: 2454: 2453: 2452: 2451: 2434: 2433: 2432: 2431: 2430: 2429: 2415: 2414: 2413: 2412: 2396: 2395: 2381: 2368: 2367: 2366: 2365: 2352: 2336: 2330: 2329: 2328: 2327: 2216:list guideline 2211: 2201: 2200: 2199: 2198: 2197: 2196: 2195: 2186:John Broughton 2148: 2147: 2146: 2143: 2140: 2137: 2134: 2130: 2125:Lists support 2123: 2120: 2114: 2113: 2112: 2109: 2106: 2103: 2100: 2097: 2090: 2087: 2086: 2085: 2082: 2079: 2076: 2070: 2067: 2064: 2055: 2054: 2045: 2044: 2043: 2042: 2041: 2038: 2035: 2025: 2007: 2004: 2002: 1987: 1984: 1983: 1982: 1950: 1947: 1946: 1945: 1944: 1943: 1942: 1941: 1940: 1939: 1929: 1925: 1920: 1906: 1905: 1904: 1903: 1902: 1901: 1878: 1877: 1876: 1875: 1856: 1855: 1831: 1830: 1806: 1774: 1771: 1770: 1769: 1712: 1710: 1709: 1679: 1678: 1677: 1676: 1662: 1645: 1644: 1610: 1603: 1574: 1573: 1572: 1571: 1570: 1569: 1546: 1545: 1544: 1543: 1542: 1541: 1518: 1517: 1516: 1515: 1514: 1513: 1512: 1511: 1428: 1425: 1424: 1423: 1422: 1421: 1420: 1419: 1384: 1383: 1382: 1381: 1380: 1379: 1355: 1354: 1353: 1352: 1326: 1315: 1314: 1313: 1312: 1311: 1310: 1295: 1294: 1293: 1292: 1279: 1278: 1263: 1262: 1233:Simple English 1205: 1202: 1201: 1200: 1181: 1178: 1177: 1176: 1151: 1148: 1147: 1146: 1145: 1144: 1143: 1142: 1141: 1140: 1139: 1138: 1133:Moonriddengirl 1120: 1119: 1118: 1117: 1116: 1115: 1114: 1113: 1099:Moonriddengirl 1075: 1044: 1043: 1038:"Lists should 1031: 1028: 1018: 1017: 1010: 1007: 1006: 1005: 970:Moonriddengirl 945: 942: 924: 923: 911: 910: 907: 899: 892: 890: 889: 883: 882: 879: 871: 864: 862: 861: 848: 847: 838: 837: 808: 805: 804: 803: 802: 801: 784: 783: 753: 750: 731: 728: 727: 726: 695: 692: 691: 690: 689: 688: 620: 619:Multiple links 617: 616: 615: 614: 613: 586: 585: 559: 558: 527: 526: 525: 524: 510: 509: 498: 497: 496: 495: 478: 477: 459: 458: 453: 448: 443: 438: 433: 428: 423: 418: 413: 408: 403: 398: 393: 388: 383: 378: 373: 368: 351: 346: 345: 344: 309: 306: 253: 250: 249: 248: 247: 246: 245: 244: 180: 174: 173: 172: 160: 156: 155: 138: 137: 108: 105: 102: 101: 96: 93: 88: 83: 76: 71: 66: 56: 55: 38: 27: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3488: 3479: 3478: 3474: 3470: 3465: 3461: 3455: 3452: 3451: 3450: 3447: 3442: 3436: 3434: 3433: 3429: 3425: 3419: 3418:themselves. 3415: 3413: 3405: 3401: 3397: 3393: 3389: 3386: 3385: 3384: 3381: 3377: 3370: 3364: 3361: 3360: 3349: 3348: 3347: 3343: 3339: 3335: 3331: 3327: 3324:and possibly 3323: 3319: 3315: 3314: 3313: 3312: 3309: 3308: 3297: 3290: 3287: 3281: 3280: 3269: 3265: 3261: 3257: 3256:List of drugs 3253: 3248: 3247: 3246: 3245: 3244: 3243: 3242: 3241: 3240: 3239: 3230: 3226: 3222: 3218: 3217: 3216: 3215: 3214: 3213: 3212: 3211: 3204: 3200: 3196: 3192: 3191: 3190: 3189: 3188: 3187: 3182: 3178: 3174: 3171:Stand alone. 3170: 3169: 3168: 3167: 3164: 3160: 3156: 3152: 3151: 3150: 3149: 3145: 3141: 3137: 3133: 3125: 3119: 3115: 3111: 3107: 3103: 3101: 3095: 3094: 3093: 3092: 3085: 3082: 3078: 3073: 3069: 3065: 3061: 3056: 3051: 3050: 3049: 3048: 3047: 3046: 3041: 3038: 3034: 3033:WP:Notability 3030: 3029: 3028: 3027: 3022: 3019: 3015: 3011: 3010: 3009: 3008: 3007: 3006: 3003: 2998: 2994: 2986: 2984: 2983: 2979: 2974: 2969: 2964: 2960: 2951: 2945: 2941: 2936: 2931: 2927: 2926: 2925: 2924: 2921: 2918: 2913: 2912: 2911: 2910: 2907: 2901: 2892: 2888: 2885: 2881: 2877: 2876: 2872: 2868: 2864: 2860: 2859: 2858: 2857: 2853: 2849: 2845: 2841: 2837: 2829: 2827: 2822: 2819: 2818: 2817: 2794: 2790: 2786: 2785: 2784: 2783: 2778: 2773: 2769: 2765: 2761: 2757: 2749: 2745: 2740: 2735: 2731: 2728: 2725: 2724: 2723: 2722: 2718: 2717: 2712: 2711: 2702: 2692: 2687: 2682: 2678: 2675: 2671: 2667: 2663: 2660: 2659: 2658: 2657: 2656: 2655: 2654: 2653: 2648: 2645: 2644: 2643: 2620: 2615: 2613: 2610: 2605: 2602: 2598: 2593: 2589: 2585: 2581: 2580: 2578: 2577: 2576: 2575: 2574: 2573: 2570: 2562: 2558: 2554: 2549: 2545: 2541: 2537: 2533: 2529: 2525: 2520: 2517: 2513: 2509: 2506: 2501: 2497: 2493: 2489: 2488: 2484: 2480: 2477: 2473: 2469: 2468: 2467: 2466: 2463: 2459: 2450: 2447: 2443: 2438: 2437: 2436: 2435: 2428: 2425: 2421: 2420: 2419: 2418: 2417: 2416: 2411: 2408: 2404: 2400: 2399: 2398: 2397: 2394: 2391: 2387: 2382: 2379: 2375: 2370: 2369: 2364: 2361: 2357: 2353: 2350: 2347: 2346: 2341: 2338:Possibly the 2337: 2334: 2333: 2332: 2331: 2326: 2323: 2319: 2315: 2311: 2307: 2306: 2305: 2302: 2297: 2296: 2295: 2294: 2291: 2290: 2289: 2266: 2264: 2260: 2255: 2253: 2249: 2245: 2241: 2237: 2233: 2228: 2226: 2221: 2217: 2210: 2206: 2202: 2194: 2191: 2187: 2182: 2178: 2177: 2176: 2173: 2172: 2171: 2149: 2144: 2141: 2138: 2135: 2131: 2128: 2124: 2121: 2118: 2117: 2115: 2110: 2107: 2104: 2101: 2098: 2095: 2091: 2088: 2083: 2080: 2077: 2074: 2073: 2071: 2068: 2065: 2062: 2061: 2059: 2058: 2057: 2056: 2053: 2050: 2046: 2039: 2036: 2033: 2032: 2030: 2026: 2022: 2021: 2019: 2018: 2017: 2016: 2013: 2005: 2003: 2000: 1999: 1996: 1993: 1981: 1978: 1974: 1973: 1972: 1971: 1968: 1964: 1963:fix it myself 1960: 1956: 1948: 1938: 1935: 1930: 1926: 1924: 1921: 1918: 1914: 1913: 1912: 1911: 1910: 1909: 1908: 1907: 1900: 1896: 1892: 1888: 1884: 1883: 1882: 1881: 1880: 1879: 1874: 1871: 1867: 1864: 1860: 1859: 1858: 1857: 1854: 1850: 1846: 1842: 1841: 1840: 1839: 1836: 1828: 1824: 1820: 1816: 1812: 1811: 1807: 1804: 1800: 1796: 1795: 1790: 1789: 1788: 1785: 1783: 1778: 1772: 1768: 1764: 1752: 1740: 1736: 1732: 1731: 1730: 1729: 1725: 1721: 1717: 1708: 1704: 1700: 1696: 1695: 1694: 1693: 1689: 1685: 1675: 1671: 1667: 1663: 1661: 1657: 1653: 1649: 1648: 1647: 1646: 1643: 1640: 1636: 1631: 1630: 1629: 1628: 1624: 1620: 1616: 1608: 1604: 1602: 1601: 1597: 1593: 1588: 1587: 1583: 1579: 1568: 1564: 1560: 1556: 1552: 1551: 1550: 1549: 1548: 1547: 1540: 1536: 1532: 1528: 1524: 1523: 1522: 1521: 1520: 1519: 1510: 1509: 1505: 1501: 1495: 1491: 1486: 1482: 1478: 1477: 1476: 1473: 1469: 1468: 1467: 1464: 1460: 1459: 1458: 1454: 1450: 1446: 1445: 1444: 1443: 1440: 1436: 1435: 1426: 1418: 1414: 1410: 1407: 1402: 1398: 1394: 1390: 1389: 1388: 1387: 1386: 1385: 1378: 1374: 1370: 1366: 1361: 1360: 1359: 1358: 1357: 1356: 1351: 1348: 1343: 1342: 1341: 1338: 1334: 1329: 1328: 1327: 1324: 1323: 1320: 1309: 1306: 1301: 1300: 1299: 1298: 1297: 1296: 1291: 1288: 1283: 1282: 1281: 1280: 1277: 1273: 1269: 1265: 1264: 1261: 1257: 1253: 1249: 1244: 1243: 1242: 1241: 1238: 1234: 1227: 1225: 1221: 1217: 1212: 1203: 1198: 1197: 1196: 1195: 1191: 1187: 1179: 1175: 1172: 1168: 1164: 1163: 1162: 1161: 1158: 1149: 1137: 1134: 1130: 1129: 1128: 1127: 1126: 1125: 1124: 1123: 1122: 1121: 1112: 1109: 1105: 1104: 1103: 1100: 1095: 1091: 1090: 1089: 1086: 1082: 1076: 1073: 1072: 1071: 1068: 1064: 1060: 1055: 1054: 1053: 1052: 1049: 1041: 1037: 1036: 1035: 1029: 1027: 1026: 1023: 1016: 1013: 1012: 1008: 1004: 1001: 1000: 977: 976: 975: 974: 971: 967: 963: 959: 955: 951: 943: 941: 940: 937: 933: 929: 921: 920: 919: 917: 905: 900: 896: 893: 887: 886: 877: 872: 868: 865: 859: 858: 857: 855: 851: 844: 840: 839: 834: 833: 832: 829: 827: 823: 819: 813: 806: 800: 796: 792: 788: 787: 786: 785: 782: 779: 774: 773: 772: 771: 767: 763: 759: 751: 749: 748: 745: 741: 737: 729: 725: 722: 718: 714: 711: 710: 709: 708: 705: 701: 693: 687: 684: 683: 660: 659: 658: 655: 650: 649: 648: 647: 644: 641: 637: 634: 630: 626: 618: 612: 609: 596: 590: 589: 588: 587: 583: 580: 576: 572: 568: 564: 561: 560: 557: 554: 551: 546: 545: 544: 543: 540: 536: 532: 522: 519: 514: 513: 512: 511: 508: 505: 504:Until(1 == 2) 500: 499: 493: 490: 486: 482: 481: 480: 479: 476: 473: 472:Until(1 == 2) 469: 465: 461: 460: 457: 454: 452: 449: 447: 444: 442: 439: 437: 434: 432: 429: 427: 424: 422: 419: 417: 414: 412: 409: 407: 404: 402: 399: 397: 394: 392: 389: 387: 384: 382: 379: 377: 374: 372: 369: 367: 364: 363: 362: 360: 357: 350: 347: 343: 339: 335: 331: 326: 325: 324: 323: 320: 319:Until(1 == 2) 316: 307: 305: 304: 301: 300:JohnnyMrNinja 297: 293: 288: 286: 282: 278: 273: 271: 270:featured list 267: 261: 259: 251: 243: 240: 239: 234: 230: 226: 225: 224: 221: 218:I consent. -- 217: 216: 215: 212: 211: 206: 205: 204: 203: 200: 199: 194: 190: 186: 179: 175: 171: 168: 164: 161: 158: 157: 154: 151: 147: 143: 140: 139: 136: 133: 129: 125: 124: 123: 122: 119: 115: 106: 100: 97: 94: 92: 89: 87: 84: 81: 77: 75: 72: 70: 67: 65: 62: 61: 53: 49: 45: 44: 39: 32: 31: 23: 19: 3466: 3462: 3458: 3445: 3443: 3440: 3420: 3416: 3411: 3409: 3382: 3378: 3374: 3353: 3301: 3293: 3129: 3105: 3099: 3097: 3071: 3067: 3037:Father Goose 3013: 2990: 2956: 2929: 2917:Father Goose 2896: 2884:Father Goose 2833: 2825: 2797: 2796: 2753: 2714: 2708: 2706: 2673: 2623: 2622: 2601:over 8 years 2600: 2566: 2539: 2538:My only new 2531: 2504: 2499: 2476:Father Goose 2471: 2455: 2424:Father Goose 2390:Father Goose 2343: 2313: 2269: 2268: 2267: 2256: 2243: 2229: 2219: 2215: 2213: 2151: 2150: 2126: 2028: 2009: 2001: 1989: 1952: 1916: 1832: 1823:Leoš Janáček 1821:("Operas by 1818: 1808: 1799:Leoš Janáček 1792: 1791:The section 1786: 1779: 1776: 1738: 1715: 1711: 1680: 1614: 1612: 1606: 1589: 1575: 1497: 1488: 1433: 1432: 1430: 1404: 1396: 1364: 1325: 1316: 1229: 1215: 1210: 1209:List should 1208: 1183: 1157:Dan Polansky 1153: 1093: 1045: 1039: 1033: 1019: 980: 947: 925: 915: 914: 891: 863: 853: 852: 849: 843:WP:LISTCRUFT 841:Essays like 830: 826:WP:LISTCRUFT 815: 811: 755: 738:, about the 733: 712: 697: 663: 622: 528: 353: 329: 311: 291: 289: 274: 262: 255: 238:Black Falcon 236: 232: 210:Black Falcon 208: 198:Black Falcon 196: 188: 182: 110: 79: 47: 41: 3469:Timeshifter 3444:Instead of 3424:Timeshifter 3392:Timeshifter 3110:Timeshifter 2968:Kickstart70 2893:List Length 2754:Please see 2559:or the new 2072:formatting 2034:annotation; 1741:articles. ( 713:PLEASE NOTE 698:Please see 167:Timeshifter 150:Timeshifter 40:This is an 3318:WP:NOT#DIR 3100:one letter 3014:one letter 2906:will381796 2081:numeration 2037:red-links; 2012:Neon white 1718:articles. 1490:authority. 958:WP:NOT#DIR 952:: "Review 854:SHORT TERM 702:. Thanks! 3322:WP:NOT#OR 3320:, though 2963:Bollywood 2930:like this 2915:other".-- 2669:counting! 2386:cockblock 2049:AndyJones 2029:potential 1891:≈ jossi ≈ 1845:≈ jossi ≈ 1720:≈ jossi ≈ 1699:≈ jossi ≈ 1684:≈ jossi ≈ 1666:≈ jossi ≈ 1652:≈ jossi ≈ 1619:≈ jossi ≈ 1592:≈ jossi ≈ 1578:≈ jossi ≈ 1559:≈ jossi ≈ 1531:≈ jossi ≈ 1500:≈ jossi ≈ 1449:≈ jossi ≈ 1409:≈ jossi ≈ 1369:≈ jossi ≈ 1268:≈ jossi ≈ 1252:≈ jossi ≈ 1186:≈ jossi ≈ 916:LONG TERM 579:Mind meal 518:Mind meal 489:Mind meal 464:WP:CSD#A3 356:Mind meal 193:Help:List 99:Archive 8 91:Archive 6 86:Archive 5 80:Archive 4 74:Archive 3 69:Archive 2 64:Archive 1 2944:contribs 2772:Quiddity 2734:Quiddity 2681:Quiddity 2597:Propædia 2569:Quiddity 2360:Quiddity 2301:Dcoetzee 2238:", and " 1917:reverted 1915:OK, you 1609:articles 1337:Quiddity 836:present. 778:JayHenry 744:Quiddity 550:Garion96 470:option. 328:article 292:unsorted 220:JayHenry 20:‎ | 3358:Annyong 3306:Annyong 2935:SatyrTN 2024:newbie. 1977:Dhaluza 1967:DHowell 1759:') : (' 1737:. They 1635:WP:SELF 936:Sidatio 846:others. 822:WP:LIST 721:Sidatio 704:Sidatio 654:Geraldk 132:Circeus 43:archive 3334:WP:RFC 3068:should 3064:WP:NNC 3002:Hmains 2766:, and 2535:pages. 2494:. The 2458:WP:OWN 2442:WP:ASR 2407:Anomie 2403:WP:ASR 2322:Anomie 2310:WP:ASR 2263:WP:ASR 2252:WP:ASR 2225:WP:ASR 2181:WP:CLS 2075:charts 1895:(talk) 1849:(talk) 1724:(talk) 1703:(talk) 1688:(talk) 1670:(talk) 1656:(talk) 1623:(talk) 1605:Lists 1596:(talk) 1582:(talk) 1563:(talk) 1535:(talk) 1504:(talk) 1453:(talk) 1413:(talk) 1373:(talk) 1272:(talk) 1256:(talk) 1211:always 1190:(talk) 1165:Done, 1094:always 1059:ignore 1040:always 640:Steinn 633:Steinn 553:(talk) 468:WP:AfD 118:Pharos 3355:Hello 3338:Torc2 3303:Hello 3260:Torc2 3195:Torc2 3155:Torc2 3081:Torc2 3018:Torc2 2867:WP:SS 2848:Torc2 2710:h i s 2214:This 2183:. -- 1957:, or 1819:title 1483:with 1108:Jakew 1085:Jakew 1067:wiser 1063:older 1048:Jakew 982:: --> 665:: --> 594:Until 334:Torc2 235:. -- 22:Lists 16:< 3473:talk 3446:some 3428:talk 3412:some 3396:talk 3342:talk 3330:WP:V 3264:talk 3225:talk 3199:talk 3177:talk 3159:talk 3144:talk 3114:talk 3106:some 3077:WP:N 3060:WP:N 3055:WP:N 2995:and 2991:See 2940:talk 2863:WP:N 2852:talk 2840:WP:N 2803:e Tr 2791:and 2777:talk 2739:talk 2729:and 2686:talk 2629:e Tr 2591:not. 2546:and 2275:e Tr 2234:", " 2207:and 2190:(♫♫) 2157:e Tr 2094:main 2084:etc. 1757:Stop 1735:WP:V 998:< 681:< 573:and 338:talk 264:out 233:Done 148:. -- 2815:ist 2812:man 2806:ans 2641:ist 2638:man 2632:ans 2532:him 2500:lot 2388:.-- 2287:ist 2284:man 2278:ans 2261:in 2169:ist 2166:man 2160:ans 2096:}}) 1753:? ( 1739:are 1716:are 1615:are 1607:are 643:inn 636:inn 268:(a 116:.-- 3475:) 3430:) 3398:) 3390:-- 3344:) 3266:) 3227:) 3201:) 3179:) 3161:) 3146:) 3116:) 3079:. 3072:if 2942:| 2854:) 2809:hu 2800:Th 2762:, 2635:hu 2626:Th 2505:is 2405:. 2281:hu 2272:Th 2163:hu 2154:Th 1932:-- 1868:-- 1784:. 1765:) 1763:') 1761:Go 1755:(' 1747:== 1745:1 1434:no 1331:(" 1169:-- 1155:-- 1065:≠ 918:: 909:” 898:“ 881:” 878:. 870:“ 856:: 797:— 795:AA 768:— 766:AA 603:== 601:1 569:, 565:, 539:Hu 537:. 361:) 340:) 260:. 165:-- 95:→ 3471:( 3426:( 3394:( 3340:( 3262:( 3223:( 3197:( 3175:( 3157:( 3142:( 3112:( 3096:" 2978:C 2973:T 2946:) 2938:( 2850:( 2779:) 2775:( 2741:) 2737:( 2688:) 2684:( 1751:) 1749:2 1743:( 1226:. 996:t 994:n 992:a 990:i 988:d 986:a 984:R 679:t 677:n 675:a 673:i 671:d 669:a 667:R 607:) 605:2 599:( 584:) 523:) 516:( 494:) 336:( 54:.

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