440:
476:
378:
408:
912:, per the comments in this talk page discussion and WP:CREEP, the section was not added to deal with a hypothetical problem and the language was not too long. Additionally, other editors here have expressed support for the additional language so it is unclear to me how there was not a consensus for adding the additional instruction per WP:CON. --
1246:
aggregate effect is a sort of "death by a thousand shortcuts" where the mass of hatnotes and shortcut boxes starts making the page too busy. Plus they make it more difficult to condense and merge points that really don't need to be separate, because you need to think about what to do with the shortcuts and anchors as well.
1301:
The not a "collection of data" to reinforce that as encyclopedia, our approach is to cover things in enclyclopedia articles, including prose. This might help provide guidance on the areas where
Knowledge (XXG) lacks guidance (on what is OK regarding list articles) and strengthing up guidance against
1245:
Related, there's a stupidly large number of redirects, anchors and shortcuts to various sections, I believe because editors are attracted to the WP:NOT form and like to make redirects for every conceivably relevant value of X. Probably any individual example of these redirects is reasonable but their
1233:
The page is a bit conceptually incoherent â obviously there's any number of things
Knowledge (XXG) is not, so there's no clear criteria for when to add sections beyond "a consensus of editors felt it was important enough". But editors are more likely to be motivated to add new sections than to remove
1158:
What is special about these topics is what has already been said in this discussion by myself and by others: articles are being created about these topics that do not satisfy the general notability guideline despite its existence, and that such articles will continue to be created unless instructions
927:
I think you need to rethink it as a section under the Not a Guide/Textbook section. It didn't need a whole separate section, but we should clearly have something that we aren't here to mirror govt documents (though where appropriate, that's a function
Wikisource can do when copyright's not an issue);
1471:
WP:NOTTVGUIDE is currently in the "Knowledge (XXG) is not a directory" section, stating "An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc., although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant program lists and
1428:
The other thing this page is is a trump card, used to shortcut discussion about whether something should be included in the encyclopedia. This is most obvious with NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. If I had one wish for how this page would be rewritten, it would be that each criterion should follow the same rules
1406:
It's still there, just in a footnote. No problem with moving it back in the main text if that's preferable. Again, I haven't set out to make substantive changes, but I'm realistic: condensing down the page by a third will inevitably trample on some sensitive wording in a few places, even when that's
1277:
If we were to start a new
Knowledge (XXG), I am sure that we would organize our policies differently. (Even if we wanted our policies to be basically the same.) But I'm against this even just on a procedural level. It creates a lot of conflict for very little gain. The usability/readability issue is
790:
I have also encountered many
Knowledge (XXG) articles about laws, regulations, court cases, public policies, treaties, and other international agreements that do not appear to satisfy the WP:N policy, and it occurs to me that government gazettes, legal codes, and law report series are more analogous
583:
than the rest. Or, in other words, we should follow the source when it comes to emphasis. This is roughly going to be equivalent to mentioning properties that already have their own blue-link-able
Knowledge (XXG) articles. I say "roughly" because it's not hard to imagine edge cases where an article
582:
if the sequence is "nice", "core" (of central importance to some topic), or "hard" (which often means that it comes from an unsolved problem). Because the source is reliable but intentionally rather indiscriminate, we should focus our attention on the subset of it that is marked as more interesting
1385:
If take that approach, what it probably needs is a close review by that the bundle does not contain any substantive changes and that it really does tidy it up. And for them to state their findings. I took a first look for "does not contain any substantive changes". Maybe I missed where it was
1140:
This is just a long way to say articles on laws and regulations have to meet our notability standards â just like every other subject on
Knowledge (XXG). What's special about these topics that means we should single them out to reiterate this general guidance, in a policy that's already bloated as
694:
I don't think the additional verbiage about official journals et al. is necessary. Do other editors actually treat
Knowledge (XXG) this way in your experience, and aren't existing guidelines sufficient for explaining why they shouldn't? In any case, the section title has been made much clunkier by
1237:
Additionally, "things
Knowledge (XXG) is not" is just a bit of a strange grouping, full stop. To pick three at random, why should our policies on censorship (NOTCENSORED), using Knowledge (XXG) for research (NOTLAB) and avoiding dictionary entries (NOTDICT) all come under the same policy? I don't
1162:
As for the article size, the Page Size tool puts the article word count at 2,145 words, but this excludes the content in the numbered lists. When including that content, the word count of the current revision is 6,127 words. The shorter wording proposed here would add only 119 words. Per WP:SIZE,
721:
Not sure about the journals but the added language regarding govt codes, etc. is something that can be a problem. I see people do laws or court cases that cite only the primary sources without considering the coverage of these in third party sources, and that's both a notability (WP:NOT) and an
780:
The short answer is "Yes, other editors do use
Knowledge (XXG) in this way in my experience, and no, existing guidelines are apparently not sufficient for explaining this." I've encountered numeorus Knowledge (XXG) articles about bills proposed in the United States Congress during a particular
1238:
think it's because they're a natural fit to be discussed together â I think it's because, at some point, someone came up with a way to conceptualise them in terms of "Knowledge (XXG) is not X" and added them here. So it's pure chance we have, say, the policy on password strength at
791:
to manuals and academic journals than they are to repositories since repositories are generally indiscriminate collections of information while manuals, academic journals, government gazettes, legal codes, and law reports are not. This is why I'd argue that unless we make
787:, which is the official journal of the United States Congress. The inclusion of proposed legislation that does not satisfy WP:N seems little different than people using Knowledge (XXG) as a soapbox (WP:SOAP), but these articles were created anyway.
1492:
We write for a 10yr view, so the "current programming schedule" is immediately outdated information. If there is historical aspects of the schedule to be kept, that's different, but no, we aren't going to include those current schedules.
1020:(WP:NOTREPOSITORY), or advocacy, propaganda, and opinion pieces (WP:SOAPBOX). This also applies to all articles, amendments, sections, and clauses of the aforementioned legal documents, to unwritten and uncodified constitutions, and to
1029:
What language specifically do you think should be removed and how should the title of the "Knowledge (XXG) is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal" be retitled for its inclusion? Use direct quotations please. --
1254:
and knocked off a third of the page's total size just from trimming back the content section alone. I didn't set out to actually change the meaning of anything, just to merge similar points together and cut out redundancies.
777:
I don't think the additional verbiage about official journals et al. is necessary. Do other editors actually treat Knowledge (XXG) this way in your experience, and aren't existing guidelines sufficient for explaining why they
1293:
I applaud the effort. It's overwhelming to try to comment on a bundle of many dozens of changes to a core policy. There are two areas where if there were be a substantial rewrite there should be a bunch of careful work:
722:
original research problem (in interpreting what laws or cases imply without aid of third party sources). Its reasonable to discuss. I don't think we need the additional language coveraging different journal types though. --
1476:
also follows this guideline and other cable networks can allow current programming on their separate articles, but they should all need a reliable source to support it. If needed, can this guideline be slightly expanded?
1407:
not my intent. This is more like a proof of concept or an "artist's impression" of how much shorter this policy could be â not every detail will be faithful and accurate, but it demonstrates the core idea is workable. â
1546:, which states that Knowledge (XXG) should not feature "Simple listings without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit. Listings such as the white or yellow pages should not be replicated." At present, the
1329:
Very fair! If it helps, maybe think of it not so much as "these are the exact point-by-point changes we need, the RfC opens tomorrow" but rather "whoa, we can make this a lot shorter and I don't even think we broke
1258:
Did I break a million anchors? Probably. Did I inadvertently overturn seven RfCs on subtle points of wording? Probably. Is it a net improvement? Yeah, once the kinks are ironed out, I think so. What do you think? â
739:
I'd support to the new section about laws/etc, separately from the additional journal types language. There are hundreds of years of such laws and rulings, the vast majority of which won't be notable. --
1298:
The linked not a dictionary has evolved a bit to recognize that terms can, are and should be a subject of coverage. The term often either creates the subject or creates a particular view of the subject.
1550:
is by definition a White Pages style directory listing of embassies in London and their addresses and coordinates. There is no contextual information, no encyclopedic merit, and no secondary sources.
858:, you have added a maintenance tag indicating that the section requires copyediting. What content in the section do you believe violates WP:COPYEDIT? Please state it here and I will address it. --
578:
I don't know that it's a big enough problem that we need to cover it in a policy, but I'll echo here what I said there. My personal inclination is that a number appearing in an OEIS entry is only
1452:
1159:
are included that explicitly direct editors to not do soâlike the proscriptions against all of the other topics already included in the policy that were presumably added for the same reason.
1163:
that is not a length where trimming or division of the article would be required or recommended. As such, the article would not be bloated by its inclusion and is not currently bloated. --
50:
534:
1202:
WP:SIZE is a guideline relating to articles, not Knowledge (XXG) policies. 6000 words is, indeed, far too long for a policy, at least if we're actually expecting people to read it. â
129:
527:
365:
361:
357:
353:
349:
345:
341:
337:
333:
329:
325:
321:
317:
313:
309:
305:
301:
297:
293:
289:
285:
281:
277:
273:
269:
265:
261:
257:
253:
249:
245:
241:
237:
233:
229:
225:
221:
217:
213:
209:
205:
201:
197:
193:
189:
185:
181:
177:
173:
169:
520:
165:
161:
157:
153:
149:
145:
141:
137:
133:
1624:
446:
422:
663:
Good to know people at Knowledge (XXG) have beaten me to it, but adding something here might be a quick little guideline to help people avoid the most egregious examples.
369:
1096:, and other international agreementsâas well as specific sections or clauses of these legal documentsâthat have been enacted, issued, ratified, or proposed may satisfy
541:
1181:
get created. No matter how many rules you create and how much text you add to other pages that will not have been read by newbies. IMHO your proposal is superfluous.
85:
616:) that are sufficiently well known and generally applicabile, are worth assuming they would be of interest for anyone reading an article on a specific number.
619:
Otherwise, properties should only be noted if there is significant attestation in sources specifically regarding the number in question having said property.
1012:, then there is no reason for there to be a Knowledge (XXG) article about it. When such sources are not used, the content of such articles often veers into
1437:
That is, if good faith editors can differ whether something meets the criterion or not, I believe it's insufficiently explicit to be a NOT policy element.
763:
494:
1239:
781:
session that were never enacted and may have never even been voted out of committee. All bill proposals during a session of Congress are included in the
560:
91:
596:
1351:
The many links to other essays, policies and guidelines etc. might be summarized in a navigation template. No clue if there already exists one.
1547:
1539:
35:
1435:
Most reasonable people should be able to agree whether a page meets the criterion. Often this requires making the criterion very specific.
418:
414:
1278:
mostly addressed by good anchors, and anything else can be accomplished with an essay about whichever point of NOT needs clarification.
417:
on Knowledge (XXG). Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review
1456:
1117:
1073:
997:
953:
809:
If the section title is that much of a concern, then we could just include my contribution as a separate section on the article. --
795:
the instructions I added into explicit policy, articles about these topics that do not satisfy WP:N will continue to be created. --
1013:
31:
1168:
1129:
1035:
917:
863:
814:
800:
1472:
schedules may be acceptable." Not only that current programming schedules should be included on article about a TV station, but
1009:
1001:
454:
80:
1116:. Many such official governmental and intergovernmental publications often have hundreds of volumes with countless entries and
996:. Many such official governmental and intergovernmental publications often have hundreds of volumes with countless entries and
759:
462:
1101:
981:
885:
I completely agree. We simply do not need, and should not have, sections on absolutely everything Knowledge (XXG) is not. â
71:
1416:
1343:
1268:
1211:
1150:
894:
1005:
1164:
1125:
1031:
913:
859:
810:
796:
689:
484:
1109:
989:
745:
377:
124:
563:, I was wondering if we could propose adding a standard for the notability of facts about numbers to this policy.
1390:
tweak of the not a dictionary section. IMO this is substantive change, and as a sidebar, one which I'd oppose.
1543:
1532:
426:
388:
1234:
obsolete sections, so there's always going to be this tendency for the policy to be bigger than it needs to be.
928:
legislative and case laws should be documented through third party sources, not simply because the law exists.
668:
654:
568:
1579:
In a few places, the float-right shortcuts bump each other a sizeable distance to the left. I suggest adding
980:(WP:N). However, Knowledge (XXG) itself is not a code of laws or regulations, a series of law reports, or an
553:
1283:
1097:
977:
1555:
1199:
Sounds like what's needed is to actually enforce existing guidance on notability, rather than adding more.
1000:
that span thousands of pages. Unless a specific entry or proceedingâthe latter of which would fall under
458:
61:
1279:
592:
1100:. However, Knowledge (XXG) itself is not a code of laws or regulations, a series of law reports, or an
976:, and other international agreements that have been enacted, issued, ratified, or proposed may satisfy
450:
392:
101:
76:
1358:
1188:
783:
605:
642:
1519:
1482:
1397:
1376:
1313:
1113:
993:
664:
650:
564:
1430:
1603:
1442:
1052:
835:
707:
631:
393:
1610:
1559:
1551:
1523:
1505:
1486:
1460:
1446:
1419:
1412:
1401:
1380:
1364:
1346:
1339:
1317:
1287:
1271:
1264:
1214:
1207:
1194:
1172:
1153:
1146:
1133:
1105:
1039:
985:
940:
921:
897:
890:
880:
867:
843:
818:
804:
769:
734:
715:
672:
658:
636:
613:
572:
57:
588:
390:
1327:
It's overwhelming to try to comment on a bundle of many dozens of changes to a core policy.
646:
601:
I think it makes sense to have a two-tiered standard, based on my read of that discussion.
579:
1501:
1353:
1183:
936:
730:
499:
1510:
You can just view the schedules on a third-party website, I was specifically noting why
17:
1593:
1515:
1478:
465:
exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
1618:
1600:
1438:
1121:
1089:
1085:
1081:
1021:
969:
965:
961:
825:
697:
624:
1408:
1335:
1260:
1203:
1142:
1077:
957:
909:
886:
1016:(WP:NOR), personal essays (WP:NOTESSAY), public domain material better suited for
1386:
retained, but it looks like you took out the "but articles can sometimes be on a
1583:
1569:
1511:
1494:
1473:
1064:
1058:
1017:
929:
723:
475:
1229:
Inspired by the above section, let's lay out some problems with this policy.
1120:
that span thousands of pages. Also, Knowledge (XXG) does not exist to codify
905:
875:
851:
609:
873:
The whole thing's a convoluted mess..... instructional creep at its best.
1069:
949:
421:
before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to
407:
1093:
973:
1002:
Knowledge (XXG)'s subject-specific notability guideline for events
587:
be written but hasn't yet because nobody has gotten around to it.
495:"The most fascinating Knowledge (XXG) articles you haven't read"
439:
561:
Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics#Cleaned_up_the_article_7
413:
The project page associated with this talk page is an official
470:
434:
402:
394:
26:
823:
That seems fine; thank you for the additional elaboration.
1538:
Curious to hear what others think about articles such as
457:. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If
1251:
855:
109:
1242:
instead of a sub-section here called NOTWEAKPASSWORD.
1369:
Maybe a bundle where there no changes of substance.
1225:Problems with this policy and trimming things back
1240:Knowledge (XXG):Password strength requirements
1124:and unwritten or uncodified constitutions. --
1098:Knowledge (XXG)'s general notability guideline
978:Knowledge (XXG)'s general notability guideline
641:I think maybe this all should be addressed at
1625:Knowledge (XXG) pages referenced by the press
453:while commenting or presenting evidence, and
8:
1068:: Knowledge (XXG) articles about individual
948:Knowledge (XXG) articles about individual
513:
1004:(WP:EVENT)âhas significant coverage in
945:Here's the text before it was removed:
1434:
1326:
1102:official journal of a legislative body
982:official journal of a legislative body
776:
1548:List of diplomatic missions in London
1540:List of diplomatic missions in London
7:
1453:2601:447:C600:4840:67:712D:772A:F99E
1177:Articles about non-notable subjects
1047:Reviewed WP:CREEP; shorter wording:
1467:Does WP:NOTTVGUIDE need extra info?
1433:, most specifically #1, objective:
493:Dewey, Caitlin (November 5, 2015).
34:for discussing improvements to the
1451:Do admit you killed some content.
25:
485:mentioned by a media organization
56:New to Knowledge (XXG)? Welcome!
1250:Anyway, upshot is I had a go at
474:
438:
406:
376:
51:Click here to start a new topic.
1611:14:21, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
1514:complies with this guideline.
419:policy editing recommendations
1:
1599:, to avoid that. Thoughts? â
1560:08:23, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
1524:01:21, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
1506:20:18, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
1487:20:00, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
1118:transcriptions of proceedings
998:transcriptions of proceedings
48:Put new text under old text.
1252:condensing things down a bit
523:(November 2005âJanuary 2006)
455:do not make personal attacks
1542:and the compatibility with
1461:23:23, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
1447:19:59, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
1420:03:24, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
1402:19:25, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
1381:19:13, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
1365:16:23, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
1347:15:49, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
1318:14:41, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
1288:14:30, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
1272:14:18, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
1215:02:48, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
1195:02:35, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
1173:02:11, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
1154:01:23, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
1134:19:39, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
1040:13:55, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
941:13:42, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
922:12:44, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
898:12:32, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
881:03:30, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
868:03:29, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
844:03:07, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
819:17:06, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
805:15:20, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
770:10:28, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
735:23:48, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
716:23:06, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
683:Additional journal verbiage
36:What Knowledge (XXG) is not
1641:
1302:99% "stats only" articles.
1110:international organization
990:international organization
673:21:27, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
659:21:12, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
637:21:01, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
597:21:01, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
573:20:52, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
99:
836:
708:
632:
604:Certain properties (e.g.
86:Be welcoming to newcomers
18:Knowledge (XXG) talk:NOT
1165:CommonKnowledgeCreator
1126:CommonKnowledgeCreator
1032:CommonKnowledgeCreator
914:CommonKnowledgeCreator
860:CommonKnowledgeCreator
811:CommonKnowledgeCreator
797:CommonKnowledgeCreator
690:CommonKnowledgeCreator
559:Per the discussion at
423:keep cool when editing
81:avoid personal attacks
370:Auto-archiving period
784:Congressional Record
1114:supranational union
994:supranational union
544:(JulyâOctober 2007)
483:This page has been
528:Newspaper Articles
92:dispute resolution
53:
1106:regulatory agency
1053:Official journals
1014:original research
986:regulatory agency
768:
753:
749:
743:
550:
549:
512:
511:
469:
468:
433:
432:
401:
400:
72:Assume good faith
49:
16:(Redirected from
1632:
1598:
1592:
1588:
1582:
1574:
1568:
1498:
1363:
1356:
1193:
1186:
1006:reliable sources
933:
878:
854:, per your edit
842:
840:
834:
830:
793:these guidelines
756:
751:
747:
741:
727:
714:
712:
706:
702:
693:
634:
629:
580:worth mentioning
514:
504:
478:
471:
461:is not reached,
442:
441:
435:
410:
403:
395:
381:
380:
371:
112:
27:
21:
1640:
1639:
1635:
1634:
1633:
1631:
1630:
1629:
1615:
1614:
1596:
1590:
1586:
1580:
1577:
1572:
1566:
1564:
1544:WP:NOTDIRECTORY
1536:
1533:WP:NOTDIRECTORY
1496:
1469:
1354:
1352:
1227:
1184:
1182:
1090:public policies
970:public policies
931:
874:
832:
826:
824:
725:
704:
698:
696:
695:the additions.
687:
685:
625:
557:
530:(MayâJuly 2007)
508:
507:
500:Washington Post
492:
488:
463:other solutions
397:
396:
391:
368:
118:
117:
116:
115:
108:
104:
97:
67:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
1638:
1636:
1628:
1627:
1617:
1616:
1606:
1576:
1563:
1535:
1530:
1529:
1528:
1527:
1526:
1468:
1465:
1464:
1463:
1449:
1426:
1425:
1424:
1423:
1422:
1383:
1367:
1322:
1304:
1303:
1299:
1291:
1290:
1248:
1247:
1243:
1235:
1226:
1223:
1222:
1221:
1220:
1219:
1218:
1217:
1200:
1197:
1160:
1137:
1136:
1122:customary laws
1086:public notices
1082:court opinions
1045:
1044:
1043:
1042:
1027:
1026:
1025:
1022:customary laws
966:public notices
962:court opinions
903:
902:
901:
900:
849:
848:
847:
846:
807:
788:
774:
773:
772:
684:
681:
680:
679:
678:
677:
676:
675:
665:Allan Nonymous
651:David Eppstein
622:
621:
620:
617:
599:
565:Allan Nonymous
556:
551:
548:
547:
546:
545:
538:
535:Unencyclopedic
531:
524:
510:
509:
506:
505:
489:
482:
481:
479:
467:
466:
443:
431:
430:
411:
399:
398:
389:
387:
386:
383:
382:
120:
119:
114:
113:
105:
100:
98:
96:
95:
88:
83:
74:
68:
66:
65:
54:
45:
44:
41:
40:
39:
24:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1637:
1626:
1623:
1622:
1620:
1613:
1612:
1609:
1608:
1602:
1595:
1585:
1571:
1562:
1561:
1557:
1553:
1549:
1545:
1541:
1534:
1531:
1525:
1521:
1517:
1513:
1509:
1508:
1507:
1503:
1499:
1491:
1490:
1489:
1488:
1484:
1480:
1475:
1466:
1462:
1458:
1454:
1450:
1448:
1444:
1440:
1436:
1432:
1427:
1421:
1418:
1415:
1414:
1410:
1405:
1404:
1403:
1399:
1395:
1394:
1389:
1384:
1382:
1378:
1374:
1373:
1368:
1366:
1362:
1361:
1357:
1350:
1349:
1348:
1345:
1342:
1341:
1337:
1333:
1328:
1325:
1324:
1323:
1320:
1319:
1315:
1311:
1310:
1300:
1297:
1296:
1295:
1289:
1285:
1281:
1280:Shooterwalker
1276:
1275:
1274:
1273:
1270:
1267:
1266:
1262:
1256:
1253:
1244:
1241:
1236:
1232:
1231:
1230:
1224:
1216:
1213:
1210:
1209:
1205:
1201:
1198:
1196:
1192:
1191:
1187:
1180:
1176:
1175:
1174:
1170:
1166:
1161:
1157:
1156:
1155:
1152:
1149:
1148:
1144:
1139:
1138:
1135:
1131:
1127:
1123:
1119:
1115:
1111:
1107:
1103:
1099:
1095:
1091:
1087:
1083:
1079:
1078:constitutions
1075:
1071:
1067:
1066:
1061:
1060:
1055:
1054:
1050:
1049:
1048:
1041:
1037:
1033:
1028:
1023:
1019:
1015:
1011:
1007:
1003:
999:
995:
991:
987:
983:
979:
975:
971:
967:
963:
959:
958:constitutions
955:
951:
947:
946:
944:
943:
942:
938:
934:
926:
925:
924:
923:
919:
915:
911:
907:
899:
896:
893:
892:
888:
884:
883:
882:
877:
872:
871:
870:
869:
865:
861:
857:
853:
845:
841:
839:
831:
829:
822:
821:
820:
816:
812:
808:
806:
802:
798:
794:
789:
786:
785:
779:
775:
771:
767:
765:
761:
755:
754:
738:
737:
736:
732:
728:
720:
719:
718:
717:
713:
711:
703:
701:
691:
682:
674:
670:
666:
662:
661:
660:
656:
652:
648:
644:
640:
639:
638:
635:
630:
628:
623:
618:
615:
614:triangularity
611:
607:
603:
602:
600:
598:
594:
590:
586:
581:
577:
576:
575:
574:
570:
566:
562:
555:
552:
543:
539:
536:
532:
529:
525:
522:
518:
517:
516:
515:
502:
501:
496:
491:
490:
486:
480:
477:
473:
472:
464:
460:
456:
452:
448:
444:
437:
436:
428:
424:
420:
416:
412:
409:
405:
404:
385:
384:
379:
375:
367:
363:
359:
355:
351:
347:
343:
339:
335:
331:
327:
323:
319:
315:
311:
307:
303:
299:
295:
291:
287:
283:
279:
275:
271:
267:
263:
259:
255:
251:
247:
243:
239:
235:
231:
227:
223:
219:
215:
211:
207:
203:
199:
195:
191:
187:
183:
179:
175:
171:
167:
163:
159:
155:
151:
147:
143:
139:
135:
131:
128:
126:
122:
121:
111:
107:
106:
103:
93:
89:
87:
84:
82:
78:
75:
73:
70:
69:
63:
59:
58:Learn to edit
55:
52:
47:
46:
43:
42:
37:
33:
29:
28:
19:
1604:
1578:
1552:AusLondonder
1537:
1470:
1411:
1392:
1391:
1387:
1371:
1370:
1359:
1338:
1331:
1321:
1308:
1307:
1305:
1292:
1263:
1257:
1249:
1228:
1206:
1189:
1178:
1145:
1063:
1057:
1051:
1046:
904:
889:
850:
837:
827:
792:
782:
757:
752:isinterested
744:
709:
699:
686:
645:rather than
626:
584:
558:
498:
445:Please stay
373:
123:
30:This is the
1306:Sincerely,
1074:regulations
1065:law reports
1059:legal codes
1010:independent
954:regulations
427:don't panic
1512:MOS:TVINTL
1474:MOS:TVINTL
1355:The Banner
1185:The Banner
1018:Wikisource
778:shouldn't?
643:WP:NNUMBER
589:XOR'easter
554:WP:NOTOEIS
1589:, a.k.a.
1565:add some
1516:Sparkbean
1479:Sparkbean
1431:WP:NEWCSD
1393:North8000
1372:North8000
1334:much". â
1309:North8000
1008:that are
610:primality
521:Galleries
459:consensus
94:if needed
77:Be polite
32:talk page
1619:Category
1439:Jclemens
1094:treaties
1070:statutes
974:treaties
950:statutes
828:Remsense
700:Remsense
627:Remsense
125:Archives
102:Shortcut
62:get help
910:Teratix
748:ctively
540:Topic:
533:Topic:
526:Topic:
519:Topic:
374:30Â days
1141:is? â
647:WP:NOT
606:parity
542:Trivia
537:(2003)
425:, and
415:policy
110:WT:NOT
1601:Alien
1594:clear
1112:, or
1062:, or
992:, or
585:could
451:civil
130:Index
90:Seek
38:page.
1556:talk
1520:talk
1497:asem
1483:talk
1457:talk
1443:talk
1409:Tera
1398:talk
1388:term
1377:talk
1360:talk
1336:Tera
1332:that
1314:talk
1284:talk
1261:Tera
1204:Tera
1190:talk
1179:will
1169:talk
1143:Tera
1130:talk
1036:talk
932:asem
918:talk
908:and
906:Moxy
887:Tera
876:Moxy
864:talk
856:here
852:Moxy
815:talk
801:talk
726:asem
669:talk
655:talk
593:talk
569:talk
449:and
447:calm
79:and
1607:3 3
1429:as
1413:tix
1340:tix
1265:tix
1208:tix
1147:tix
891:tix
879:đ
762:» °
742:LCU
649:. â
1621::
1597:}}
1591:{{
1587:}}
1581:{{
1575:'s
1573:}}
1567:{{
1558:)
1522:)
1504:)
1485:)
1459:)
1445:)
1400:)
1379:)
1316:)
1286:)
1171:)
1132:)
1108:,
1104:,
1092:,
1088:,
1084:,
1080:,
1076:,
1072:,
1056:,
1038:)
988:,
984:,
972:,
968:,
964:,
960:,
956:,
952:,
939:)
920:)
866:)
833:â„
817:)
803:)
764:ât
733:)
705:â„
671:)
657:)
612:,
608:,
595:)
571:)
497:.
372::
366:59
364:,
362:58
360:,
358:57
356:,
354:56
352:,
350:55
348:,
346:54
344:,
342:53
340:,
338:52
336:,
334:51
332:,
330:50
328:,
326:49
324:,
322:48
320:,
318:47
316:,
314:46
312:,
310:45
308:,
306:44
304:,
302:43
300:,
298:42
296:,
294:41
292:,
290:40
288:,
286:39
284:,
282:38
280:,
278:37
276:,
274:36
272:,
270:35
268:,
266:34
264:,
262:33
260:,
258:32
256:,
254:31
252:,
250:30
248:,
246:29
244:,
242:28
240:,
238:27
236:,
234:26
232:,
230:25
228:,
226:24
224:,
222:23
220:,
218:22
216:,
214:21
212:,
210:20
208:,
206:19
204:,
202:18
200:,
198:17
196:,
194:16
192:,
190:15
188:,
186:14
184:,
182:13
180:,
178:12
176:,
174:11
172:,
170:10
168:,
164:,
160:,
156:,
152:,
148:,
144:,
140:,
136:,
132:,
60:;
1605:3
1584:-
1570:-
1554:(
1518:(
1502:t
1500:(
1495:M
1481:(
1455:(
1441:(
1417:â”
1396:(
1375:(
1344:â”
1312:(
1282:(
1269:â”
1212:â”
1167:(
1151:â”
1128:(
1034:(
1024:.
937:t
935:(
930:M
916:(
895:â”
862:(
838:èźș
813:(
799:(
766:°
760:@
758:«
750:D
746:A
731:t
729:(
724:M
710:èŻ
692::
688:@
667:(
653:(
633:èŻ
591:(
567:(
503:.
487::
429:.
166:9
162:8
158:7
154:6
150:5
146:4
142:3
138:2
134:1
127::
64:.
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.