529:, they only supplement it and provide consistency. If a given topic doesn't generally pass GNG, it shouldn't be listed as generally notable on a guideline page. On option 3, I don't see how this would produce any difference in outcome from option 4 - the necessary additional information would have to come from reliable sources, which would cause the event to pass GNG anyway. Option 2 is arbitrary, unhelpful, and there's no reason to think it would fit with GNG. None of the options propose wording to add to any guideline. Unless I'm missing something,
412:, for instance. People at AfD might argue over "significant coverage", like we always do (i.e., in the way that we always pretend our subjective judgments are obvious truths). I don't think you're going in the wrong direction; I'm just trying to get a handle on the difference between the options. I think that in the cases where we do redirect (whatever those cases end up being), listing by century is more reader-friendly than listing by Saros.
22:
949:"Several deaths" is not a standard for inclusion or exclusion. The standard is whether or not the event has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. The study of mass casualty events is an area of legitimate research and an encyclopedia with 6.6 million articles should cover all such notable events.
1421:, and I've even provided sources confirming that academia considers it a primary source. Even after that I've still been told I was wrong or to "agree to disagree". Like, where do these people come from? And why are they still allowed to participate at AfD if they're just going to blatantly ignore both reliable sources and our own policies?
1363:
about this in July, but it went stale without action. The best idea I have right now is an RfC to determine whether news coverage counts toward GNG, but I don't know what the specific wording would be. To me, it's obvious that there shouldn't be articles based purely (or even mostly) on news coverage
388:
here—only how we should deal with the eclipse articles—but as you noted it’s good to get a broader consensus before sending hundreds of articles to AfD. That’s what the discussion is for I’d just like GNG for eclipse articles, period, and believe that would ultimately be best for the encyclopedia to
874:
and thinking that this tragedy probably won’t have major lasting impact, but it is entirely too early to tell. If we created (or kept) pages for each event that has potential for historical note we would be wasting a lot of editor time; on the other hand though, if we neglect to create and maintain
796:
events and events in the western world. Many of them (thousands if not more) don't meet the criteria listed for event notability or have sustained coverage beyond the time of their occurrence. A large portion of these events seem that they would be better suited for a list article, such as those at
1337:
My suggestion was that we define a clearer threshold and then merge articles below it to appropriate list or summary pages, and we could additionally move articles which no longer qualify here to
Wikinews with cross-wiki links to preserve them. As long as the material lives somewhere on Wiki, that
1214:
not all events with large death tolls are inheriently notable. It depends on what impact the event actually has, and to that end, how much that event is documented. We have to remember that WP is not a newspaper, so not every newsworthy event is necessarily notable. For example, tornado strikes in
546:
The second part is much easier to consider. Redirecting is much better than a blank deleted page. Saros cycles are obscure and unlikely to be understood by general readers, so redirecting there would be unhelpful. It's far more likely that readers will be interested in other eclipses that occurred
357:
I am not certain what the distinction between 3 and 4 would be in practice. The older I get, the less fond I find myself of arguments that seem to boil down to arranging acronyms on an imaginary org chart. ("GEOLAND supersedes the GNG!" "No, GEOLAND presumes and clarifies the GNG." "But that would
1075:
could go either way. They both have only primary sources stating it happened and then one local news article from several years later with no sustained regional or national coverage. I could be convinced that this combination of brief-national and sustained-local coverage confers notability, but
681:
too. So there's no reason to use any rules other than the default. Second choices are 3 and C, but I've talked myself into 4 being the best option; if only a trivial amount of information about an eclipse is known, it makes the most sense to put that on the list article rather than on a separate
455:
and when B isn't possible fall back to A. I generally agree with most of the comments. I do not think we need be too obsessive in assigning notability standards. If someone thinks that a particular eclipse is worth special attention because it happened on some saint's day for the third time, big
599:
searching. Like I've said at the AfDs for the last couple, eclipses have been considered significant events of great importance and portence by basically every civilization in history -- it's pretty trivial to find sourcing for them most of the time, and I think a presumption of notability is
298:
or series, which each contain a set of about 70 eclipses in regular intervals. With technological and scientific advances in the last few centuries, solar and lunar eclipses may be predicted millennia into the future and with sub-second accuracy. In other words, that these eclipses
473:: I suspect full solar eclipses that were visible from land during the last 2-3 centuries are probably going to be notable, if only because they likely attracted an eclipse expedition. All the others need to demonstrate some level of notability, beyond just a computed forecast.
1030:, I think that it is incumbent on you to list a representative sample of such articles that you personally think are not notable, so that we can test the accuracy of your premise. I listed four articles that I have worked on. Do you think that any of those should be deleted,
1215:
the US during spring and summer are not unusual, and there can be less-damaging strikes that still kill a dozen people, which is mostly chalked up to acts of God. Floods that take out 100s of people in the far east during typhoon season are similar. These events
995:. For a lot of them, the sourcing is just a handful of primary source news articles that come down to "this happened at this time in this place". And nominating just one for deletion will often get pushback, because there are a lot of editors who think that "
624:
Yeah, I think this is why special consideration is important, and I apologize for the poor example. Perhaps we should presume notability of past eclipses, because observations of them will be locked up in fairly obscure places, and hence the "range" idea.
910:
votes. This strategy is hit or miss. The best idea I've come up with so far, as I've touched on above, is combining all of them into a list. The topic of building fires itself is notable, but only a few individual building fires are notable. I think
1412:
In any AfD about an event, there's always someone (usually several someones) to come along and confidently, incorrectly assert that breaking news coverage is a secondary source. I've explained that news coverage is a primary source, I've linked to
1156:. The purpose of this encyclopedia is to provide articles about notable topics so that our readers can engage in research and study. We provide list articles and and categories precisely to facilitate the ongoing study of patterns and causes.
999:
and here's a few newspapers to prove it" is enough to establish notability (which is to say nothing of the editors that get morally indignant because they think disregarding an article involving deaths somehow belittles or demeans the dead).
957:. So, the solution is clear. Delete articles on mass casualty events that do not comply with the GNG and keep those that comply with the GNG. Those concerned about recentism can do as I do, and write and expand articles like
594:
example given of an obviously worthless non-notable eclipse article, had five book and journal sources (including journal articles specifically about that eclipse), which I was able to find in a couple minutes of dead-simple
490:
by preference, otherwise A; next choice 3 B/A. I am mostly thinking of the future dates here. If articles on topics in a "series" consist of 80% boilerplate material and 20% stats that could as well go in a list,
291:
699:
Individual items from a predetermined list or a systematic pattern of names, pre-assigned to future events or discoveries, are not suitable article topics, if only generic information is known about the
652:
then we could have infinite eclipse articles. Ones in the year 3000AD 4000AD etc. That seems silly. So I guess there needs to be more than that, probably they need to be notable, as per WP:GNG. Right?
495:
have no realistic chance of being expanded in the lifetime of any current contributor, then those topics should be handled as a table in a higher-level article. Seems pretty uncontroversial to me. --
569:
because GNG matters. I know some people want to discount GNG but it is a core guideline. And redirect is appropriate in this instance to help the reader navigate to the appropriate main article. ---
1319:
1026:
because they are studied and analyzed for patterns and causes, and the study of such events informs efforts to prevent or reduce the incidence of such tragedies. When you make an assertion like
1056:
966:
435:. Eclipses happen and the list of those is well-documented, so any standalone eclipse should show more coverage from the GNG standpoint of why that eclispe is different or the like. --
311:. There are other potential criteria that I haven't put in the options, because there's already quite a few, but perhaps a discussion will come up with good ones. Also note that per
389:
combine the pages. If we can get consensus for that through an RfC then it can be implemented without hassle on individual AfD pages. But perhaps I’m going in the wrong direction.
669:
There isn't much of a point in having a separate page about an eclipse when all the known information about it is entirely predictable. Any non-predictable information would need
677:; any reliable source will necessarily be independent of the subject (it isn't like eclipses are writing articles about themselves), and thus the eclipse would satisfy
1330:) are not clear enough and need updating in my opinion, which is why discussions are often split and no consensus was the result in that case. As I wrote in that AFD,
757:
Every time there's a mass casualty event, an article gets created for it. This has resulted in massive lists of events at categories including (but not limited to):
1275:. It's the first story on the front page of this newspaper. It's verifiable, and it's a reliable source. If NEVENT is thrown out, then I can create an article for
56:
48:
40:
1360:
1322:, I would like to open a broader discussion on what is consensus for inclusion of these sorts of subjects going forward. Currently the guidelines (such as for
955:
up-to-date information on breaking news events, vetted and counter-vetted by enthusiastic volunteer editors, is something that no other encyclopedia can offer
876:
421:
371:
1334:
in particular is very generic currently and offers minimal help, but crimes are certainly subjects of encyclopedic interest so this should be clarified.
1133:, then there will be reliable sources that we can use to write the article. We are not in the position to create an article for the event to be studied.
648:. I read it carefully, it allows for very likely events, if supported by expert analysis. Probably all eclipses meet that bar. But if we look at it like
456:
deal! It might interest someone and won't bring down the house. Better that than miss something of general interest because of some obsessive regulation.
270:
916:
1276:
1338:
would be sufficient in my opinion and would have the positive side effects of driving more activity to
Wikinews and improving cross-project work.
786:
702:(emphasis dropped) CBALL #1 also applies to future events, with NEVENT deferring to CBALL. As for the fate of the non-notable articles, recommend
517:
This isn't a well posed list of options. For option 1, I don't see where this 'status quo' is stated anywhere. There's nothing about eclipses on
235:
easily passes this criterion because it will be the next major solar eclipse to cross North
America, and has received plenty of coverage, while
333:
and when B isn't possible fall back to A. We do not need a special, new standard for this subject. Existing policy and process is just fine.
1068:
958:
771:
732:
1365:
842:
I'm not convinced that there's not a problem. Editors seem to ignore this guideline in deletion discussions any time they find something
1464:
912:
802:
236:
187:: Status quo; stand-alone pages for every eclipse in the 20th and 21st centuries, and including miscellaneous ones between the 16th and
1088:
1445:
Please send a ping when you do start the RFC. On another note, I did try starting a
Wikinews article, but was not very successful. -
199:: Establish a range for which eclipses outside that range must meet the GNG, while eclipses within that range are considered notable.
362:
tend to get lost in the muddle. Is there an example of a case where we really would act differently under option 3 versus option 4?
344:
114:
1034:? Will you provide a brief list of some representative mass casualty articles that you really, really think ought to be deleted?
404:
381:
212:
987:
The problem is that a large number of
Knowledge (XXG)'s mass casualty articles don't comply with notability criteria. They fail
898:
Right now the best approach is to nominate the article for deletion and hope the notability guidelines win out over the rush of
875:
the page, we risk not having solid coverage of an important event as details are forthcoming. I’ve also watched (and worked on)
518:
781:
879:
with similar thoughts in mind: thinking that at least while it exists, it should be in as good a condition as we can get it.
232:
398:
828:
I don't think there's a problem here. Transport disasters such as plane crashes are routinely brought to AfD and deleted.
748:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
587:
507:
255:
220:
188:
761:
1072:
962:
776:
674:
1256:… Events are commonly deleted at AfD even though all the information is true and will probably be helpful to someone.
90:
899:
1359:, as the nominator of that AfD, I plan on starting an RfC if no one else comes up with a solution soon. There was
1431:
1378:
1289:
1184:
1113:
1080:
1010:
937:
856:
815:
907:
670:
69:
1084:
915:
is a reasonable compromise, where non-notable fires can be listed so long as they are verifiable. Likewise for
903:
727:
1414:
843:
385:
304:
1468:
1341:
Not sure a formal RFC is needed at this point, but just want to invite any comments from others. Thoughts? -
1095:
search, so it's possible these are notable, but they all provide examples of events with sourcing that fails
1272:
924:
920:
557:
539:
1418:
1067:
is fine because it clearly had sustained coverage that gave in depth analysis beyond just "this happened".
1060:
525:. Was there a previous discussion somewhere? Option 4 is confusing - notability guidelines cannot overrule
1463:
I would suggest starting an RFC at this point, it is clearly a big issue. Preferably in the village pump.
1450:
1346:
871:
766:
461:
1100:
1096:
992:
988:
574:
478:
417:
367:
341:
1253:
996:
312:
1422:
1369:
1280:
1175:
1104:
1031:
1001:
928:
927:
etc. I'd be glad to hear other ideas, but regardless of the approach, this area needs major cleanup.
847:
806:
1391:
1327:
649:
645:
315:, it's possible that Options 1 through 3 are not immediately applicable without a wider discussion.
308:
294:. For the astronomically uninitiated: solar and lunar eclipses occur in predictable cycles known as
208:
1161:
1049:
1039:
978:
715:
207:: Keep eclipses for which information beyond mere statistics and observations is known, similar to
1331:
1092:
950:
793:
596:
522:
240:
1064:
970:
798:
552:
534:
75:
1323:
1221:", but to think there needs to be a standalone one for each case is the wrong starting point. --
1028:
a large number of
Knowledge (XXG)'s mass casualty articles don't comply with notability criteria
694:
408:
73:
1460:
1446:
1356:
1342:
1261:
833:
657:
503:
457:
144:
1279:. And just wait until I get to the story directly below it about some people moving turkeys.
630:
570:
474:
413:
407:
would potentially be accepted under either option. Sources exist for its influence on Brahe
394:
384:
go? I agree that it is painful to have a mess of guidelines as we do, and I’m not proposing
363:
336:
320:
174:
71:
21:
1472:
1454:
1438:
1407:
1385:
1350:
1308:
1296:
1265:
1233:
1191:
1165:
1147:
1120:
1043:
1017:
982:
944:
893:
863:
837:
822:
738:
686:
678:
661:
634:
612:
578:
559:
541:
526:
512:
482:
465:
447:
358:
put us in tension with NASTRO, and under the precedent of NBELGIANWAFFLE...") Questions of
349:
324:
178:
155:
138:
134:
1403:
1229:
443:
259:
1249:
1079:
Examples of articles where I would vote to delete if additional sources were not found:
1157:
1142:
1126:
1035:
974:
888:
608:
1245:
166:
162:
1055:
Reviewing the four you linked based purely on the sources currently in the article:
1257:
829:
653:
497:
870:
Is there a solid way to deal with this sort of news event? I’m currently watching
710:
for eclipses too far in the future or in the past to have a list by century, then
682:
page, which means that the eclipse has to be redirected there (i.e. option B). --
683:
626:
390:
316:
295:
216:
170:
600:
reasonable because almost all of them are going to be written about somewhere.
254:: Redirect non-notable eclipses to their respective Saros cycles. For example,
1399:
1222:
436:
1170:
Am I misunderstanding you? Surely, the "research and study" needs to happen
1153:
1137:
883:
619:
602:
303:
as described is not under question. Potentially applicable policies include
1244:
What’s the point of NEVENT? If an event happens, and the details are all
846:, which naturally gravitates toward things like disasters and tragedies.
644:
I initially voted to delete the one at AfD due to my incorrect memory of
269:: Redirect non-notable eclipses to their respective list articles (e.g.,
1390:
I think there just isn't a big enough realisation that news reports are
1129:
I think you’re putting the cart before the horse there. If the event is
1052:
is notable, but that doesn't mean every mass casualty event is notable.
973:. The encyclopedia is better off with such articles than without them.
410:
547:
around the same time, not related by some multiple of orbit numbers.
403:
That's exactly the example that seemed ambiguous; it seems to me that
1252:, why does it need to have a lasting impact? It’s not like there are
292:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Solar eclipse of April 23, 2191
215:
would be kept because it was contemporaneous with famous astronomer
137:
to evaluate the notability of eclipses; eclipses that fail to meet
1320:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/2022 Philadelphia shooting
1277:
Ben
Newcomer's 1923 Park County, Wyoming, spelling bee victory
76:
15:
1368:
a few days ago, but it hasn't gathered much interest either.
953:
is not a guideline. It is an essay. And even that essay says
1174:
the article is created. That's what makes a topic notable.
1057:
Timeline of violent incidents at the United States
Capitol
967:
Timeline of violent incidents at the United States
Capitol
792:
Most of these articles are, unsurprisingly, biased toward
113:
The following discussion is an archived record of a
1394:and that we shouldn't have articles that are cited
247:There is also the question of the redirect target:
123:
No further edits should be made to this discussion.
290:I am opening this RfC after a back-and-forth at
1210:Seeing this in watchlist but coming from ITN,
753:Are events with several deaths always notable?
223:does not have such information (at least yet).
126:A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
84:This page has archives. Sections older than
8:
1364:of the sequence of events. I tried to start
1131:studied and analyzed for patterns and causes
877:Auckland children bodies found in suitcases
271:List of solar eclipses in the 16th century
141:will be redirected to the appropriate list
231:: Default entirely to GNG. For example,
787:Category:Transport disasters by century
1130:
1027:
1023:
954:
698:
94:when more than 5 sections are present.
1219:be documented on "Lists of <X: -->
1069:1986 San Francisco fireworks disaster
959:1986 San Francisco fireworks disaster
772:Category:Industrial disasters by year
7:
1314:Updating event notability guidelines
1024:of lasting, historical significance
913:List of building or structure fires
803:List of building or structure fires
762:Category:Building collapses by year
519:Knowledge (XXG):Notability (events)
237:Solar eclipse of September 21, 2025
1089:2022 Chandrapur tanker-truck crash
360:what makes for a good encyclopedia
243:(at least yet, and perhaps never).
14:
1022:Genuine mass casualty events are
88:may be automatically archived by
744:The discussion above is closed.
405:Solar eclipse of August 21, 1560
382:Solar_eclipse_of_August_21,_1560
213:Solar eclipse of August 21, 1560
20:
782:Category:Mass shootings by year
533:and just needs to be enforced.
281:: Delete non-notable eclipses.
233:Solar eclipse of April 8, 2024
1:
1473:23:31, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
1303:Quick opinion on this pageant
1273:Cody Boy Wins in Spelling Bee
1059:is fine because it's a valid
588:Solar eclipse of May 22, 1724
334:
256:Solar eclipse of May 22, 1724
221:Solar eclipse of May 22, 1724
161:How should the notability of
1455:15:55, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
1439:17:45, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
1408:16:23, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
1073:1973 Miami Beach firebombing
963:1973 Miami Beach firebombing
777:Category:Mass murder by year
531:option 4 is already the rule
1386:01:17, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
1351:16:22, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
1493:
864:16:55, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
838:15:18, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
823:14:59, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
551:is the clear winner here.
1271:Here's an event for you:
1081:2022 Chattanooga shooting
739:12:07, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
586:: It's worth noting that
156:02:17, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
131:Consensus was reached to
1297:05:54, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
1266:16:27, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
1234:12:17, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
1192:01:20, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
1166:23:51, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
1148:21:53, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
1121:07:37, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
1085:2022 Anyang factory fire
1076:there's room for debate.
1044:07:06, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
1018:06:46, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
983:06:15, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
945:05:45, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
894:05:09, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
746:Please do not modify it.
687:22:45, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
662:01:04, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
635:22:57, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
613:15:12, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
579:02:53, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
560:12:50, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
542:12:50, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
513:07:15, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
483:00:12, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
466:05:57, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
448:01:39, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
422:14:52, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
399:01:32, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
372:00:58, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
350:00:31, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
325:21:05, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
179:21:05, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
120:Please do not modify it.
872:Wellington hostel fire
767:Category:Fires by year
91:Lowercase sigmabot III
1361:a previous discussion
1398:to primary sources.
1050:mass casualty events
241:significant coverage
1091:. I haven't done a
380:Sure, where should
115:request for comment
44:(Aug 2008—Oct 2009)
1065:2015 Waco shootout
971:2015 Waco shootout
917:building collapses
799:List of explosions
258:would redirect to
1437:
1384:
1295:
1190:
1152:To the contrary,
1119:
1016:
943:
900:WP:ITSINTERESTING
862:
821:
511:
239:has not received
189:22nd centuries AD
98:
97:
61:
53:
45:
1484:
1434:
1429:
1427:
1381:
1376:
1374:
1292:
1287:
1285:
1226:
1220:in <Year: -->
1187:
1182:
1180:
1146:
1140:
1116:
1111:
1109:
1013:
1008:
1006:
991:, and they fail
940:
935:
933:
892:
886:
859:
854:
852:
818:
813:
811:
735:
730:
675:reliable sources
642:Comment/question
623:
501:
500:
440:
348:
153:
122:
93:
77:
59:
51:
43:
24:
16:
1492:
1491:
1487:
1486:
1485:
1483:
1482:
1481:
1432:
1425:Thebiguglyalien
1423:
1379:
1372:Thebiguglyalien
1370:
1316:
1305:
1290:
1283:Thebiguglyalien
1281:
1242:
1224:
1185:
1178:Thebiguglyalien
1176:
1136:
1134:
1114:
1107:Thebiguglyalien
1105:
1048:The concept of
1032:Thebiguglyalien
1011:
1004:Thebiguglyalien
1002:
938:
931:Thebiguglyalien
929:
908:WP:ITSINTHENEWS
882:
880:
857:
850:Thebiguglyalien
848:
816:
809:Thebiguglyalien
807:
755:
750:
749:
733:
728:
617:
496:
438:
288:
260:Solar Saros 133
211:. For example,
158:
145:
118:
108:
89:
78:
72:
29:
12:
11:
5:
1490:
1488:
1480:
1479:
1478:
1477:
1476:
1475:
1443:
1442:
1441:
1415:WP:PRIMARYNEWS
1315:
1312:
1304:
1301:
1300:
1299:
1254:space concerns
1241:
1238:
1237:
1236:
1207:
1206:
1205:
1204:
1203:
1202:
1201:
1200:
1199:
1198:
1197:
1196:
1195:
1194:
1150:
1123:
1077:
1053:
921:rail accidents
868:
867:
866:
844:WP:INTERESTING
790:
789:
784:
779:
774:
769:
764:
754:
751:
743:
742:
741:
689:
673:, which needs
664:
639:
638:
637:
581:
564:
563:
562:
515:
485:
468:
450:
429:
428:
427:
426:
425:
424:
375:
374:
352:
305:WP:NOTDATABASE
287:
284:
283:
282:
275:
274:
263:
262:
245:
244:
225:
224:
201:
200:
193:
192:
167:lunar eclipses
163:solar eclipses
159:
130:
129:
128:
109:
107:
104:
102:
96:
95:
83:
80:
79:
74:
70:
68:
65:
64:
63:
62:
54:
52:(Nov–Dec 2009)
46:
35:
34:
31:
30:
25:
19:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1489:
1474:
1470:
1466:
1465:71.239.86.150
1462:
1458:
1457:
1456:
1452:
1448:
1444:
1440:
1435:
1428:
1426:
1420:
1419:WP:RSBREAKING
1416:
1411:
1410:
1409:
1405:
1401:
1397:
1393:
1389:
1388:
1387:
1382:
1375:
1373:
1367:
1362:
1358:
1355:
1354:
1353:
1352:
1348:
1344:
1339:
1335:
1333:
1329:
1325:
1321:
1313:
1311:
1310:
1302:
1298:
1293:
1286:
1284:
1278:
1274:
1270:
1269:
1268:
1267:
1263:
1259:
1255:
1251:
1247:
1239:
1235:
1231:
1227:
1218:
1213:
1209:
1208:
1193:
1188:
1181:
1179:
1173:
1169:
1168:
1167:
1163:
1159:
1155:
1151:
1149:
1144:
1139:
1132:
1128:
1124:
1122:
1117:
1110:
1108:
1102:
1098:
1094:
1090:
1086:
1082:
1078:
1074:
1070:
1066:
1062:
1061:WP:STANDALONE
1058:
1054:
1051:
1047:
1046:
1045:
1041:
1037:
1033:
1029:
1025:
1021:
1020:
1019:
1014:
1007:
1005:
998:
997:this happened
994:
990:
986:
985:
984:
980:
976:
972:
968:
964:
960:
956:
952:
948:
947:
946:
941:
934:
932:
926:
922:
918:
914:
909:
905:
901:
897:
896:
895:
890:
885:
878:
873:
869:
865:
860:
853:
851:
845:
841:
840:
839:
835:
831:
827:
826:
825:
824:
819:
812:
810:
804:
800:
795:
788:
785:
783:
780:
778:
775:
773:
770:
768:
765:
763:
760:
759:
758:
752:
747:
740:
736:
731:
725:
724:
721:
718:
713:
709:
705:
701:
696:
693:
690:
688:
685:
680:
676:
672:
668:
665:
663:
659:
655:
651:
647:
643:
640:
636:
632:
628:
621:
616:
615:
614:
611:
610:
605:
604:
598:
593:
589:
585:
582:
580:
576:
572:
568:
565:
561:
558:
556:
555:
554:Modest Genius
550:
545:
544:
543:
540:
538:
537:
536:Modest Genius
532:
528:
524:
520:
516:
514:
509:
505:
499:
494:
489:
486:
484:
480:
476:
472:
469:
467:
463:
459:
454:
451:
449:
445:
441:
434:
431:
430:
423:
419:
415:
411:
409:
406:
402:
401:
400:
396:
392:
387:
383:
379:
378:
377:
376:
373:
369:
365:
361:
356:
353:
351:
346:
343:
340:
339:
332:
329:
328:
327:
326:
322:
318:
314:
310:
306:
302:
297:
293:
285:
280:
277:
276:
272:
268:
265:
264:
261:
257:
253:
250:
249:
248:
242:
238:
234:
230:
227:
226:
222:
218:
214:
210:
206:
203:
202:
198:
195:
194:
190:
186:
183:
182:
181:
180:
176:
172:
168:
164:
157:
154:
152:
151:
150:
142:
140:
136:
127:
124:
121:
116:
111:
110:
105:
103:
100:
92:
87:
82:
81:
67:
66:
60:(2010 — 2018)
58:
55:
50:
47:
42:
39:
38:
37:
36:
33:
32:
28:
23:
18:
17:
1461:Indefensible
1447:Indefensible
1424:
1395:
1371:
1366:an RFCBEFORE
1357:Indefensible
1343:Indefensible
1340:
1336:
1317:
1306:
1282:
1243:
1216:
1211:
1177:
1171:
1106:
1101:WP:EVENTCRIT
1097:WP:SUSTAINED
1003:
993:WP:EVENTCRIT
989:WP:SUSTAINED
930:
925:mass murders
904:WP:ITSTRAGIC
849:
808:
791:
756:
745:
722:
719:
716:
711:
707:
703:
691:
671:verification
666:
641:
607:
601:
591:
583:
566:
553:
548:
535:
530:
492:
487:
470:
458:JonRichfield
452:
432:
359:
354:
337:
330:
300:
296:Saros cycles
289:
278:
266:
251:
246:
228:
204:
196:
184:
169:be decided?
160:
149:Arbitrarily0
148:
147:
146:
132:
125:
119:
112:
101:
99:
85:
26:
571:Steve Quinn
475:Praemonitus
386:WP:NECLIPSE
338:SMcCandlish
313:WP:LOCALCON
301:will happen
217:Tycho Brahe
106:Eclipse RfC
1392:WP:PRIMARY
1328:WP:NOTNEWS
697:#2 reads:
650:WP:GEOLAND
646:WP:CRYSTAL
414:XOR'easter
364:XOR'easter
309:WP:CRYSTAL
286:Discussion
209:WP:GEOLAND
1332:WP:NCRIME
1318:Based on
1307:Moved to
1158:Cullen328
1127:Cullen328
1093:WP:BEFORE
1036:Cullen328
975:Cullen328
951:WP:RECENT
794:WP:RECENT
597:WP:BEFORE
523:WP:NASTRO
57:Archive 3
49:Archive 2
41:Archive 1
1324:WP:EVENT
695:WP:CBALL
592:specific
549:Option B
508:contribs
279:Option C
267:Option B
252:Option A
229:Option 4
219:, while
205:Option 3
197:Option 2
185:Option 1
27:Archives
1258:BhamBoi
830:Garuda3
717:Laundry
706:, then
667:4 and B
654:CT55555
584:Comment
567:4 and B
498:Elmidae
488:4 and B
471:4 and B
453:4 and B
433:4 and B
355:Comment
331:4 and B
86:90 days
1309:WP:VPM
1172:before
1087:, and
684:ais523
679:WP:GNG
627:Ovinus
590:, the
527:WP:GNG
391:Ovinus
317:Ovinus
171:Ovinus
139:WP:GNG
135:WP:GNG
1400:FOARP
720:Pizza
700:item.
1469:talk
1451:talk
1433:talk
1417:and
1404:talk
1396:only
1380:talk
1347:talk
1326:and
1291:talk
1262:talk
1240:Why?
1225:asem
1186:talk
1162:talk
1154:HTGS
1143:talk
1138:HTGS
1115:talk
1099:and
1071:and
1040:talk
1012:talk
979:talk
969:and
965:and
961:and
939:talk
889:talk
884:HTGS
858:talk
834:talk
817:talk
801:and
658:talk
631:talk
620:JPxG
575:talk
504:talk
479:talk
462:talk
439:asem
418:talk
395:talk
368:talk
321:talk
307:and
175:talk
165:and
133:use
1248:by
1217:can
714:. –
521:or
493:and
347:😼
1471:)
1453:)
1406:)
1349:)
1264:)
1250:RS
1232:)
1212:no
1164:)
1135:—
1103:.
1083:,
1063:.
1042:)
981:)
923:,
919:,
881:—
836:)
805:.
737:)
734:c̄
723:03
660:)
633:)
603:jp
577:)
506:·
481:)
464:)
446:)
420:)
397:)
370:)
335:—
323:)
177:)
143:.
117:.
1467:(
1459:@
1449:(
1436:)
1430:(
1402:(
1383:)
1377:(
1345:(
1294:)
1288:(
1260:(
1246:V
1230:t
1228:(
1223:M
1189:)
1183:(
1160:(
1145:)
1141:(
1125:@
1118:)
1112:(
1038:(
1015:)
1009:(
977:(
942:)
936:(
906:/
902:/
891:)
887:(
861:)
855:(
832:(
820:)
814:(
729:d
726:(
712:C
708:A
704:B
692:4
656:(
629:(
622::
618:@
609:g
606:×
573:(
510:)
502:(
477:(
460:(
444:t
442:(
437:M
416:(
393:(
366:(
345:¢
342:☏
319:(
273:)
191:.
173:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
