908:. There you'd get a handful of pages, without context as to the content or relative importance, and further subcatgories which you need to navigate through to find the titular article of the subcategories. That's useful if you're trying to find "pages related to phonetics" but if you want a quick overview of the topic area and how it is thematically organized, categories are not ideal. The articles themselves are probably less equipped for the efficient retrieval of this information since not everything fit for inclusion in an outline would be
752:
607:
552:
265:
468:
desirable. If it is via an annotated link template, any challenge should be at the original page where the short description exists. controversial in situ annotations that are challenged should be referenced. Any content beyond headers and lists of wikilinks may require references following verifiability requirements like any other article. A lead section that is transcluded should be referenced in the original article. · · ·
77:
59:
28:
164:
136:
228:
150:
837:, Both outlines and indexes can be useful to editors who are working on expanding coverage of a topic area. Outlines are particularly useful as they map out what has been done and help suggest where the gaps still exist. They are more useful when adequately annotated, which is not that common, but annotation with short descriptions is a tool we have that helps, and using
853:
as a tool before you pass judgement on their utility. The solution to a poorly written or formatted outline is to fix it. Like any other article or list on
Knowledge (XXG) that will be done by someone who cares and has the time, and does not have to be done immediately, just like stubs may exist for years as stubs and get fixed as and when someone gets round to it.
1018:
705:
For those who need to build an outline on a particular topic, it is far easier to start with "incomplete" Knowledge (XXG) outlines and build upon those than starting new outlines from scratch. And then the expanded outlines stay in the (Knowledge (XXG)) cloud to be easily returned to later as needed
1109:
It's an undocumented exception to the MOS:HEADINGS guideline. Standard practice for non-location outlines, is that most non-regional outlines' first subheading is a question of the form: "What type of thing is x?" That's for identifying the parent classifications that the topic belongs to, to help
947:
You may find it more constructive and productive to propose a reasonable and practicable minimum standard for outlines. If that is accepted by the broader community, we could work on bringing the substandard outlines up to standard, and new outlines would not be moved into mainspace until they meet
927:
Almost everything can be done better, but I agree, some are seriously suboptimal, like most of
Knowledge (XXG). Nevertheless there is no major effort to deprecate most of Knowledge (XXG) just because it could be done better, and similarly outlines do not need to be deprecated. Like stubs and poorly
884:
They could probably be done better, but I would argue strongly that they're useful. I'd also argue more useful than our series of indices (though it may depend on the subject area, my knowledge of outlines and indices is limited to the linguistics series). There may be a case to keep only one since
852:
Like
Knowledge (XXG) in general, outlines are normally incomplete and out of date, but that does not make them not useful. I don't know if expanding coverage of topic areas by finding missing articles is within your area of interests and contributions, but if it is, I suggest you try using outlines
701:
While they are helpful for browsing subjects' topics across
Knowledge (XXG), they are also useful for mapping out subjects in general: Knowledge (XXG)'s outline system is a subject classification system. Its lists are a great source for mining search terms to aid search queries, for quickly getting
856:
Low pageviews have never been considered a valid reason to delete. We are not short of space for anything that improves the encyclopedia, so a more compelling reason to deprecate is recommended if you want to continue down this route and be taken seriously. Basically, can you show that outlines do
903:
Opens with "Branches" and then "Subfields" which are organized by particular information need like "by structure studied" or "by non-linguistic features studied". "Branches" also includes other subfields which do not nicely fall under the above organizational schemes, and movements which are not
467:
said. However any unsupported claim can be challenged. The majority of content is likely to be links to
Knowledge (XXG) articles, which do not need referemces. If the link exists it will be blue, a redirect is also acceptable, and sometimes a disambiguation link may be acceptable. Annotation is
449:
than they are standalone lists, and we don't require citations for either of those since it should be obvious from the linked article that it's fit for inclusion. I don't think we should rule out the possibility of including references though. Some outlines may make controversial claims through
518:
Hello — I'm considering launching a proposal to deprecate outlines, redirecting them all to their corresponding non-outline articles. To help inform whether to move forward with that or not, I was wondering what arguments folks here might have for preserving (or deprecating) outlines. Best,
697:
Even for incomplete outlines, the structure of their subject remains relatively intact, which helps with navigation. Being in list format, outlines are easier to read and edit than navigation templates, and have the added benefit of supporting annotations, which navigation templates do
709:
Outlines are useful to those who need to see what
Knowledge (XXG) offers in a particular area. Categories chop subjects up into small units which can make looking at a whole subject in the category system very tedious, while most outlines show a subject's entire structure on a single
904:
subfields per se, but philosophical perspectives on the field itself. It efficiently serves the information needs of readers in a nice hierarchy with brief descriptions all on one page. To satisfy that information need under the category system, you'd need to navigate to
344:
Recently I've discovered this project and I've just wondered about sections named like this discussion header that could be more encyclopedic, and just preferable in general, to simply be called "What is X". Is there already a consensus for them to be called "What
1113:
We've experimented with non-question formats for that heading, and so far, we have not found a less awkward one than the question. Other headings that have been tried tend to leak, being broader in meaning, to overlap semantically with the lead section or other
687:
But they do work, for a great many people. As a set, the outlines get many millions of views per year. Far more than most websites — that alone makes the outline system worth keeping. And there are many other reasons for keeping
Knowledge (XXG)'s collection of
898:
organizes relevant pages contextually on a single page in a way that is sensitive to the information needs of readers, unlike categories which are more technical in their navigational structure. A good example is a reader browsing subfields of linguistics.
1121:, that heading somehow got reworded to become the very question that the lead is supposed to answer, an example of the leakage I just mentioned. But, the body of the section still answers the question "What type of thing is a lichen?, so, it still works.
450:
inclusion or have disputes about whether something meets the inclusion criteria which could be resolved by adding an inline citation, but in general I don't see a need to for the same reason we don't include references on DAB pages or nav boxes.
893:
gets (they're linked in mainspace a comparable number of times; I think they're added by the same template). Those aren't earth-shattering numbers, but they're respectable, especially considering the choice between those two navigation methods.
382:
of something a thing is, is what classifications it falls into. What are its parent topics? The simpler question "What is X?", is asking for a definition, which is presented in the lead section. I hope this clarification helps.
871:
It is possible that one of the reasons for a lack of records of previous discussions is that they tend to remain informal, and may never reach CENT records. There may be something in this page's archives. Cheers, · · ·
630:
Dear Sdkb, we should start by addressing your concerns and observations. Maybe we can point out factors that you haven't pondered, or other possible solutions. Why are you considering getting rid of outlines?
720:
Proposing the end of outlines will likely have the same result as in the past: a huge heated debate between editors who never use outlines and those who do, wasting a lot of time and effort to arrive at no
1031:
736:- (P.S.: I've pinged Pbsouthwood, one of Knowledge (XXG)'s best outline editors, as he has a way with explaining the benefits of outlines. He may also know others who can shed light on their usefulness.
241:
649:, fundamentally, because they have not worked. They have very low pageviews, even for the biggest topics, and correspondingly few editors (and incomplete/outdated information as a result).
1237:
494:
does lot apply to outlines which lack statements. Now the other user is asserting that such outlines should be converted to templates. But at what size? You can join the discussion here:
208:
425:
I replied to the specific case on the linked talk page, but I also think it's worth having a more general discussion here. To answer the question in the heading, strictly speaking, even
783:
I was unaware of that. I don't have a mobile device, but the mobile version of
Knowledge (XXG) can be browsed via desktop computer by inserting an "m" into an article's URL, like this:
691:
There isn't another resource like it on the Web — outlines are essentially topic lists arranged by subject, that double as collections of bookmarks of
Knowledge (XXG) articles.
86:, a type of article that presents a list of articles or sub-topics related to its subject in a hierarchical form. For the standardized set of outlines on Knowledge (XXG), see
445:
prose articles to have references so there's no reason our policies on outlines should be any more strict. Outlines are more similar to navigational aids like nav boxes and
403:
1124:
If you browse the outlines, you'll find the question in most of them that are not regions (countries, provinces/states, counties, and cities). I hope this answer helps.
565:
702:
familiar with the concepts and jargon of a subject without having to read in depth, as well as with the parent-offspring relationships between a subject's subtopics.
1036:
928:
referenced articles, they can reasonably be expected to be improved eventually, and useful work that already exists does not have to be done later. Cheers, · · ·
1247:
1110:
identify what it is. A dog is a canine which is a mammal which is an animal. Fluid dynamics is a branch of physics which is a branch of science. And so on.
171:
218:
713:
Outlines are also frequented by users who find them useful because they match their learning style; they tend to be hierarchical thinkers who find the
1227:
885:
they're duplicating work for not much practical benefit, but as Peter rightly points out they're a useful way for people to navigate a topic area.
912:
in an article and readers would sometimes need to browse through multiple paragraphs to find information that is a bullet point in the outline.
1232:
17:
1242:
543:
This has been tried before (a few times) to no avail. Academic topics do these to help with see also spam..... sort of like bibliographies.
307:
299:
291:
283:
180:
1222:
857:
not improve, or actually harm, the encyclopedia? Actual objective evidence would make any argument more worthy of consideration. · · ·
743:
Considering most readers don't see or have access to navigation templates these are the only overview navigation tool we have for them.
94:
64:
905:
724:
I hope this explanation has helped show that there would be a net loss to the Web if outlines were removed from it. Sincerely,
495:
487:
456:
407:
787:. Sure enough, no nav templates. Thank you for pointing that out. That makes outlines even more important as navigation aids.
141:
39:
88:
1083:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
1164:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
149:
184:
1131:
1127:
That the exception is not included in the
Outlines guideline, is an oversight. Thanks for bringing attention to this.
983:
791:
728:
635:
387:
237:
503:
415:
320:
1191:
seems to suggest that those outlines should be linked from their actual entries. I agree with the reasoning at
694:
Knowledge (XXG) itself is incomplete, yet it is incredibly useful, which also applies to the outline system...
45:
1070:
841:
1196:
1174:
886:
804:
646:
593:
1029:, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best lists on Knowledge (XXG). The
1006:
952:
932:
876:
861:
815:
472:
368:
1192:
1188:
1142:
101:
83:
433:
pretty much only requires citations for quotes, BLP stuff, and things that are challenged. Similarly,
1044:
890:
499:
411:
354:
1035:
has been archived.This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may
364:
If "What is X" or some other formulation works better far a specific outline, try it and see. · · ·
1149:
1100:
918:
454:
176:
1204:
1118:
1025:
975:
963:
441:
not that they are cited in the article. Obviously we aim for better, but nothing in our policies
326:
491:
1181:
406:
was moved to draft over not having references, and there is a discussion about this choice at
1052:
1003:
949:
929:
873:
858:
812:
682:
469:
365:
322:
264:
909:
446:
442:
1040:
350:
179:. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the
1099:
headings should not be phrased as a question. Does this perhaps not apply to outlines? —
915:
751:
714:
606:
551:
464:
451:
1039:
to appear on the Main page as Today's featured list. Keep up the great work! Cheers,
889:
sees roughly 75 views per day or ~27k views per year which is about 3 times more than
434:
430:
1216:
1200:
324:
1096:
1090:
1048:
970:
227:
163:
135:
76:
58:
1208:
1152:
1136:
1103:
1056:
1009:
988:
955:
944:
935:
922:
879:
864:
834:
818:
808:
796:
778:
755:
745:
733:
678:
674:
667:
655:
640:
625:
621:
610:
600:
586:
574:
561:
555:
545:
537:
525:
507:
475:
458:
419:
392:
371:
358:
1199:
accordingly, but wanted to double-checking that I am not missing anything.
1017:
598:
would know more. I take it that you mean both outlines and indexes correct?
564:, looking through the CENT archives, the most recent thing I could find is
482:
At what size should statement-lacking-outlines be converted into templates?
847:
in an outline also helps show where short descriptions can be improved.
998:
be. Were there any interesting insights into what a featured outline
490:
has shifted, as another user has not challenged my assertion that
98:, a collaborative effort to improve outlines on Knowledge (XXG).
994:
Nice piece of work, and it is a good example of what an outline
784:
175:, a collaborative effort to organise and monitor the impact of
1141:
P.S.: For further information about headings in outlines, see
327:
258:
21:
496:
User talk:CASSIOPEIA/Archive 25#Outline of Catholic canon law
488:
User talk:CASSIOPEIA/Archive 25#Outline of Catholic canon law
408:
User talk:CASSIOPEIA/Archive 25#Outline of Catholic canon law
226:
1002:
include or exclude that came up in the discussions? · · ·
349:
of thing is X" and if so what is the reasoning. Thanks.
1095:
Pinging you about the "What is a lichen?" heading. Per
100:
For guidance on building and maintaining outlines, see
1143:
Knowledge (XXG):Outlines#Section headings in outlines
1238:
Mid-impact WikiProject Knowledge (XXG) essays pages
1023:Congratulations, MeegsC! The list you nominated,
404:User:CanonLawJunkie/Outline of Catholic canon law
962:We now have an outline that is a featured list:
437:requires that sources demonstrating notability
429:aren't absolutely required to have references.
38:does not require a rating on Knowledge (XXG)'s
399:Do outlines absolutely need to have references
8:
1148:That's a lot, that's a very helpful answer.—
785:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/Political_science
1173:Just a quick question: I have noticed that
979:has been elevated to featured list status.
706:and where they can be discovered by others.
244:on pageviews, watchers, and incoming links.
1187:links for the lower level outlines, while
130:
53:
18:Knowledge (XXG) talk:WikiProject Outlines
1248:WikiProject Knowledge (XXG) essays pages
199:WikiProject Knowledge (XXG) essays pages
132:
55:
1069:The following thread was copied from
7:
1079:The following discussion is closed.
111:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Outlines
92:. Outlines are within the scope of
27:
25:
44:It is of interest to the following
193:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Essays
183:. For a listing of essays see the
172:WikiProject Knowledge (XXG) essays
14:
568:. Is there anything more recent?
169:This page is within the scope of
89:Knowledge (XXG):Contents/Outlines
1160:The discussion above is closed.
1016:
906:Category:Branches of linguistics
750:
605:
550:
263:
162:
148:
134:
75:
57:
26:
1243:NA-Class Knowledge (XXG) essays
1228:NA-importance Outlines articles
948:those standards. Cheers, · · ·
956:07:05, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
936:06:57, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
923:21:16, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
880:02:51, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
865:02:34, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
819:02:34, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
797:01:47, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
756:23:28, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
734:21:44, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
668:13:23, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
641:08:54, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
611:23:39, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
587:23:32, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
556:23:25, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
538:22:39, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
476:01:15, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
372:03:01, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
311:(October 20 2009—April 4 2018)
1:
1233:WikiProject Outlines articles
1063:Heading phrased as a question
114:Template:WikiProject Outlines
1153:21:34, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
1137:21:26, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
1104:19:57, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
1057:00:25, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
1010:04:35, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
989:01:36, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
393:05:06, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
213:This page has been rated as
1195:and would be happy to edit
196:Template:WikiProject Essays
1264:
1223:NA-Class Outlines articles
15:
1209:17:13, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
1169:Outline links in outlines
510:01:31, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
459:21:15, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
420:16:00, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
234:
212:
157:
70:
52:
1162:Please do not modify it.
1081:Please do not modify it.
811:'s comments above.· · ·
514:Deprecation of outlines?
508:16:58, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
359:02:17, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
102:Knowledge (XXG):Outlines
1071:Talk:Outline of lichens
1197:Outline of mathematics
1175:Outline of mathematics
887:Outline of linguistics
717:of outlines intuitive.
238:automatically assessed
231:
219:project's impact scale
177:Knowledge (XXG) essays
1032:nomination discussion
236:The above rating was
230:
891:Category:Linguistics
447:disambiguation pages
303:(October 19—20 2009)
95:WikiProject Outlines
295:(October 5—18 2009)
287:(April—August 2009)
82:This article is an
1119:Outline of lichens
1082:
1026:Outline of lichens
976:Outline of lichens
964:Outline of lichens
486:The discussion at
232:
40:content assessment
1132:The Transhumanist
1080:
984:The Transhumanist
805:The Transhumanist
792:The Transhumanist
729:The Transhumanist
665:
653:
647:The Transhumanist
636:The Transhumanist
594:The Transhumanist
584:
572:
535:
523:
388:The Transhumanist
333:
332:
312:
304:
296:
288:
257:
256:
253:
252:
249:
248:
245:
129:
128:
125:
124:
117:Outlines articles
1255:
1186:
1180:
1135:
1094:
1020:
987:
921:
846:
840:
795:
782:
754:
748:
732:
686:
666:
663:
662:
660:
651:
639:
629:
609:
603:
597:
585:
582:
581:
579:
570:
554:
548:
536:
533:
532:
530:
521:
391:
328:
310:
302:
294:
286:
267:
259:
235:
201:
200:
197:
194:
191:
166:
159:
158:
153:
152:
151:
146:
138:
131:
119:
118:
115:
112:
109:
79:
72:
71:
61:
54:
31:
30:
29:
22:
1263:
1262:
1258:
1257:
1256:
1254:
1253:
1252:
1213:
1212:
1184:
1178:
1171:
1166:
1165:
1128:
1088:
1085:
1065:
1060:
1059:
1021:
1004:Peter Southwood
980:
967:
950:Peter Southwood
930:Peter Southwood
913:
874:Peter Southwood
859:Peter Southwood
844:
838:
813:Peter Southwood
788:
776:
744:
725:
715:tree structures
672:
656:
654:
650:
632:
619:
599:
591:
575:
573:
569:
544:
526:
524:
520:
516:
500:Epiphyllumlover
484:
470:Peter Southwood
412:Epiphyllumlover
401:
384:
366:Peter Southwood
342:
329:
323:
272:
198:
195:
192:
189:
188:
185:essay directory
147:
144:
116:
113:
110:
107:
106:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1261:
1259:
1251:
1250:
1245:
1240:
1235:
1230:
1225:
1215:
1214:
1170:
1167:
1159:
1158:
1157:
1156:
1155:
1140:
1139:
1126:
1125:
1123:
1122:
1116:
1115:
1112:
1111:
1086:
1077:
1076:
1075:
1074:
1064:
1061:
1022:
1015:
1014:
1013:
1012:
966:
960:
959:
958:
941:
940:
939:
938:
882:
868:
867:
854:
849:
848:
842:annotated link
830:
829:
828:
827:
826:
825:
824:
823:
822:
821:
800:
799:
765:
764:
763:
762:
761:
760:
759:
758:
723:
722:
719:
718:
712:
711:
708:
707:
704:
703:
700:
699:
696:
695:
693:
692:
690:
689:
617:
616:
615:
614:
613:
566:this from 2011
515:
512:
483:
480:
479:
478:
461:
400:
397:
396:
395:
375:
374:
341:
334:
331:
330:
325:
321:
319:
316:
315:
314:
313:
305:
297:
289:
278:
277:
274:
273:
268:
262:
255:
254:
251:
250:
247:
246:
233:
223:
222:
211:
205:
204:
202:
167:
155:
154:
139:
127:
126:
123:
122:
120:
80:
68:
67:
62:
50:
49:
43:
32:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1260:
1249:
1246:
1244:
1241:
1239:
1236:
1234:
1231:
1229:
1226:
1224:
1221:
1220:
1218:
1211:
1210:
1206:
1202:
1198:
1194:
1190:
1183:
1176:
1168:
1163:
1154:
1151:
1147:
1146:
1144:
1138:
1134:
1133:
1120:
1108:
1107:
1106:
1105:
1102:
1098:
1092:
1084:
1073:
1072:
1067:
1066:
1062:
1058:
1054:
1050:
1046:
1042:
1038:
1034:
1033:
1028:
1027:
1019:
1011:
1007:
1005:
1001:
997:
993:
992:
991:
990:
986:
985:
978:
977:
972:
965:
961:
957:
953:
951:
946:
943:
942:
937:
933:
931:
926:
925:
924:
920:
917:
911:
907:
902:
897:
892:
888:
883:
881:
877:
875:
870:
869:
866:
862:
860:
855:
851:
850:
843:
836:
832:
831:
820:
816:
814:
810:
806:
802:
801:
798:
794:
793:
786:
780:
775:
774:
773:
772:
771:
770:
769:
768:
767:
766:
757:
753:
747:
742:
741:
739:
735:
731:
730:
716:
684:
680:
676:
671:
670:
669:
661:
659:
648:
644:
643:
642:
638:
637:
627:
623:
618:
612:
608:
602:
595:
590:
589:
588:
580:
578:
567:
563:
559:
558:
557:
553:
547:
542:
541:
540:
539:
531:
529:
513:
511:
509:
505:
501:
497:
493:
489:
481:
477:
473:
471:
466:
462:
460:
457:
455:
453:
448:
444:
440:
436:
432:
428:
424:
423:
422:
421:
417:
413:
409:
405:
398:
394:
390:
389:
381:
377:
376:
373:
369:
367:
363:
362:
361:
360:
356:
352:
348:
340:of thing is X
339:
335:
318:
317:
309:
306:
301:
298:
293:
290:
285:
282:
281:
280:
279:
276:
275:
271:
266:
261:
260:
243:
239:
229:
225:
224:
220:
216:
210:
207:
206:
203:
186:
182:
178:
174:
173:
168:
165:
161:
160:
156:
143:
140:
137:
133:
121:
105:
103:
97:
96:
91:
90:
85:
81:
78:
74:
73:
69:
66:
63:
60:
56:
51:
47:
41:
37:
33:
24:
23:
19:
1172:
1161:
1130:
1114:subsections.
1097:MOS:HEADINGS
1087:
1078:
1068:
1030:
1024:
999:
995:
982:
974:
968:
900:
895:
790:
737:
727:
657:
634:
576:
527:
517:
485:
438:
426:
402:
386:
379:
346:
343:
337:
269:
214:
170:
99:
93:
87:
46:WikiProjects
36:project page
35:
1193:WP:Outlines
1189:WP:Outlines
1037:nominate it
688:outlines...
683:Pbsouthwood
1217:Categories
1041:Giants2008
969:Thanks to
901:Outline...
803:I endorse
721:consensus.
351:Alduin2000
215:Mid-impact
181:discussion
145:Mid‑impact
16:See also:
1150:Alalch E.
1101:Alalch E.
465:Wugapodes
452:Wugapodes
308:Archive 4
300:Archive 3
292:Archive 2
284:Archive 1
1201:Felix QW
1182:See also
919:a·po·des
492:WP:STAND
443:requires
427:articles
270:Archives
108:Outlines
65:Outlines
896:Outline
681:, and
217:on the
84:outline
1091:MeegsC
1049:FACBot
1047:) via
1000:should
971:MeegsC
910:WP:DUE
240:using
190:Essays
142:Essays
42:scale.
710:page.
463:What
439:exist
378:What
336:What
34:This
1205:talk
1177:has
1053:talk
1045:talk
973:the
945:Sdkb
916:Wug·
835:Sdkb
809:Moxy
807:and
779:Moxy
746:Moxy
738:--TT
698:not.
679:Moxy
675:Sdkb
658:Sdkb
652:{{u|
626:Moxy
624:and
622:Sdkb
601:Moxy
577:Sdkb
571:{{u|
562:Moxy
546:Moxy
528:Sdkb
522:{{u|
504:talk
435:WP:N
431:WP:V
416:talk
380:type
355:talk
347:type
338:type
242:data
1117:In
996:can
833:Hi
498:.--
410:.--
209:Mid
1219::
1207:)
1185:}}
1179:{{
1145:.
1129:—
1055:)
1008::
981:—
954::
934::
914:—
878::
863::
845:}}
839:{{
817::
789:—
740:)
726:—
677:,
664:}}
633:—
583:}}
534:}}
506:)
474::
418:)
385:—
370::
357:)
1203:(
1093::
1089:@
1051:(
1043:(
781::
777:@
749:-
685::
673:@
645:@
628::
620:@
604:-
596::
592:@
560:@
549:-
502:(
414:(
353:(
221:.
187:.
104:.
48::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
