Knowledge talk:Content assessment/Archive 9

1223:

the ambiguously named topic). Set indexes are lists of topics of the same type that have the same or similar names. Historically, set indexes arose because some projects were attempting to have complete lists for certain types of topics; for example, mountains or ships -- regardless of whether each had any existing article that supported the usage and they often want to include additional information such as references and coordinates. These points put them into conflict with disambiguation pages (where the singular purpose is navigation to existing articles). Thus set indexes were a sort of compromise and over time a complex dynamic has developed. In some cases, items in a set index that have an existing article are also included on a disambiguation page along with a link to the set index for any additional non-article information. This is usually the case when the potentially ambiguous title is an exact match. In other cases, all that appears on the disambiguation page is a link to the set index. This is usually the case where the ambiguity is a partial match, such as with surname lists or ship indexes or lists of storms. But there are exceptions to both. And complicating matters, some editors have a tendency to convert disambiguation pages to a set index simply because the topics are all of the same type (for example, films or novels that have the same title). These are indistinguishable from disambiguation pages and in my opinion would be better off as disambiguation pages. I'd argue that if a set index article has no potential to be further developed into a list-type article, in most cases it should be a disambiguation page rather than a set index.

2187:, I would actually explicitly advise against pondering a split - adding yet another click to the workflow of readers looking to navigate to all those biographies would make it that much worse for them. The average reader most likely wouldn't care much if e.g. the section on people had an introductory paragraph about the name. For some reason we have a bit of an extremist approach to disambiguation lists, as if there's something holy about keeping them sequestered from set indices, which is not actually proven to be particularly useful AFAICT. There's plenty of content dispute potential already in item selection, captions and ordering of disambiguation lists, so adding a part which would actually be governed by standard content rules is unlikely to create much of an extra maintenance burden. Likewise, the disambiguation itself all too often devolves into huge laundry lists that make quick and easy navigation an illusion anyway, so a bit of extra length is unlikely to cause readers to be any more unhappy about the list length than they already are. -- 2819:. This has to be taken on a case-by-case basis to do what is best for the content and the readers of it. Various surname articles contain considerable encyclopedic information and should not be converted into DAB pages that just provide a list of names and throw away verifiable information on the name's history, etymology, distribution, etc. Nor, when such a page includes that information and also includes a list of notable people by that surname, should they be split into a spearate surname article and surname disambiguation page without a good reason. A good reason might be that the encyclopedic content is quite long impeding the ability of the page to serve a disamgibiguation navigation function, or the list of notables is very long, dwarfing the non-list content of the article; or both. When both the list and the non-list content are are short, then "ain't broke, don't 'fix' it". 438:

a few more days to sort out but I look forward to further reactions. I must say that the concept of SIA is completely new to me and I have difficulty in seeing how it differs from Disambig. I see that SIA is defined as "A set index article (SIA) is a list article about a set of items of a specific type that also share the same (or similar) name." whereas "Disambiguation in Knowledge is the process of resolving conflicts that arise when a potential article title is ambiguous, most often because it refers to more than one subject covered by Knowledge, either as the main topic of an article, or as a subtopic covered by an article in addition to the article's main topic." In my opinion, these can seldom be clearly distinguished as problems, for example, with a given surname frequently lead to more exhaustive listings of all those associated with the same name. We may start with

2516:. In other cases, a single page would be too long or would break our rules for any possible format – perhaps it has both a referenced etymology making it ineligible as a dab and a list of places etc. making it ineligible as a name SIA. Then we need two (or more) pages, raising the question of which to put at the base name. The name itself is rarely a primary topic by our usual rules. However, there is still a case for putting the name page at the base name for navigational reasons – it leaves the reader who lands naively at the base name just one click away from each person so named and two clicks away from each other meaning, rather than vice versa if the dab were at the base name. However, I don't think we have a policy or guideline that puts that case or advises when it is strong enough to award the unqualified title to a name page. 351:

with unassessed importance. I have encountered three articles so far and left messages on their talk pages noting that they are not disambiguation pages. Unfortunately, I don't fully understand the SIA concept, and I wonder if the issue is that other editors are not using them appropriately in some cases. However, I can see that these articles are needed and that they are easily confused with being disambiguation pages. I have put discussion notes on the tak pages in the hope that this might provoke a discussion around the page being considered a SIA or a disambiguation page on a case by case basis. -

1125:. This makes it difficult to see which articles on this or similar wikiprojects actually need assessing. As the moment, there appear to be 56 articles on this wikiproject alone which require assessment as a result of problems related to digambiguation. I hope we can soon reestablish a situation under which it will be possible to ensure all articles in a given wikiproject have an acceptable class assessment. There does not seem to be much interest here in furthering discussion. Is there another forum where it could be addressed or are we likely to have to cope with the problem indefinitely?-- 3756:. Readers outnumber writers by a thousand to one. No substantial changes were made. (I disagree about comprehensiveness not being checked thoroughly, but you have to be a subject expert to do so. Military History articles usually get this at A class.) There were a lot of changes that I characterised as barely rising to minor edit status, such as deleting white space and reordering parameters within templates, or adding or removing unused ones. There was a fruitful debate about the subject's name, however, which resulted in some small but satisfying changes. 2614:, and the hiding of which was invalidated by community RfC and TfD before the MoS section existed). That section exists because pre-collapsed content is an accesibility and usability problem. Nothing in that guideline can be taken to suggest that sections of the main content of such a page can be auto-collapsed (it says quite the opposite), just because the purpose of the page or section within it is primarily navigational (otherwise "See also" would always be pre-collapsed, and so would the content of all disambiguation pages, and the content of 2753:, many of the entries could reasonably be expected to be titled as simply "Hermann" in the absence of any other article that might share the same name. From the earliest stages of Knowledge, disambiguation developed as a means to resolve article titling conflicts. Disambiguation pages and hatnotes are the primary means of providing navigation between such potential conflicting titles. Over time, disambiguation pages have seen an accretion of other aspects, becoming something more like an index or an annotated search function. 600:

there to be agreement that a surname list is a disambiguation page regardless of whether it contains any prose or references. If the prose and references are absent, that only means that list article is unreferenced and is at best a stub class article. As for other types of set index articles, I'd have to review examples to better understand why they exist (in many cases, I'd agree that they would be better off as disambiguation pages, but I know that other editors would likely have different opinions).

461:

page does not always easily equate to a disambiguation page. However, there are some editors who arbitrarily convert disambiguation pages to set indexes without any reason that I can see, so there are also many set indexes that are indistinguishable from disambiguation pages. As far as assessment goes, I know virtually nothing about its whys and wherefores. I've no idea why there is any need to have any assessment at all disambiguation pages. I'm not sure about SIAs -- some projects such as

2627:"Other methods of hiding content should not be used". The only mention of navigation anywhere in that section is this: "Auto-collapsing is often a feature of navboxes. ... If information in a list, infobox, or other non-navigational content seems extraneous or trivial enough to inspire pre-collapsing it, consider raising a discussion on the article (or template) talk page about whether it should be included at all." That right there already addresses the "information overload" issue. 31: 2595:. The difference here is that this style guideline refers to "article content". Navigation lists aren't typical article content, their main function is typically different. They're not trying to tell a coherent story and impart deep knowledge, where hidden spoilers would be unhelpful gimmicks; they're mainly trying to accomplish successful navigation, and information overload is a known issue. -- 1200: 912:. And "disambiguation" is not really an assement class (there is no content in them that needs assessment and they do not fit into the assment scale by their very nature of being non-articles). The tools using assesment classes need a means to exclude pages that are not articles, instead of including every mainspace page within a category, but that means is probably not a 3688:, which is policy, includes "Editors are asked to take particular care when editing a Featured article; it is considerate to discuss significant changes of text or images on the talk page first." Perhaps a version of this could be used? Eg 'Significant changes to featured articles should be made with care and should usually be discussed on the article's talk page first'? 1086:. Neither has a banner shell intro and the individual wikiprojects in each have class=disamb but both are still listed as unassessed. It would be helpful if articles like these could be considered assessed until such time as we have made further progress on the matter. It is tiresome and unproductive to be confronted with more and more of these every day.-- 974:

cannot be used for banner shell ratings, then it may be useful to restore it in individual wikiproject ratings but I'm not sure whether this would be considered acceptable. Maybe it's possible to draw up a list of all disamb-type articles (whether strictly disamb or not) in order to try to work out a sensible solution.--

2248:. Disambiguation pages are a navigational tool, like a hatnote, but on a separate page because there is too much to put in a hatnote. That is all, nothing more. Nothing should go on a disambiguation page that would not go in a hatnote, if the options were few enough to use that as the navigation device instead. 1390:, it includes people, places and organizations. My preference would be to continue to call it a disambiguation page as that is no doubt how it originated. I don't think we can expect the average editor to understand the fine distinctions described above. For me, the current explanation of Disambiguation in 1395:

disagreements between linguists on whether we should prioritize the functionality or formality of language. If we go for functionality, the best solution for the new banner shell may be to accept the common understanding of disambiguation, whatever the formalists believe would be the correct approach.--

4461:

has 2,190 such redirects. Is there an automated tool that can remove importance parameters from all redirect pages for an individual project? Or is there another way to tidy this up, say by programmatically collating them in the NA column without the work of removing the importance parameter? Thanks.

2626:

in lengthy articles on complex topics that have been split. It's quite clear: "Collapsible templates should not conceal article content by default upon page loading. This includes reference lists, tables and lists of article content ...", the last of these being exactly what we're talking about here.

2544:

Yeah, if we have all these various types, as well as broad concept articles, templates and whatnot, we should be able to define a hybrid type and apply it judiciously. In fact this reminds me of how we sometimes have articles with various tables or navigation templates that have a button next to the

1878:

Wait, why wouldn't you want Random to send readers to disambiguation pages? I honestly never would have guessed that it avoids some types of pages over others, after decades of occasional use. Also, what does the banner shell do differently about disambiguation pages again? I suppose I must have seen

1543:

Could we copy whatever we do to check GA and FA tagging? GA tags do appear occasionally on articles which seem to have had no review, perhaps because someone starts an article by copy-pasting from a GA on a similar topic and reducing to boilerplate without remembering to remove the GA tag. I assume

437:

I would have liked to associate several of the more active new page reviewers with this discussion but as Xtools is not responding, I cannot identify those who most frequently use class Disambig. I have therefore posted an item on the talk page of WP Disambiguation. I am sorry to hear this might take

4203:

Thank you for your response. The reason I ask is that I am a paid Knowledge editor and I have been working for a while on the 'Smart City' article. My work is nearly done and I am not under any obligation to change the rating of the article. However, from my personal interest in the communication of

2492:

The problem is that the existing paradigm is formulated in a way that precludes any practical combinations, which causes this whole "You're holding it wrong!!1!" problem to happen. The rules are fine for most cases but haven't actually been updated to match the practical reality of reader navigation

2440:

A few instances of someone misusing a term/template/category/title to brand something a set-index article when it is really a disambiguation page (or vice versa, and I've run into cases of that) does not mean that "the set index versus disambiguation list paradigm is probably doing us a disservice";

613:

Well if you can't easily differentiate them, then I don't know how we can expect other, less experienced, editors to. It is something that confuses many editors, so we should endeavour to clarify the distinction. And if we are not able to, then we might question whether there should be a distinction

3494:

Not sure if my experience is representative, but that's not the way I interpreted that wording when I was a newb in 2009. I distinctly remember holding off on some needed changes to featured articles because I thought featured=complete. In any case, that language is wrong no matter which way it was

2511:

Let's go back to first principles. The problem occurs when we have a term which is a name (with a list of people sharing that name) and the term also has other meanings, often as a placename. In some cases, we can list the people, places, etc. on one page. That page should be a dab rather than a

2441:

it just means there are a few instances of someone misusing a term/template/category/title to brand something the wrong kind of page. It is never a principle here that some small number of well-meaning (or even otherwise!) people not following rules or documentation means that the system is broken.

1778:

often have magnitudes more traffic than lists and/or etymologies themselves, so it's logical to treat them as part of the navigation system of the encyclopedia. If we say we don't want set indices, and instead want either disambiguation lists or stand-alone lists, what's the practical difference? --

1505:

I just removed A class from well over 100 articles where someone decided to tag the article as A Class without doing the required formal review. It's too easy for this stuff to go unnoticed and its very time consuming to track down. Should there be some sort of edit filter that flags such edits for

365:

Thanks Cameron, I largely agree with your comments. Disambiguation pages are already classified automatically as Disambig-class. Set index articles, should get an assessment and I think List-class is the most appropriate for them. It might be possible to automate that too, if people agree. It seems

302:

Ah, okay. So it's just... a full fleshed out list article of things that have similar names and are about a similar concept. If it's not functionally a list article then it's still a disambiguation, which is I think where people got confused. Well then I guess quite a lot of SIA articles need to be

4173:

Articles ought to be assessed for importance either when the WikiProject banner is added, or soon after. Some get left unassessed for years. Once assessed, it should rarely change unless something significant happens - for example, a politician who had been serving at a purely local level might be

3575:

Maybe, "Continuous improvement, including both minor and major revisions, is encouraged to ensure articles remain current and comprehensive. While major content additions may focus on significant updates or the emergence of new information, contributors are urged to engage in ongoing refinement to

2462:

It suggests a disservice because those discussions are evidence of how the distinction between these types of pages are causing editors confusion. A clearer system would mean fewer contentious discussions. How much simpler it would be if we could have one disambiguation page for Baldwin, including

2150:

or could easily be modified to do so without significant loss of content or usability. Other SIAs would not be suited to the dab format, for example a surname page containing a detailed etymology with references and a navbox of similar names, such as Smith translated into many languages. A third

1222:

In principle, the distinction is simple. Disambiguation pages distinguish between topics that could have the same article title (note that this does not necessarily mean they have a standalone article -- but it does require that there is an existing article that has some relevant information about

1157:

I check this and other wikiprojects each day to see if there have been any significant changes. Let's hope there's something to show over the next day or two. Don't know what you mean by "a null edit will immediately refresh the category". I hope you mean by this that the disambig articles will no

1021:

since it is now clear that there is no quick solution to this problem. (However the banner shell will not accept this - it has always been a quality only assessment, so this is not a long-term solution.) In my opinion, the only solution is to reclassify these pages as the disambiguation pages they

631:

Perhaps you missed the 'automatically' qualifier. We can yammer away all we want here and perhaps come to some agreement. But that makes little difference in that the majority of the pages that do not have a disambiguation template will need some sort of manual assessment to determine whether they

599:

I meant there is no easy way to automatically differentiate them to alleviate the issue related to assessment. Beyond that, this page here is not the right forum to make any sort of binding determinations about what is or is not a set index, disambiguation page, or list article. I would not expect

460:

There has historically been confusion about the distinction. My take is that SIAs exist to allow greater flexibility with regards to the inclusion of redlinks, references, external links, and other details that would typically be considered extraneous on a disambiguation page. As such, a set index

258:

I agree with that in theory but what is a "proper" SIA supposed to look like? Are there any? If there are, what percentage of the 100,000 existing SIA articles are actual SIAs? I don't think it's very many. I think I reassessed 10 or so and all of them looked identical to Disamb pages. Not a large

204:

The thing about this that bugs me is that when I'm re-assessing SIAs that were previously classed as disambiguation they show up as unknown importance instead of NA importance (since list class uses importance: i could manually give them NA importance but this is the worst of both worlds). I kinda

4357:

In the chemotherapy article there is an incorrect structure for the reaction of a nitrogen mustard compound with guanine. The correct structure is available at A. Polavarpu, et al., "The Mechanism of Guanine Alkylation by Nitrogen Mustards: A Computational Study," Journal of Organic Chemistry, 77

1777:

I'm not sure what the implication of this question really is. Human naming practices naturally resolve ambiguity so there is an inherent disambiguation quality to anthroponymy lists. We also know from statistics that these lists are frequented by readers, and we know that biographies they link to

920:

one that means "ignore this page for assessment purposes". But even that is probably not the best way to do it, since it's dependent on everyone understand that such a parameter exists and using it properly. And there is no content-quality assessment purpose is distinguishing not-applicable pages

675:

Further -- I mean, if you want to discuss how to assess these things -- sure, this is the right place. But if you want to discuss what makes something a disambiguation or set index or something else and perhaps make changes to how these are categorized that may have other downstream ramifications

350:

are being distinguished from them. If a page is a disambiguation page then the applicable disambiguation template should be used on it. But if that template is changes to a SIA one, then the page needs reassessment. Perhaps automate the assessment as a list, as you suggest in option 3, above, but

156:

I do not agree that these are "because the page is not actually a disambiguation page". The vast majority of those I have came across clearly are. Until some reliable way has been found to decide which are not strictly speaking disambiguation pages, I strongly suggest we should maintain disambig,

3721:

I think this should be removed or replaced (like Gog the Mild's suggestion). Even FA's comprehensiveness requirement is not a statement that no content additions could improve the article. Indeed the FA process doesn't often ensure this (though many nominators do), as comprehensiveness is rarely

3660:

been true?? The example article Cleopatra has had many content additions since it was first featured in 2018. How much more information has become available about Jesus Christ in the last decade since Jesus was featured? Apparently 94 kilobytes worth, or almost double the length from when it was

2784:

Disambiguation is a subtype of navigation. I've never liked the D word – it's almost never used outwith Knowledge, and I doubt that most readers seeing it for the first time will know what it means (though it's easily guessed). However, we do need a term of art for a page which lists different

973:

I keep coming across more and more articles which look to me more like disambiguation pages than lists and which are therefore now considered to be unassessed. I'm also worried about having removed class=disamb from quite a number of articles and assessing them in banner shell as list. If disamb

2902:

There has been decent explanation above about what separates Set Index Articles from disambiguation (where appropriate), but less clear is what separates them in essence from other lists (which can and do include contextual information to explain the list) and why this difference is significant

1265:

defines them as "a set of items of a specific type that also share the same (or similar) name" -- what do you see as significantly different in what I described? Lists of people with the same surname have been distinct from disambiguation pages for a very long time. They might even pre-date set

1039:

Before I consider posting any comments, a question to those struggling with the distinction between dab pages and SIAs – do you have enabled, in your user Preferences, the gadget to "display an assessment of an article's quality in its page header"? I don't so much struggle with the distinction

366:

to me that SIAs currently fall into two groups: ones which should actually be classified as disambiguation pages, and ones which are list articles. I do not really see the benefit of having a separate classification for SIAs, and the term "set index" seems to be used only on Knowledge. — Martin

2713:

would ever be expected to have their article titled as simply "Hermann". These are nothing more than partial title matches. The same is true of surname lists, although to a lesser extent as it is somewhat more common to refer to a person by their surname only, especially after context has been

3133:

says "a good article loses its status when promoted to a featured article. Accordingly, demoted featured articles are not automatically graded as good articles and must be reassessed for quality". Why should losing FA status, also mean it loses GA status? The criteria are different. — Martin

1409:

Yes, sort of. Set indexes and some lists do provide a disambiguation-like function, though they also provide other article-like functions as well. Disambiguation pages are singularly non-articles that provide navigation to content in existing articles. They aren't directories and there is no

4181:

Unless the same person carries out all of the assessments, there will be variation (one person's Stub-Class might be another's Start-Class); but the higher up the quality scale you go, the variation should be lessened - this is particularly so of FA-Class, where several people carry out the

3376:

No, it is not a self-published source. Also, its an edited work. Some citations indicate he was the editor, some the author. Its a compilation of primary source materials from the history pre 1919 of intentional communities in the US. It was one in a series published by F.E. Peacock, a an

853:

Precisely as I mentioned. The surname list is a partial title match, not a full disambiguation match. There is a long history to this, and it is not something that can be changed in a discussion by a small group of editors on a backwater page that has little if any direct connection to the

3919:

all project banners should be displaying a consistent rating (with a few exceptions of projects who have opted out). Yes, A-class is accepeted by the banner shell so if A-class is correct, then this should ideally be placed in the banner shell. Then the conflict will be resolved. — Martin

1394:

provides a straightforward explanation of how editors should cope with names which occur in two or more articles. What happens to their pages thereafter should not lead to reassessment requiring List rather than Disambig as a result of wider coverage. The discussion here reminds me of the

2268:

I'm not sure how this statement is helpful here, as even hatnotes typically have descriptive captions, and they have ordering, and there's differences in opinions between people about what should and shouldn't be in a hatnote. The problem of how to describe ambiguity to the readers isn't

581:

Well let's try and reach some agreement on what features would identify an SIA compared with a dab page. The main thing I would be looking for prose: I would expect a decent lede, and at least a few sentences for the description of each item. I might also expect some structure (sections,

891:

Also, I reverted largely because there have been previous discussions that have determined set indexes are not disambiguation pages and there is no reason to make such a change based on a discussion here that has little or nothing to do with that template or the associated wikiprojects.

2283:

BTW, amusingly enough, hatnotes themselves are far from a settled matter in the topic of anthroponymy. Apparently we've been having discussions about how to handle foreign naming convention hatnotes and failing to reach consensus since at least 2011, which I last noticed last year in

1817:

It seems like the definitions don't matter here as such, rather the real question is do we want to prefer formatting things in a concise manner or not at the base title? IOW we could have a guideline that says that the current Dodge Charger article content goes to a title like

3972: 1964:

I believe that SIAs still serve that purpose today. Even back in 2007, there was some discussion about requiring "List of" in the title. The way the guideline developed is that if there is a DAB and a SIA with overlapping names, then the SIA must begin with "List of".

3471:

Interpretations may hinge around the word "necessary". To become an FA an article theoretically "neglects no major facts or details" and "is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature". If these points are true, then no further additions may be

1717:) should be classified as disambiguation pages, because their purpose is purely to disambiguate between different terms of the same name. These pages are not articles in any way, for example they have no content nor references. The description and examples given at 3971:. There is no accepted process to demote these articles. I feel these ratings should not be inherited by the banner shell. I have also boldly removed A-class from a few dozen cyclone articles where the only "review" appears to have been some conversations on IRC. 1795:

is the canonical example of a SIA. It's a list, but it's a list made of sections and paragraphs rather than bulleted list items, so it doesn't look like a list in the same way that the examples at the top of this section look like lists. I have wondered whether

1139:

It should be resolved by the job queue in due course, or a null edit will immediately refresh the category. I'm still planning to start an RFC. I think this page is a suitable forum, as it is directly related to how pages are assessed on Knowledge. — Martin

2077:

in the same way just because someone might in the future come along and write an article about the name Herman. The current page does not contain content and its purpose is to disambiguate between different articles, so we should classify it as a dab page

2766:

I would be comfortable in calling all these pages "navigation pages". That might have been a better choice of word from the beginning. But I'm not sure the general community would see enough benefit in changing the title to make it worthwhile. — Martin

550:

That's now what I'm saying. Real SIAs need to be treated differently and should be assessed (probably with List-class). But there seem to be many many SIAs which are dab pages in all but name, and these should be reclassified appropriately. — Martin

4177:

Articles are assessed for quality (class) whenever somebody feels like it, provided that the old and new classes are both within the scale unassessed/stub/start/C/B. But for GA/A/FA, you need to make your case for regrading, one person can't do it

412:

I'm unsure if you're responding to me or Ipigott (given you mentioned surnames to them) but that is a grey area for sure. It has article content more so and it doesn't seem to be attempting to be a comprehensive disambiguation so I'd lean article.

4084:

and classifying accordingly? The rationale is that these types of pages have a common purpose which is to guide readers to the article they are looking for. Real SIAs (with content and references) will be properly treated as Lists, but pages like

2530:

Yes, exactly. If the direction is to collapse the distinctions between disambiguation, set indices, and other superficially similar pages, they shouldn't be called "disambiguation" pages, but something more generic such as "navigation" pages.

3125:

When a good article is delisted, I would expect it to be given a rating of B-class by default, as it is the next rating down in the scale. But apparently it is common practice to remove the rating altogether and wait for it to be reassessed.

100:

parameter. An unanticipated consequence of this, is that a lot of pages which were previously rated as Disambig-class are now appearing as unassessed. In most cases, this is because the page is not actually a disambiguation page. It may be a

2394:

Okay, so the next question is how to do it because the template's categorisation automatically classifies them as SIA. So either we need to change the template or to remove that template from those pages (and any others like them) — Martin

205:

wish SIAs were either entirely their own thing or an alias for Disambiguation instead of list because having to give them importance assessments when they have virtually no content is weird. I don't mind reassessing them though.

3274:

I’m wondering if articles that exhaustively cover all information available in the relatively few sources should be designated start-class for their length, or higher because they don’t have any gaps or areas needing expansion.

1463:. I think it would be nice if that was the case like it is with the way disambs work, because as is I can't assess these as anything. Or maybe they should have something else done with them. Whatever people think is the best. 1721:

make it clear that SIAs should have some actual content, in much the same way as standalone-lists. It is not really clear to me why we need a separate type of article for SIA because "list" seems to cover it nicely. — Martin

632:

might perhaps be a disambiguation rather than a set index. And whatever agreement we might come to here could well later be questioned by the projects with set indexes that have no interest monitoring in this backwater page.

3198:

The MilHist Project had a problem with articles losing their GA or FA ratings on grounds other than article quality and the project decided that an A-class rating should be retained pending a A-class review by the project.

2714:

established. I could perhaps see creating some sort of superset category of "navigational pages" that included both disambiguation pages and set indices, but I don't think calling them all disambiguation pages is helpful.

2545:

caption which then uncollapses that content. I'm pretty sure most readers would be quite happy with making any supplemental information collapsible, be it a name etymology or any kind of a long tail in a long list (like

3966:

I'm wondering if there needs to be a universal process for demoting obviously bad A-class articles. For example WikiProject Biography halted A-class promotions in 2008, but there are still more than a handful of legacy

1850:

include disambiguation pages (because they are not articles). If we don't classify these pages properly then there will be dab pages incorrectly classified as articles. Another example is our content assessment system.

1521:

We could maintain a central list of A-class articles, and the template would only accept the rating if it's on that list. Then editors can watchlist that page or we can add some protection to it. This is similar to how

1352:", or have a verbose description, whereas the description should be kept to a minimum. I suspect that part of the reason why some struggle with the distinction between dab pages and SIAs is that they are used to seeing 1983:

In addition to what hike395 says, some projects use set indices to compile complete lists of a type, regardless of whether an article extends (that is, they are not only for navigation to existing articles like dabs).

2167:

would lose nothing much, or be split if we need to keep the existing format. I'm picking on surnames here because examples, good or bad, are easy to search for, but the points apply equally to other types of SIA.

1956:

was reverted very quickly. As a compromise, we came to consensus on the idea of a Set Index Article, which were allowed to be list articles that could also serve a disambiguation function. SIAs do not have to obey

3233: 2950:

is not a SIA. "Set index article" may not have been the best choice of term: US presidents form a "set", our list of them is an "article", but presumably it's not an "index" because its entries differ in name.

1198:

In connection with all this and the increasing confusion between disambiguation and set index articles, it seems to me to be increasingly important to update explanations of disambiguation, in particular in the

2223:

AFAICT it can already be done. There are no incoming links to it. If a tree falls in the forest... I mean... if we replace a boilerplate template at the very bottom of the list, will anyone actually notice? :)

947:

for non-article pages, as all non-articles are now rated automatically. Disambiguation pages are the hardest to detect automatically, and that is what prompted the discussion above. We have lots of pages which

1576:

GA and FA are tracked in three separate areas: the article page categories, the talkpage categories, and central listings. If there is a discrepancy between these three areas, the article will appear at eg.

2727:

But that is exactly what they are doing: disambiguating! It's for people who are trying to find an article including the term Hermann. Perhaps they can't remember the other part of the name. If you look on

489:: There is no need for assessment of disambiguation pages. Until now they were simply disambig with importance=NA. But now they are being listed as unassessed and we are being told to assess them as List.-- 3499:

necessary for an article to keep its featured article status (And of course here I'm not just talking about new information becoming available). A featured article when I started would be a B class today.

1240:. For example, that page says "being a set of a specific type means that the members of the set have some characteristic in common, in addition to their similarity of name". But what else do people called 4039: 2609:

I made that shortcut work, too; weird to have MOS:HIDE and MOS:DONTHIDE both working, but not the same for COLLAPSE. Anyway, the guideline doesn't have anything to do with spoilers (which are covered by

2146:. Set index articles (SIA) collect entries with both a common property and a common name, such as people sharing a surname. Many SIAs could equally be dabs; they are simple lists which happen to obey 241:. Looking at the information on that page, it is clear that an SIA is supposed to be a list article rather than a dab page. Perhaps a lot of these SIAs should actually be disambiguation pages. — Martin 3456:, which only says it must neglect "no major facts or details", is a "thorough and representative survey", and "its content does not change significantly from day to day". Recommend removing this line. 3028:

I'm coming round to the idea of calling all these pages "navigation pages". They all serve the same purpose and then we don't need to worry about distinguishing between these different terms — Martin

2163:

seem to have morphed into dabs by acquiring significant numbers of entries which do not share the common property (of being people, in this case). They should be converted to dabs if conforming to

2349:

to happen - where most outgoing traffic is to biographies, but one semi-random one happens to be in the first list while the others are relegated to being behind the extra layer of bureaucracy. --

4219: 867:

Well if they're showing up now all these pages were already rated Disamb, which is a problem, no? We're having to give importance assessments to pages that have virtually no unique content.

1426:). In terms of assessment, the list of people with the surname Jones is pretty straightforward, so long as it is limited to people with existing articles. However, IMO a list article like 3706:

a change to the effect of what Gog has sketched here. I think there's a kernel of a good idea in the current wording, but as phrase it isn't correct and is potentially quite unhelpful.

1803:

I'm not sure that the SIA designation is super helpful. We could perhaps just eliminate the designation, and then adjust various other systems to include former SIA-designated pages.

3241: 833: 282: 4308:

There is no such article. In any case, if you feel that an article's rating is inconsistent with its content, you should bring that matter up at the talk page of the article itself. --

3237: 2917:

Exactly. The current set of SIAs fall into two groups: ones without content, which should really be dab pages. And ones with content that could quite easily be called lists. — Martin

1742:, the RFC question contains three questions. "Yes" is not a valid answer to the second one. Maybe this RFC should be treated as a request for actual comments, and not yes/no votes. 4477:

Yes we could automatically rate these as NA and ignore the specified importance (as long as there was consensus for this). Then there would be no need to remove them all — Martin

3377:

established academic press specializing in the social and behaviorial sciences. It was bought out in 2002 by a national corporation, Wadsworth Thompson, that is still operating.

1893:

As the practical effects of these implications seem to be a matter of a dozen lines of Lua and/or PHP code to accommodate either way, this appears to be fairly inconsequential. --

1074:: The two of us seem to at least be reaching a degree of agreement on this matter. I don't really understand what you meant when you said you had "added back the functionality of 4080:

that we could treat SIAs (with links but no content) and disambiguation pages as one by considering them as "navigation pages". What do people think about introducing this as an

503:

What was the basis for that change? I don't see how that change in assessments should lead to a significant alteration in the distinction between disambiguation and set indexes.

3602:

to have anything? If we decide that we can't just leave it blank, then maybe the FA and FL could both say something like "May need to be updated with more recent information".

3006:. That page states that Lists of lists are not SIAs (makes sense, they are not items with a shared name), but Lists of lists appear to still be classified as SIAs; for example 3859:

is simultaneously an A-class and B-class article. It is an A class in the banner shell, but is also a B-class Russia article (To be fair, this article is more like C class.)

1915:

Include me in the list (or set?) of people who don’t understand why those examples aren’t dab pages, or what the point of labelling some articles as set index articles is.

4223: 3844: 3384:"Belmont-based Wadsworth, affiliated with software and information provider The Thomson Corp. (NYSE: TOC), purchased F.E. Peacock Publisher Inc. for an undisclosed sum." 2512:

list or SIA, because nothing is common to all of its entries except a shared title. If such a page is currently not a dab, the solution is to convert it, as we did with

836:, all of which are like list-type articles. How does Mondino fit with this style? Most people on this page seem to agree that Mondino is a disambiguation page. — Martin 1336:

need disambiguating, because each article title includes a unique forename or surname. Point 3, many, many dab pages are malformed, in that they are not compliant with

4111:

are not disambiguation pages, despite some superficial similarities. It is a list of people who share a name, not a list of articles that could be titled as "Hermann".

1861:

is designed to automatically detect disambiguation pages; however it will not detect the pages above because they are classified incorrectly (in my opinion). — Martin

4005:

A-Class, and are not there either by accident or by legacy. So I would oppose any demotion that does not involve clearing each article individually with MILHIST. --

2934:

An SIA is a list whose entries have similar names. SIAs and non-SIA lists share other characteristics such as contextual information. Our list of people called

2882:, unpipe a few piped links, etc.) then the page is ripe for conversion. If we'd have to throw away useful content, references, etc. to shoehorn the article into 3843:

is simultaneously an A-class and GA-class article. It is a GA class in the banner shell, but because it is an A-class biography article, it is categorized as an

4329: 1300: 4231: 3050: 72: 67: 59: 1378:

Thanks for these explanations. What I am still rather confused about is the validity of using Disambig as a class rating. I can see it clearly applies to

4458: 4204:

smart city information to the general public and to see the article be improved, I was wondering when/if an article like this might be reviewed again?

3540:

No further content additions should be necessary unless new information becomes available; further improvements to the prose quality are often possible.

3414:

No further content additions should be necessary unless new information becomes available; further improvements to the prose quality are often possible.

1003:

have been triggered by the disamb problem. If it is not sorted out soon, I will not longer be in a position to carry out further article assessments.--

3446: 2840:

Articles containing considerable encyclopedic information are not "such a page". My suggested rule of thumb is that if the page already almost obeys

3616:

Simply deleting the Editing suggestions column is an option your thought prompted. What does it add that is not in Criteria and Reader's experience?

4234:. Note that only the first of these has a formal request procedure - for the others you should start a new thread on the talk page that I linked. -- 3853:

is simultaneously an A-class and GA-class article. It is an A class in the banner shell, but is also a GA-class Classical Greece and Rome article.

3153: 2095:

which is categorised as a "set index article template", so it is impossible to reclassify any of them without changing this template. — Martin

2041:— do we really want to turn that into a disambiguation page, and remove all the information about the name itself? The same for surnames like 1431: 3996: 3394: 1040:

between the two types of pages, but I have long had the gadget enabled. It helps me, but I wonder whether some of you don't have it enabled.

2648:

Exactly, and because we have no systematic way to stop including ambiguous items in disambiguation lists, this just doesn't apply. Where we

4359: 999:: Until recently I have been able to assess all the articles on projects such as WP:Italy. You can see that the large majority of the 104 3990: 3968: 3453: 2205:

but we should redesignate it as a dab. Lists of twelve places and three companies have no place in a surname article. Compliance with

520:

which need a quality and possible an importance assessment. Disambiguation pages are not articles and do not require a rating. — Martin

4001:

banner; now, it is (fairly) well known that MILHIST have a formal A-Class review process, so it's likely that any A-Class biogs really

4438: 4227: 3576:

enhance both content and presentation, recognizing that the nature of featured articles implies a commitment to continual relevance."

2688:

with a hatnote that says something like "This is an etymological article about the name Hermann. For people named Baldwin, please see

1596: 1578: 1391: 1204: 1159: 1122: 3122:

I have discovered some strange and surprising practices by editors when articles are delisted as good articles or featured articles.

3803: 3775:

Gog the Mild's proposed change. The current wording could easily scare a new editor away from making constructive changes to an FA.

2830: 2638: 2581: 2452: 2382: 2327: 2285: 1423: 932: 746:

meets the definition of a disambiguation page, but does not meet the definition of a set index article. If this is a typical use of

121:

again. This would rate them all as Disambig-class again, but would ignore the issue that they are not actually disambiguation pages.

47: 17: 1286:

these are can be included on a disambiguation page where there are only a few, but are otherwise put over to a separate name list.

943:

Agree with most of that. (Had trouble parsing your last sentence.) We have made some progress recently in eliminating the need for

2120:

thank you for the background. Do you think the SIA classification is helpful on the three examples I provided initially? — Martin

3877:

has passed a GA review and is an A class in the banner shell. This one is not categorized as having conflicting quality ratings.

4218:

I would say that you should not assess the article yourself, but may request assessment by leaving a request at one or more of:

3684:: As a FAC coordinator and having successfully nominated several articles at FAC the current wording looks like nonsense to me. 1933:--- I was part of the discussion in 2007 that set up the SIA concept. The idea came out of a tension between two good impulses: 239:

a set index article (or SIA) lists things only of one type, and is meant to provide not only navigation, but information as well

3874: 1952:

The problem in 2007 was that editors who are fanatic about (1) prevent any development of lists in (2), because deviation from

1078:" but it has had no effect on the listing of unassessed articles. The first two items on the WP Italy list mentioned above are 786:

Every disambiguation page on this website is a list of items which share a common name. Why do you think people are different?

182: 1937:

Disambiguation pages should have as little formatting as possible to make it easier for readers to find the correct page, and

2414:

Some more recent examples of how the set index versus disambiguation list paradigm is probably doing us a disservice are at

1823: 2368: 4378: 3670: 3538:

This RFC proposes the removal and replacement of the statement in the Featured Article editing suggestions that reads, "

3161: 2423: 1718: 1669: 1624:

That's a point, the relevant category is produced by the GA tag/article history template, not the Wikiproject template.

1427: 1415: 1237: 347: 4279: 4174:

elected to a national position, following which their importance for politics might be raised from low/mid to mid/high.

1879:

that effect before but I can't remember what it is. Automatic type=disambig is there, but automatic type=list isn't? --

127:

Automatically identify set index articles and treat them as List-class. This is more in line with current behaviour as

109:

these page have "been OK for years and now suddenly need attention". So we could discuss how to deal with these pages.

2415: 1673: 1430:

is slightly problematic in that it is completely unreferenced. How do we know that there actually is a locality named

462: 102: 4291: 3314:

Absolutely it is higher; if it "exhaustively covers all information available" it is very likely to be a B at least.

3476:

in order for an article to be "a definitive source for encyclopedic information", although they may as mentioned be

1940:

Some WikiProjects wanted to create list articles about topics with the same name, including comparative data (e.g.,

1945: 1604: 829: 645:

This is the central page for Knowledge article assessments, with 495 editors watching. Hardly a backwater — Martin

278: 38: 3332:

Got it. How can I request reassessment? I think some of my Start-designated articles should be rated differently.

662:

Perhaps not a backwater, but apparently not a lot that know much of anything about disambiguation or set indexes.

124:

Decide to treat set index articles the same as disambiguation pages and automatically rate them as Disambig-class.

3708: 3068: 2002: 1920: 1819: 1117:

Yes, I realize they both show Disambig but the problem is that they still show up as unassessed, for example on

3398: 3301: 3003: 2689: 2681: 2139: 1826:

while the former title gets a much more concise disambiguation list, which also links to the longer article. --

1665: 1523: 1341: 1337: 1054:

Yes I do. That will display the current classification of the page, which is what we are questioning. — Martin

4363: 4072:

Knowledge talk:Content assessment/Archive 9 § Pages rated as Disambig-class which are not disambiguation pages

3752:

Gog's proposed change, but not outright removal. Last year a large number of readers and editors descended on

3170:

I have always thought it was weird that losing GA class does not automatically mean an article loses A class.

185:. I don't really understand why we make the distinction, because in many cases, they look the same. — Martin 4442: 3957: 3666: 3621: 3485: 3189: 3157: 3076: 3019: 2908: 2857: 1629: 1586: 1118: 1000: 443: 285:. I think they would all comfortably fit under List-class, and an importance would be relevant too — Martin 3975:

got a few public comments in 2006, but still remains rated A-class even after failing a GA review in 2011.

1756:

Sure - all comments will be welcome. I just thought a direct question would be helpful initially. — Martin

1266:

indexes. I don't recall. People with a surname, unless they are commonly known by the surname alone (e.g.,

1022:

rightly are. As this has proven difficult, I am planning to open an RfC to gauge opinion shortly. — Martin

4047: 3980: 3905: 3885: 3693: 3635: 3607: 3589: 3562: 3547: 3519: 3505: 3461: 3381: 3223: 3175: 3086: 3046: 3011: 3007: 2615: 1808: 1747: 1567: 1511: 356: 4303: 4287: 4038:

problematic WP:WPBIO articles that are not under the MILHIST umbrella can be put up for review using the

2811:

I don't agree with "If such a page is currently not a dab, the solution is to convert it, as we did with

3800: 2947: 2827: 2635: 2578: 2449: 2379: 2324: 1236:

The problem is that you seem to have a rather unique definition which is not backed up by the guideline

929: 4489: 4471: 4446: 4432: 4417: 4393: 4367: 4344: 4335: 4320: 4295: 4260: 4246: 4213: 4194: 4161: 4146: 4126: 4101: 4051: 4017: 3984: 3948: 3932: 3909: 3889: 3863: 3826: 3808: 3784: 3767: 3743: 3714: 3697: 3674: 3639: 3625: 3611: 3593: 3566: 3551: 3523: 3509: 3489: 3465: 3402: 3359: 3348:

Whether it exhaustively covers the subject or not, it cannot be B class unless it is fully referenced.

3341: 3327: 3309: 3284: 3255: 3227: 3210: 3193: 3179: 3165: 3146: 3107: 3080: 3062: 3040: 3023: 2991: 2977: 2960: 2929: 2912: 2895: 2835: 2794: 2779: 2761: 2744: 2722: 2704: 2665: 2643: 2604: 2586: 2562: 2539: 2525: 2502: 2483: 2457: 2435: 2407: 2387: 2369:

Knowledge talk:Disambiguation#Should the section on Incomplete Disambiguation be deprecated or revised?

2358: 2332: 2297: 2278: 2263: 2233: 2218: 2196: 2177: 2132: 2107: 2064: 2006: 1992: 1977: 1924: 1902: 1888: 1873: 1835: 1812: 1787: 1768: 1751: 1734: 1688: 1633: 1619: 1590: 1571: 1553: 1538: 1515: 1494: 1472: 1442: 1404: 1365: 1311: 1294: 1256: 1231: 1216: 1171: 1152: 1134: 1112: 1095: 1066: 1049: 1034: 1012: 983: 964: 937: 900: 876: 862: 848: 815: 802: 781: 768: 737: 684: 670: 657: 640: 626: 608: 594: 576: 563: 545: 532: 511: 498: 473: 455: 422: 407: 378: 360: 337: 312: 297: 268: 253: 228: 214: 197: 166: 150: 537:

And how does this justify changing set index articles to be treated the same as disambiguation pages?

3822: 3726:

often possible as this is one of the most heavily scrutinised parts of the FA process. An example of

2886:

then it's probably unsuitable for replacement by a dab, though splitting may still be a good option.

2684:. If in the future, someone writes an article about the etymology of the name, then this could go at 2308:

All three of the examples given by OP are and should be tagged as DAB pages. For the difference, see

1998: 1916: 1797: 1597:

Knowledge:Good articles/mismatches#In a subcategory Category:GA-Class articles but not a good article

1468: 872: 418: 308: 264: 224: 210: 3071:

available in preferences, but as my parenthetical notes I'm not sure what the technical trigger is.

2709:

The problem is that this fundamentally alters what disambiguation means. Very few of the entries at

2463:

people and other uses. I can't see any benefit in having a separate page for people called Baldwin (

1434:

in Kekhotsky Selsoviet of Kholmogorsky District? Or have we been trolled by someone making sh*t up?

4389: 4316: 4242: 4190: 4118:

be distinguished from other similar pages? Is it a manual assessment? If so, what is being gained?

4013: 3780: 3291: 2419: 2089: 1701: 807:

None of the people are known as just "Mondino" (excepting cases where the context is established).

114: 93: 4256: 4209: 4157: 4142: 3943: 3880:

If an article has been assessed as A-class by one project, should the banner shell say likewise?

3840: 3762: 3753: 3617: 3481: 3354: 3337: 3280: 3250: 3205: 3185: 3072: 3015: 2904: 2876: 2653: 1997:

Thank you both for the explanation. It does still feel like a simplification should be possible.

1625: 1582: 1410:

expectation of 'completeness' with regards to non-Knowledge content (e.g., a disambiguation page

1279: 1262: 3154:

Knowledge talk:Good articles/Archive 15#RFC about assigning classes to demoted Featured articles

820:

That is a rather obscure distinction if you don't mind me saying. The three primary examples at

4076:

Just following up on this issue, which is still presenting problems. There was a suggestion by

2049:, these again are a class of things, and can properly be referred to and discussed as a class. 4123: 4043: 3976: 3901: 3881: 3856: 3727: 3689: 3631: 3603: 3585: 3558: 3543: 3515: 3501: 3457: 3442: 3323: 3219: 3171: 3104: 2758: 2719: 2611: 2536: 2070: 2042: 2038: 1989: 1973: 1804: 1743: 1563: 1507: 1479: 1439: 1400: 1308: 1291: 1228: 1212: 1167: 1130: 1091: 1008: 979: 921:

into subclassifications of not-applicable like "disambiguation", "redirect", "category", etc.

897: 859: 812: 778: 681: 667: 637: 605: 573: 542: 508: 494: 470: 451: 352: 162: 2269:

automagically resolved by any sort of an appeal to an imagined purity of navigation lists. --

790:

is a list of places called Mondonville. Mondino is a list of people called Mondino. — Martin

3795: 3736: 3318:. It is highly unfortunate that most assessors seem to use that as their primary criterion. 3058: 2987: 2956: 2891: 2848: 2822: 2790: 2630: 2573: 2567: 2546: 2521: 2489: 2444: 2374: 2319: 2258: 2214: 2173: 2059: 1711: 1549: 924: 750: 718: 175: 3408:"No further content additions should be necessary unless new information becomes available" 4428: 4374: 4031: 3850: 3818: 3685: 3430:

since it was first featured in 2018. How much more information has become available about

3373:

Fogarty, Robert. (1972). American Utopianism. Itasca, IL: F. E. Peacock Publishers, Inc.

2941: 1559: 1464: 1100:

They are both showing as Disambig-class to me. You might need to purge the page? — Martin

952:

like disambiguation pages but are not currently classed as disambiguation pages. — Martin

868: 414: 304: 260: 220: 206: 3238:

Knowledge talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 163#A-class articles delisted from GA

2018:. This hammers a variety of square pegs into a single round hole. Anthroponymy pages are 3184:

A-class is used infrequently enough that I doubt this oddity has much practical impact.

2337:

BTW that would also make more obvious the question - what would be the point of keeping

1676:

on Knowledge, and is the concept of a set index article useful to the project? — Martin

4484: 4467: 4413: 4405: 4382: 4326: 4309: 4235: 4200: 4183: 4108: 4096: 4086: 4006: 3927: 3916: 3776: 3141: 3130: 3093: 3035: 2972: 2924: 2774: 2739: 2732:

you will see that most of those entries are not just called "Hermann" either. — Martin

2710: 2699: 2685: 2550: 2478: 2464: 2402: 2338: 2127: 2102: 2029:

contain cited content on the origins and incidence of the name. Obviously not everyone

2023: 1868: 1843: 1763: 1729: 1683: 1653: 1614: 1562:," as a GA. Maybe whoever reverts can kindly share their process please and thank you? 1533: 1489: 1361: 1251: 1147: 1107: 1061: 1045: 1029: 959: 843: 797: 763: 732: 652: 621: 589: 558: 527: 402: 373: 332: 292: 248: 192: 145: 4381:. Please express your concerns at the talk page for the specific article concerned. -- 3873:

as to whether A class should be inherited by the banner shell. Some do - for instance

3129:

Also, you might expect a delisted featured article to become A-class or GA-class. But

1356:

dab pages, which SIAs resemble more than they resemble guideline-compliant dab pages.

1344:

are quite commonly included when they shouldn't be. And many pages do not comply with

773:

No, Mondino is not a disambiguation page. It is a list of people who share a surname.

4252: 4205: 4168: 4153: 4138: 4081: 4071: 3938: 3896: 3757: 3579: 3349: 3333: 3276: 3245: 3215: 3200: 2866: 2661: 2621: 2600: 2570:. It's fine if the content is collapsible as long as it is not collapsed by default. 2558: 2498: 2431: 2354: 2309: 2293: 2274: 2229: 2192: 2082: 2074: 2046: 1898: 1884: 1855: 1831: 1792: 1783: 1661: 1460: 854:

disambiguation project or any of the other wikiprojects with associated set indexes.

825: 821: 274: 234: 3242:

Knowledge talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators#Napoleon and A-class status

1451:

Can the soft redirect templates also make a page automatically assess as a redirect?

4220:

Knowledge:WikiProject Urban studies and planning/Assessment#Requests for assessment

4119: 4077: 3431: 3319: 3100: 2754: 2715: 2592: 2532: 2117: 1985: 1969: 1941: 1456: 1435: 1396: 1345: 1304: 1287: 1224: 1208: 1163: 1126: 1087: 1004: 975: 893: 855: 808: 774: 722: 677: 663: 633: 601: 569: 538: 504: 490: 466: 447: 171:

Most of the examples you gave on my talk page are set index articles. When you use

158: 106: 3234:

Knowledge talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/Archive 19#Academy errors

1846:

you will be taken to a random article. This may include lists and SIAs but should

2785:

meanings of the same term, which is just one of many ways to navigate Knowledge.

446:. It certainly seems to be disambiguation but falls into the definition of SIA.-- 4457:

A redirect page needn't have an importance parameter, but many do. For example,

3731: 3054: 2983: 2952: 2887: 2786: 2656:, we basically screwed up and did it in a way that actively harms navigation. -- 2517: 2346: 2249: 2210: 2169: 2050: 1545: 1411: 1283: 787: 486: 46:

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

3436:

94 kilobytes worth, or almost double the length from when it was first featured

4424: 4341: 4332: 1379: 157:

disamb, etc., as valid BS classes which will not be rejected in assessments.--

4027: 4023: 3870: 2073:

is an article with encyclopedic content. But I think it is wrong to classify

1017:

Thanks for your patience with this. I've added back the functionality to add

325:

on the template, and then this should automatically sort itself out — Martin

4480: 4463: 4409: 4092: 3923: 3423: 3137: 3031: 2968: 2920: 2770: 2735: 2695: 2474: 2398: 2123: 2098: 1864: 1759: 1739: 1725: 1679: 1610: 1529: 1485: 1357: 1271: 1247: 1143: 1103: 1071: 1057: 1041: 1025: 996: 955: 839: 793: 759: 728: 648: 617: 585: 554: 523: 398: 369: 343: 328: 288: 244: 188: 141: 3290:

Yes. If it covers all information, it's probably higher than start though.

2142:. Disambiguation pages (dabs) collect entries with a common name, such as 1581:. A-class articles are currently only tracked through talkpage categories. 1320:

have in common (in addition to their similarity of name) is that they are

2657: 2596: 2554: 2494: 2427: 2350: 2289: 2270: 2225: 2209:

would need only simple changes which won't obstruct the reader's search.

2188: 2160: 1894: 1880: 1827: 1779: 1668:

on Knowledge? These randomly chosen examples are currently classified as

1267: 1079: 346:

I like the idea of automated assessment of disambiguation pages and that

3557:

Should be removed for the reasons listed above. But replaced with what?

2367:

a compelling reason. There's a long discussion of this kind of thing at

1603:

would show up on that page. They don't currently track subcategories of

3382:

https://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2002/10/07/daily4.html

2883: 2841: 2750: 2729: 2468: 2342: 2206: 2164: 2147: 2143: 1958: 1953: 1657: 1387: 1333: 1329: 1317: 1241: 1083: 743: 96:

was recently changed to automatically rate non-articles and ignore the

1672:. More generally, what is the distinction between SIAs, dab pages and 2156: 1207:, as well as in help pages related to disambiguation and set index.-- 439: 392: 4042:, but I'm not sure how popular this would be with the review team. 3722:

checked thoroughly; conversely, uncontroversial prose improvements

3393:

thanks! I will get an account shortly. Betsy Morris, Berkeley, CA

3010:. (I'm not sure why they are classified as SIA, is it somewhere in 1303:

for more on name articles and name lists vs. disambiguation pages.

4137:

How often are articles graded and do they vary between articles?

3388: 2935: 2812: 2513: 2202: 2184: 2152: 1842:

There are many possible implications. For example, when you press

1419: 1383: 1275: 3270:

Start-class designation for exhaustive articles on obscure topics

2749:

What you describe is navigation, not disambiguation. On the page

2244:– there is a fundamental misunderstanding of what disambiguation 1244:

have in common apart from the similarity of their name? — Martin

676:

beyond assessments -- then this is not the right place for that.

2138:

Lists collect entries with a specified common property, such as

582:

subsections), and some references to reliable sources. — Martin

88:

Pages rated as Disambig-class which are not disambiguation pages

4251:

thank you very much! I wasn't considering doing that myself :)

3370:

I'm requesting/suggesting 2 changes to the current Reference.

2242:

we have a bit of an extremist approach to disambiguation lists

2037:

solely as "Hermann" in the literature of their field. Compare

1382:

as several different people have the same name, but how about

25: 2680:

Much simpler to put all the disambiguation on one page (e.g.

756:

then I think it should be a disambiguation template — Martin

465:

might make some use of such assessments, but I couldn't say.

3366:

Reference correction to Fogarty, Robert, American Utopianism

2347:

https://wikinav.toolforge.org/?language=en&title=Hermann

2345:, if they're exact same type of list? All the while causing 1422:

at present is absolutely a disambiguation page and is not a

3412:

FA class says under "Editing suggestions" for FA articles:

3152:

As I mentioned on my talk page, the relevant discussion is

1697:, these three pages (and most other pages which transclude 1324:, and not, for example, ships – if there was a ship called 3937:

Agreed. A-class should be inherited by the banner shell.

1544:

someone or something spots them and makes them go away.

105:(which is a slightly different concept). In the words of 4340:

I think that was what the dude above was trying to say.

3434:

in the last decade since Jesus was featured? Apparently

3316:

Assessing based on length alone should always be avoided

2652:

apply a method of removing some of the ambiguous items,

2618:

short summaries of other "side" articles linked to with

1432:

Matveyevskaya, Kholmogorsky District, Arkhangelsk Oblast

1332:

SIA for people. Point 2, none of the articles listed at

834:

List of ships of the United States Navy named Enterprise

721:

into a disambiguation page template but was reverted by

283:

List of ships of the United States Navy named Enterprise

3435: 3427: 1194:

Need for improving explanations of disambiguation pages

4373:

Your comment is off-topic for this page, which is the

3866:

of A-class articles with conflicting quality ratings.

3817:

something along the lines of what Gog is proposing. –

2316:

not mistakenly-tagged SIAs are useful to the project.

4030:

of A-class articles that don't fall under MILHIST or

1478:

Yes that makes sense. That would require a change to

395:? It has a bit of article and a bit of dab. — Martin 3218:, do you remember where that discussion took place? 2371:; I don't think it's come to a firm resolution yet. 4089:would be classified as a navigation page. — Martin 4224:Knowledge talk:WikiProject Artificial Intelligence 2286:Template talk:Family name hatnote#Extraneous links 1968:Hope this helps explain the background of SIAs. — 3441:Depending on how much free time you have and how 1350:the title of the article alone will be sufficient 1316:Point 1, the characteristic that the articles at 219:Reading this again I think 2 is the best option. 3232:It has been our policy since at least 2009. See 1961:, but can develop into list articles naturally. 568:OK, but there is no easy way to identify these. 3118:Surprising practices when delisting GAs and FAs 2844:and conversion would be as simple as replacing 4404:Pls can someone help in assessing the article 4152:do they vary between genres/topics/categories 3495:intended to be interpreted. Content additions 4453:Redirects with unneeded importance parameters 4282:has a B rating, but I keep finding citations 3085:Agree that it shouldn't be. It may be due to 2965:Why don't we call them all "lists"? — Martin 1261:Erm, perhaps I made a slight paraphrase, but 317:I totally agree. I think you can just change 8: 4330:Visa requirements for United States citizens 4026:that are not under the MILHIST banner. Also 3963:? It does not support "| currentstatus = A". 2940:(although most visitors will be looking for 1501:Safeguards against drive-by A-class tagging? 1414:has no pretense of being a listing of every 1348:, as their entries have a description when " 1301:Knowledge:WikiProject Anthroponymy/Standards 4286:to the detail they claim to be supporting. 4232:Knowledge talk:WikiProject Computer science 2817:as an across-the-board, no-brainer approach 4459:User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/New Zealand 3514:I think that this needs to be re-written. 181:it automatically adds the hidden category 4107:The core of the issue is that pages like 3480:with granular/minor information/details. 3002:Another point of confusion appears to be 4377:for discussing improvements to the page 3989:I just picked some pages at random from 3845:Article with conflicting quality ratings 4116:Real SIAs (with content and references) 3067:It is displayed as such by the default 4115: 3665:... and were the additions necessary? 3539: 3413: 2241: 1824:List of cars marketed as Dodge Charger 1600: 1349: 1075: 1018: 944: 917: 913: 909: 322: 318: 128: 118: 97: 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 1201:For multiple meanings: Disambiguation 7: 3991:Category:A-Class biography articles 3837:I've got a head-scratcher for you. 2903:enough to merit its own page type. 2862:and making other minor tweaks (add 2467:) and other things called Baldwin ( 1386:(currently classed Disamb)? Unlike 259:sample size but not a great start. 4228:Knowledge talk:WikiProject Systems 3099:with parameter 'type = setindex'. 2982:We do. SIA is a subtype of list. 1579:Knowledge:Good articles/mismatches 1328:, it would not be included in the 1160:Category:Unassessed Italy articles 1123:Category:Unassessed Italy articles 303:reclassed as disambiguation then. 24: 4280:Visa Requirements for US citizens 4275:B-class when citations are wrong? 1931:Explanation of Set Index Articles 1424:list of people with surname Jones 1278:) are partial title matches. Per 18:Knowledge talk:Content assessment 4353:Chemical structure is incorrect. 3422:been true?? The example article 2201:I agree that we shouldn't split 29: 4024:a handful of biographical pages 3875:Talk:Boeing B-52 Stratofortress 3790:Gog the Mild's version is good. 3389:https://www.thefreelibrary.com/ 2690:Hermann (disambiguation)#People 2085:, like all such articles, uses 183:Category:All set index articles 2591:I think you wanted to link to 1: 3827:23:12, 11 February 2024 (UTC) 3793: 3447:always add more to an article 2820: 2628: 2571: 2442: 2372: 2317: 2045:. As for chemical terms like 1392:Knowledge: The Missing Manual 1205:Knowledge: The Missing Manual 922: 908:Set-index articles should be 516:Well, set index articles are 4379:Knowledge:Content assessment 4133:Content assessment frequency 3997:WikiProject Military history 3809:09:52, 28 January 2024 (UTC) 3785:12:33, 22 January 2024 (UTC) 3768:23:45, 14 January 2024 (UTC) 3744:23:12, 14 January 2024 (UTC) 3715:17:27, 10 January 2024 (UTC) 3698:17:19, 10 January 2024 (UTC) 3675:01:34, 10 January 2024 (UTC) 3640:01:47, 10 January 2024 (UTC) 3626:01:36, 10 January 2024 (UTC) 3403:10:59, 8 February 2024 (UTC) 3360:21:28, 6 February 2024 (UTC) 3342:18:05, 7 February 2024 (UTC) 3328:21:19, 6 February 2024 (UTC) 3310:01:13, 6 February 2024 (UTC) 3285:23:01, 5 February 2024 (UTC) 3256:21:47, 6 February 2024 (UTC) 3228:20:41, 6 February 2024 (UTC) 3211:18:59, 6 February 2024 (UTC) 3194:16:44, 5 February 2024 (UTC) 3180:14:51, 5 February 2024 (UTC) 3166:14:30, 5 February 2024 (UTC) 3147:12:25, 5 February 2024 (UTC) 3108:16:02, 17 January 2024 (UTC) 3081:12:32, 17 January 2024 (UTC) 3063:12:06, 17 January 2024 (UTC) 3041:08:59, 17 January 2024 (UTC) 3024:05:29, 17 January 2024 (UTC) 2992:11:33, 12 January 2024 (UTC) 2795:11:37, 12 January 2024 (UTC) 2780:10:16, 12 January 2024 (UTC) 2666:12:41, 15 January 2024 (UTC) 2644:12:38, 12 January 2024 (UTC) 2605:09:07, 12 January 2024 (UTC) 2503:09:04, 12 January 2024 (UTC) 2424:Talk:Pierre (disambiguation) 1719:Knowledge:Set index articles 1634:09:14, 21 January 2024 (UTC) 1620:08:55, 21 January 2024 (UTC) 1591:08:27, 21 January 2024 (UTC) 1572:23:04, 20 January 2024 (UTC) 1554:20:04, 20 January 2024 (UTC) 1539:09:01, 18 January 2024 (UTC) 1516:03:46, 18 January 2024 (UTC) 1443:17:38, 8 December 2023 (UTC) 1428:Matveyevsky (rural locality) 1416:rural locality with the name 1405:16:27, 8 December 2023 (UTC) 1366:09:01, 7 December 2023 (UTC) 1312:15:50, 6 December 2023 (UTC) 1295:15:40, 6 December 2023 (UTC) 1257:15:22, 6 December 2023 (UTC) 1238:Knowledge:Set index articles 1232:13:31, 6 December 2023 (UTC) 1217:11:52, 6 December 2023 (UTC) 1172:13:08, 6 December 2023 (UTC) 1153:12:51, 6 December 2023 (UTC) 1135:11:49, 6 December 2023 (UTC) 1113:11:39, 4 December 2023 (UTC) 1096:11:34, 4 December 2023 (UTC) 1067:11:21, 4 December 2023 (UTC) 1050:10:38, 4 December 2023 (UTC) 1035:20:36, 3 December 2023 (UTC) 1013:14:59, 3 December 2023 (UTC) 984:11:34, 3 December 2023 (UTC) 965:20:57, 2 December 2023 (UTC) 938:02:26, 2 December 2023 (UTC) 901:16:14, 1 December 2023 (UTC) 877:01:56, 2 December 2023 (UTC) 863:22:27, 1 December 2023 (UTC) 849:21:33, 1 December 2023 (UTC) 816:17:53, 1 December 2023 (UTC) 803:17:19, 1 December 2023 (UTC) 782:16:12, 1 December 2023 (UTC) 769:16:11, 1 December 2023 (UTC) 738:16:09, 1 December 2023 (UTC) 685:01:10, 3 December 2023 (UTC) 671:21:12, 2 December 2023 (UTC) 658:20:16, 2 December 2023 (UTC) 641:19:43, 2 December 2023 (UTC) 627:18:44, 2 December 2023 (UTC) 609:14:40, 2 December 2023 (UTC) 595:13:48, 2 December 2023 (UTC) 577:22:28, 1 December 2023 (UTC) 564:22:18, 1 December 2023 (UTC) 546:17:51, 1 December 2023 (UTC) 533:17:30, 1 December 2023 (UTC) 512:17:04, 1 December 2023 (UTC) 499:16:29, 1 December 2023 (UTC) 474:15:51, 1 December 2023 (UTC) 456:15:38, 1 December 2023 (UTC) 442:but then we soon proceed to 423:14:32, 1 December 2023 (UTC) 408:14:19, 1 December 2023 (UTC) 379:22:15, 1 December 2023 (UTC) 361:21:55, 1 December 2023 (UTC) 338:14:14, 1 December 2023 (UTC) 313:14:06, 1 December 2023 (UTC) 298:14:01, 1 December 2023 (UTC) 269:13:56, 1 December 2023 (UTC) 254:13:51, 1 December 2023 (UTC) 229:13:49, 1 December 2023 (UTC) 215:13:42, 1 December 2023 (UTC) 198:13:45, 1 December 2023 (UTC) 167:13:30, 1 December 2023 (UTC) 151:12:43, 1 December 2023 (UTC) 3833:Conflicting quality ratings 3612:23:47, 9 January 2024 (UTC) 3594:22:34, 9 January 2024 (UTC) 3567:22:17, 9 January 2024 (UTC) 3552:22:12, 9 January 2024 (UTC) 3524:21:50, 9 January 2024 (UTC) 3510:04:09, 9 January 2024 (UTC) 3490:03:53, 9 January 2024 (UTC) 3466:03:36, 9 January 2024 (UTC) 3236:. It has been discussed in 2978:20:05, 9 January 2024 (UTC) 2961:19:10, 9 January 2024 (UTC) 2930:14:37, 9 January 2024 (UTC) 2913:14:07, 9 January 2024 (UTC) 2896:11:19, 9 January 2024 (UTC) 2836:10:51, 9 January 2024 (UTC) 2762:14:52, 9 January 2024 (UTC) 2745:14:36, 9 January 2024 (UTC) 2723:14:00, 9 January 2024 (UTC) 2705:12:43, 9 January 2024 (UTC) 2587:10:51, 9 January 2024 (UTC) 2563:08:41, 8 January 2024 (UTC) 2540:16:41, 7 January 2024 (UTC) 2526:15:17, 7 January 2024 (UTC) 2484:12:39, 9 January 2024 (UTC) 2458:10:51, 9 January 2024 (UTC) 2436:14:09, 7 January 2024 (UTC) 2416:Talk:Boyle (disambiguation) 2408:12:34, 9 January 2024 (UTC) 2388:10:51, 9 January 2024 (UTC) 2359:15:12, 5 January 2024 (UTC) 2333:13:56, 5 January 2024 (UTC) 2298:11:37, 5 January 2024 (UTC) 2279:11:27, 5 January 2024 (UTC) 2264:00:30, 5 January 2024 (UTC) 2234:22:43, 3 January 2024 (UTC) 2219:22:36, 3 January 2024 (UTC) 2197:22:21, 3 January 2024 (UTC) 2178:18:31, 3 January 2024 (UTC) 2133:12:47, 9 January 2024 (UTC) 2108:12:30, 9 January 2024 (UTC) 2065:17:35, 3 January 2024 (UTC) 2007:10:59, 2 January 2024 (UTC) 1993:05:43, 2 January 2024 (UTC) 1978:00:44, 2 January 2024 (UTC) 1925:22:41, 1 January 2024 (UTC) 1903:22:37, 3 January 2024 (UTC) 1889:22:35, 1 January 2024 (UTC) 1874:21:03, 1 January 2024 (UTC) 1836:22:29, 1 January 2024 (UTC) 1820:Index of Dodge Charger cars 1813:20:21, 1 January 2024 (UTC) 1788:19:43, 1 January 2024 (UTC) 1769:20:43, 1 January 2024 (UTC) 1752:20:16, 1 January 2024 (UTC) 1735:17:51, 1 January 2024 (UTC) 1689:17:47, 1 January 2024 (UTC) 1495:18:27, 9 January 2024 (UTC) 1473:16:49, 9 January 2024 (UTC) 916:tag, unless we just have a 463:Knowledge:WikiProject Ships 131:is an alias for List-class. 4506: 4261:18:02, 30 April 2024 (UTC) 4247:17:54, 30 April 2024 (UTC) 4214:09:28, 30 April 2024 (UTC) 4195:08:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC) 4162:12:39, 29 April 2024 (UTC) 4147:12:36, 29 April 2024 (UTC) 4127:10:10, 24 April 2024 (UTC) 4102:10:00, 24 April 2024 (UTC) 4069: 4052:21:06, 21 March 2024 (UTC) 4018:20:48, 21 March 2024 (UTC) 3985:17:15, 21 March 2024 (UTC) 3969:A-Class biography articles 3949:06:49, 21 March 2024 (UTC) 3933:05:04, 21 March 2024 (UTC) 3910:04:57, 21 March 2024 (UTC) 3890:04:57, 21 March 2024 (UTC) 1946:List of peaks named Signal 1605:Category:GA-Class articles 830:List of peaks named Signal 742:To take a random example, 279:List of peaks named Signal 4490:09:11, 11 July 2024 (UTC) 4472:08:50, 11 July 2024 (UTC) 4447:18:23, 24 June 2024 (UTC) 4418:13:27, 5 April 2024 (UTC) 4394:22:30, 11 June 2024 (UTC) 4368:22:23, 11 June 2024 (UTC) 3792:Others already said why. 3534:RfC about FA completeness 3445:you want to get, you can 3069:Knowledge:Metadata gadget 1674:stand-alone list articles 1558:I tagged a random page, " 4433:21:04, 22 May 2024 (UTC) 4345:20:42, 28 May 2024 (UTC) 4336:20:42, 28 May 2024 (UTC) 4321:09:56, 11 May 2024 (UTC) 4296:05:15, 11 May 2024 (UTC) 3049:is a SIA? If it is, it 3004:Knowledge:Lists of lists 2682:Hermann (disambiguation) 2493:in a subset of cases. -- 2140:List of English monarchs 1800:could also become a SIA. 1338:Knowledge:Disambiguation 391:What do you think about 273:The examples quoted are 4358:(14), 5914-5921, 2012. 4182:assessment together. -- 2069:Obviously I agree that 444:Wagner (disambiguation) 3087:Template:List of lists 3047:Lists of English words 3012:Template:List of lists 3008:Lists of English words 2151:group of SIAs such as 2022:disambiguation pages. 4284:completely irrelevant 3667:~~ AirshipJungleman29 3158:~~ AirshipJungleman29 3051:probably shouldn't be 2948:list of US presidents 1342:partial title matches 1340:. E.g., entries with 42:of past discussions. 4400:Sugarhill Ddot -2024 3993:. All of them had a 3728:the bike-shed effect 3710:UndercoverClassicist 2081:The problem is that 1798:Floods in California 1670:"set index articles" 1666:disambiguation pages 4040:MILHIST ACR process 4028:more than a handful 3045:What shows us that 2420:Talk:Baldwin (name) 1648:Request for comment 1526:work now. — Martin 1001:unassessed articles 717:I boldly converted 115:Template:Class mask 94:Template:Class mask 3871:little consistency 3864:213 other examples 3841:Talk:Sam Manekshaw 3754:Robert Oppenheimer 3582:-assisted content) 3452:This goes against 348:Set Index Articles 134:Any other options? 4488: 4100: 3931: 3900: 3857:Talk:Sukhoi Su-25 3583: 3428:content additions 3145: 3039: 2976: 2945: 2928: 2778: 2743: 2703: 2482: 2406: 2131: 2106: 2071:John (given name) 2043:Andrews (surname) 2039:John (given name) 1948:has coordinates). 1872: 1767: 1733: 1687: 1664:be classified as 1618: 1537: 1493: 1480:Module:Class mask 1255: 1158:longer appear in 1151: 1111: 1065: 1033: 963: 847: 801: 767: 736: 656: 625: 614:at all. — Martin 593: 562: 531: 406: 377: 336: 296: 252: 196: 149: 103:set index article 85: 84: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 4497: 4478: 4385: 4312: 4307: 4238: 4186: 4172: 4090: 4066:Navigation pages 4009: 4000: 3962: 3956: 3946: 3941: 3921: 3894: 3807: 3765: 3760: 3739: 3662: 3577: 3357: 3352: 3306: 3298: 3295:~WikiOriginal-9~ 3253: 3248: 3208: 3203: 3135: 3098: 3092: 3029: 2966: 2939: 2918: 2881: 2875: 2871: 2865: 2861: 2853: 2847: 2834: 2768: 2733: 2693: 2642: 2625: 2585: 2568:MOS:DONTCOLLAPSE 2547:Hermann (crater) 2472: 2456: 2396: 2386: 2331: 2256: 2121: 2096: 2094: 2088: 2057: 1862: 1860: 1854: 1757: 1723: 1716: 1710: 1706: 1700: 1677: 1608: 1602: 1527: 1506:further review? 1483: 1245: 1141: 1119:this Xtools page 1101: 1077: 1055: 1023: 1020: 953: 946: 936: 919: 915: 911: 837: 791: 757: 755: 749: 726: 719:Template:Surname 646: 615: 583: 552: 521: 396: 367: 326: 324: 320: 286: 242: 186: 180: 174: 139: 130: 120: 99: 81: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 4505: 4504: 4500: 4499: 4498: 4496: 4495: 4494: 4455: 4402: 4383: 4355: 4310: 4301: 4277: 4236: 4184: 4166: 4135: 4074: 4068: 4007: 3994: 3960: 3954: 3944: 3939: 3851:Talk:Germanicus 3835: 3763: 3758: 3737: 3661:first featured. 3655: 3536: 3410: 3395:135.180.123.159 3368: 3355: 3350: 3302: 3292: 3272: 3251: 3246: 3206: 3201: 3120: 3096: 3090: 2942:Braun (company) 2879: 2873: 2869: 2863: 2855: 2851: 2845: 2619: 2616:WP:SUMMARYSTYLE 2363:Not sure there 2250: 2092: 2086: 2051: 1999:Barnards.tar.gz 1944:has images, or 1917:Barnards.tar.gz 1858: 1852: 1714: 1708: 1704: 1698: 1650: 1560:Talk:Zandspruit 1503: 1453: 1299:Adding on, see 1196: 1076:|class=disambig 1019:|class=disambig 753: 747: 178: 172: 119:|class=disambig 90: 77: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 4503: 4501: 4493: 4492: 4454: 4451: 4450: 4449: 4435: 4406:Sugarhill Ddot 4401: 4398: 4397: 4396: 4360:66.111.123.176 4354: 4351: 4350: 4349: 4348: 4347: 4338: 4276: 4273: 4272: 4271: 4270: 4269: 4268: 4267: 4266: 4265: 4264: 4263: 4179: 4175: 4134: 4131: 4130: 4129: 4114:Also how will 4112: 4109:Hermann (name) 4087:Hermann (name) 4067: 4064: 4063: 4062: 4061: 4060: 4059: 4058: 4057: 4056: 4055: 4054: 3964: 3958:ArticleHistory 3834: 3831: 3830: 3829: 3811: 3787: 3770: 3746: 3719: 3718: 3717: 3679: 3678: 3677: 3656:When has this 3649: 3648: 3647: 3646: 3645: 3644: 3643: 3642: 3596: 3570: 3569: 3535: 3532: 3531: 3530: 3529: 3528: 3527: 3526: 3418:When has this 3409: 3406: 3367: 3364: 3363: 3362: 3346: 3345: 3344: 3312: 3271: 3268: 3267: 3266: 3265: 3264: 3263: 3262: 3261: 3260: 3259: 3258: 3196: 3119: 3116: 3115: 3114: 3113: 3112: 3111: 3110: 3083: 3043: 3000: 2999: 2998: 2997: 2996: 2995: 2994: 2932: 2900: 2899: 2898: 2858:disambiguation 2818: 2809: 2808: 2807: 2806: 2805: 2804: 2803: 2802: 2801: 2800: 2799: 2798: 2797: 2711:Hermann (name) 2686:Hermann (name) 2678: 2677: 2676: 2675: 2674: 2673: 2672: 2671: 2670: 2669: 2668: 2551:Jacob Herrmann 2509: 2508: 2507: 2506: 2505: 2486: 2465:Baldwin (name) 2412: 2411: 2410: 2392: 2391: 2390: 2366: 2339:Hermann (name) 2315: 2305: 2304: 2303: 2302: 2301: 2300: 2281: 2238: 2237: 2236: 2136: 2135: 2113: 2112: 2111: 2110: 2079: 2024:Hermann (name) 2012: 2011: 2010: 2009: 1950: 1949: 1938: 1928: 1927: 1912: 1911: 1910: 1909: 1908: 1907: 1906: 1905: 1844:Special:Random 1840: 1839: 1838: 1801: 1775: 1774: 1773: 1772: 1771: 1654:Hermann (name) 1649: 1646: 1645: 1644: 1643: 1642: 1641: 1640: 1639: 1638: 1637: 1636: 1599:, a misplaced 1541: 1524:vital articles 1502: 1499: 1498: 1497: 1452: 1449: 1448: 1447: 1446: 1445: 1375: 1374: 1373: 1372: 1371: 1370: 1369: 1368: 1326:Pierre Mondino 1297: 1195: 1192: 1191: 1190: 1189: 1188: 1187: 1186: 1185: 1184: 1183: 1182: 1181: 1180: 1179: 1178: 1177: 1176: 1175: 1174: 1069: 1015: 989: 988: 987: 986: 968: 967: 906: 905: 904: 903: 889: 888: 887: 886: 885: 884: 883: 882: 881: 880: 879: 771: 714: 713: 712: 711: 710: 709: 708: 707: 706: 705: 704: 703: 702: 701: 700: 699: 698: 697: 696: 695: 694: 693: 692: 691: 690: 689: 688: 687: 673: 479: 478: 477: 476: 434: 433: 432: 431: 430: 429: 428: 427: 426: 425: 389: 388: 387: 386: 385: 384: 383: 382: 381: 323:|type=disambig 231: 202: 201: 200: 136: 135: 132: 125: 122: 89: 86: 83: 82: 75: 70: 65: 62: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 4502: 4491: 4486: 4482: 4476: 4475: 4474: 4473: 4469: 4465: 4460: 4452: 4448: 4444: 4440: 4436: 4434: 4430: 4426: 4422: 4421: 4420: 4419: 4415: 4411: 4408:? Thank You. 4407: 4399: 4395: 4391: 4387: 4380: 4376: 4372: 4371: 4370: 4369: 4365: 4361: 4352: 4346: 4343: 4339: 4337: 4334: 4331: 4328: 4324: 4323: 4322: 4318: 4314: 4305: 4300: 4299: 4298: 4297: 4293: 4289: 4285: 4281: 4274: 4262: 4258: 4254: 4250: 4249: 4248: 4244: 4240: 4233: 4229: 4225: 4221: 4217: 4216: 4215: 4211: 4207: 4202: 4198: 4197: 4196: 4192: 4188: 4180: 4176: 4170: 4165: 4164: 4163: 4159: 4155: 4151: 4150: 4149: 4148: 4144: 4140: 4132: 4128: 4125: 4121: 4117: 4113: 4110: 4106: 4105: 4104: 4103: 4098: 4094: 4088: 4083: 4082:umbrella term 4079: 4073: 4065: 4053: 4049: 4045: 4041: 4037: 4033: 4029: 4025: 4021: 4020: 4019: 4015: 4011: 4004: 3998: 3992: 3988: 3987: 3986: 3982: 3978: 3974: 3970: 3965: 3959: 3952: 3951: 3950: 3947: 3942: 3936: 3935: 3934: 3929: 3925: 3918: 3914: 3913: 3912: 3911: 3907: 3903: 3898: 3897:User:Hawkeye7 3892: 3891: 3887: 3883: 3878: 3876: 3872: 3867: 3865: 3860: 3858: 3854: 3852: 3848: 3846: 3842: 3838: 3832: 3828: 3824: 3820: 3816: 3812: 3810: 3805: 3802: 3799: 3798: 3791: 3788: 3786: 3782: 3778: 3774: 3771: 3769: 3766: 3761: 3755: 3751: 3747: 3745: 3741: 3740: 3733: 3729: 3725: 3720: 3716: 3713: 3712: 3711: 3705: 3701: 3700: 3699: 3695: 3691: 3687: 3683: 3680: 3676: 3672: 3668: 3664: 3663: 3659: 3654: 3651: 3650: 3641: 3637: 3633: 3629: 3628: 3627: 3623: 3619: 3615: 3614: 3613: 3609: 3605: 3601: 3597: 3595: 3591: 3587: 3581: 3574: 3573: 3572: 3571: 3568: 3564: 3560: 3556: 3555: 3554: 3553: 3549: 3545: 3541: 3533: 3525: 3521: 3517: 3513: 3512: 3511: 3507: 3503: 3498: 3493: 3492: 3491: 3487: 3483: 3479: 3475: 3470: 3469: 3468: 3467: 3463: 3459: 3455: 3450: 3448: 3444: 3439: 3437: 3433: 3429: 3426:has had many 3425: 3421: 3416: 3415: 3407: 3405: 3404: 3400: 3396: 3391: 3390: 3385: 3383: 3378: 3374: 3371: 3365: 3361: 3358: 3353: 3347: 3343: 3339: 3335: 3331: 3330: 3329: 3325: 3321: 3317: 3313: 3311: 3307: 3305: 3299: 3297: 3296: 3289: 3288: 3287: 3286: 3282: 3278: 3269: 3257: 3254: 3249: 3243: 3239: 3235: 3231: 3230: 3229: 3225: 3221: 3217: 3216:User:Hawkeye7 3214: 3213: 3212: 3209: 3204: 3197: 3195: 3191: 3187: 3183: 3182: 3181: 3177: 3173: 3169: 3168: 3167: 3163: 3159: 3155: 3151: 3150: 3149: 3148: 3143: 3139: 3132: 3127: 3123: 3117: 3109: 3106: 3102: 3095: 3088: 3084: 3082: 3078: 3074: 3070: 3066: 3065: 3064: 3060: 3056: 3052: 3048: 3044: 3042: 3037: 3033: 3027: 3026: 3025: 3021: 3017: 3013: 3009: 3005: 3001: 2993: 2989: 2985: 2981: 2980: 2979: 2974: 2970: 2964: 2963: 2962: 2958: 2954: 2949: 2943: 2937: 2933: 2931: 2926: 2922: 2916: 2915: 2914: 2910: 2906: 2901: 2897: 2893: 2889: 2885: 2878: 2868: 2859: 2850: 2843: 2839: 2838: 2837: 2832: 2829: 2826: 2825: 2816: 2814: 2810: 2796: 2792: 2788: 2783: 2782: 2781: 2776: 2772: 2765: 2764: 2763: 2760: 2756: 2752: 2748: 2747: 2746: 2741: 2737: 2731: 2726: 2725: 2724: 2721: 2717: 2712: 2708: 2707: 2706: 2701: 2697: 2691: 2687: 2683: 2679: 2667: 2663: 2659: 2655: 2651: 2647: 2646: 2645: 2640: 2637: 2634: 2633: 2623: 2617: 2613: 2608: 2607: 2606: 2602: 2598: 2594: 2590: 2589: 2588: 2583: 2580: 2577: 2576: 2569: 2566: 2565: 2564: 2560: 2556: 2552: 2548: 2543: 2542: 2541: 2538: 2534: 2529: 2528: 2527: 2523: 2519: 2515: 2510: 2504: 2500: 2496: 2491: 2487: 2485: 2480: 2476: 2470: 2466: 2461: 2460: 2459: 2454: 2451: 2448: 2447: 2439: 2438: 2437: 2433: 2429: 2425: 2421: 2417: 2413: 2409: 2404: 2400: 2393: 2389: 2384: 2381: 2378: 2377: 2370: 2364: 2362: 2361: 2360: 2356: 2352: 2348: 2344: 2340: 2336: 2335: 2334: 2329: 2326: 2323: 2322: 2313: 2311: 2307: 2306: 2299: 2295: 2291: 2287: 2282: 2280: 2276: 2272: 2267: 2266: 2265: 2262: 2261: 2257: 2255: 2254: 2247: 2243: 2239: 2235: 2231: 2227: 2222: 2221: 2220: 2216: 2212: 2208: 2204: 2200: 2199: 2198: 2194: 2190: 2186: 2182: 2181: 2180: 2179: 2175: 2171: 2166: 2162: 2158: 2154: 2149: 2145: 2141: 2134: 2129: 2125: 2119: 2115: 2114: 2109: 2104: 2100: 2091: 2084: 2083:Herman (name) 2080: 2076: 2075:Herman (name) 2072: 2068: 2067: 2066: 2063: 2062: 2058: 2056: 2055: 2048: 2047:Zinc silicate 2044: 2040: 2036: 2032: 2028: 2025: 2021: 2017: 2014: 2013: 2008: 2004: 2000: 1996: 1995: 1994: 1991: 1987: 1982: 1981: 1980: 1979: 1975: 1971: 1966: 1962: 1960: 1955: 1947: 1943: 1939: 1936: 1935: 1934: 1932: 1926: 1922: 1918: 1914: 1913: 1904: 1900: 1896: 1892: 1891: 1890: 1886: 1882: 1877: 1876: 1875: 1870: 1866: 1857: 1849: 1845: 1841: 1837: 1833: 1829: 1825: 1821: 1816: 1815: 1814: 1810: 1806: 1802: 1799: 1794: 1793:Dodge Charger 1791: 1790: 1789: 1785: 1781: 1776: 1770: 1765: 1761: 1755: 1754: 1753: 1749: 1745: 1741: 1738: 1737: 1736: 1731: 1727: 1720: 1713: 1703: 1696: 1693: 1692: 1691: 1690: 1685: 1681: 1675: 1671: 1667: 1663: 1662:Zinc silicate 1659: 1655: 1647: 1635: 1631: 1627: 1623: 1622: 1621: 1616: 1612: 1606: 1598: 1594: 1593: 1592: 1588: 1584: 1580: 1575: 1574: 1573: 1569: 1565: 1561: 1557: 1556: 1555: 1551: 1547: 1542: 1540: 1535: 1531: 1525: 1520: 1519: 1518: 1517: 1513: 1509: 1500: 1496: 1491: 1487: 1481: 1477: 1476: 1475: 1474: 1470: 1466: 1462: 1458: 1450: 1444: 1441: 1437: 1433: 1429: 1425: 1421: 1418:; similarly, 1417: 1413: 1408: 1407: 1406: 1402: 1398: 1393: 1389: 1385: 1381: 1377: 1376: 1367: 1363: 1359: 1355: 1351: 1347: 1343: 1339: 1335: 1331: 1327: 1323: 1319: 1315: 1314: 1313: 1310: 1306: 1302: 1298: 1296: 1293: 1289: 1285: 1281: 1277: 1273: 1269: 1264: 1260: 1259: 1258: 1253: 1249: 1243: 1239: 1235: 1234: 1233: 1230: 1226: 1221: 1220: 1219: 1218: 1214: 1210: 1206: 1202: 1193: 1173: 1169: 1165: 1161: 1156: 1155: 1154: 1149: 1145: 1138: 1137: 1136: 1132: 1128: 1124: 1120: 1116: 1115: 1114: 1109: 1105: 1099: 1098: 1097: 1093: 1089: 1085: 1081: 1073: 1070: 1068: 1063: 1059: 1053: 1052: 1051: 1047: 1043: 1038: 1037: 1036: 1031: 1027: 1016: 1014: 1010: 1006: 1002: 998: 995: 994: 993: 992: 991: 990: 985: 981: 977: 972: 971: 970: 969: 966: 961: 957: 951: 942: 941: 940: 939: 934: 931: 928: 927: 902: 899: 895: 890: 878: 874: 870: 866: 865: 864: 861: 857: 852: 851: 850: 845: 841: 835: 831: 827: 826:Dodge Charger 823: 819: 818: 817: 814: 810: 806: 805: 804: 799: 795: 789: 785: 784: 783: 780: 776: 772: 770: 765: 761: 752: 745: 741: 740: 739: 734: 730: 724: 720: 716: 715: 686: 683: 679: 674: 672: 669: 665: 661: 660: 659: 654: 650: 644: 643: 642: 639: 635: 630: 629: 628: 623: 619: 612: 611: 610: 607: 603: 598: 597: 596: 591: 587: 580: 579: 578: 575: 571: 567: 566: 565: 560: 556: 549: 548: 547: 544: 540: 536: 535: 534: 529: 525: 519: 515: 514: 513: 510: 506: 502: 501: 500: 496: 492: 488: 485: 484: 483: 482: 481: 480: 475: 472: 468: 464: 459: 458: 457: 453: 449: 445: 441: 436: 435: 424: 420: 416: 411: 410: 409: 404: 400: 394: 390: 380: 375: 371: 364: 363: 362: 358: 354: 349: 345: 341: 340: 339: 334: 330: 316: 315: 314: 310: 306: 301: 300: 299: 294: 290: 284: 280: 276: 275:Dodge Charger 272: 271: 270: 266: 262: 257: 256: 255: 250: 246: 240: 236: 233:According to 232: 230: 226: 222: 218: 217: 216: 212: 208: 203: 199: 194: 190: 184: 177: 170: 169: 168: 164: 160: 155: 154: 153: 152: 147: 143: 133: 126: 123: 117:to recognise 116: 112: 111: 110: 108: 104: 95: 92:The logic in 87: 80: 76: 74: 71: 69: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 4456: 4439:158.62.88.23 4403: 4356: 4283: 4278: 4136: 4078:User:Bkonrad 4075: 4044:Schierbecker 4035: 4002: 3977:Schierbecker 3902:Schierbecker 3893: 3882:Schierbecker 3879: 3868: 3861: 3855: 3849: 3839: 3836: 3814: 3796: 3789: 3772: 3749: 3735: 3723: 3709: 3707: 3703: 3690:Gog the Mild 3681: 3657: 3652: 3632:Schierbecker 3604:WhatamIdoing 3599: 3586:Schierbecker 3559:Schierbecker 3544:Schierbecker 3537: 3516:WhatamIdoing 3502:Schierbecker 3496: 3477: 3473: 3458:Schierbecker 3451: 3440: 3432:Jesus Christ 3419: 3417: 3411: 3392: 3386: 3379: 3375: 3372: 3369: 3315: 3303: 3294: 3293: 3273: 3240:in 2021 and 3220:Schierbecker 3172:Schierbecker 3128: 3124: 3121: 2823: 2649: 2631: 2593:MOS:COLLAPSE 2574: 2471:). — Martin 2445: 2375: 2320: 2312:. And, yes, 2259: 2252: 2251: 2245: 2137: 2078:accordingly. 2060: 2053: 2052: 2034: 2030: 2026: 2019: 2015: 1967: 1963: 1951: 1930: 1929: 1847: 1805:WhatamIdoing 1744:WhatamIdoing 1694: 1651: 1564:Schierbecker 1508:Schierbecker 1504: 1461:Talk:'Murica 1454: 1353: 1346:MOS:DABSHORT 1325: 1321: 1197: 949: 925: 907: 517: 353:Cameron Dewe 238: 137: 107:User:Ipigott 91: 78: 43: 37: 3953:What about 3797:SMcCandlish 2824:SMcCandlish 2692:" — Martin 2654:WP:NAMELIST 2632:SMcCandlish 2575:SMcCandlish 2490:SMcCandlish 2446:SMcCandlish 2376:SMcCandlish 2321:SMcCandlish 2183:In case of 2033:Hermann is 1942:Goat's head 1607:? — Martin 1457:Talk:'Cause 1412:Matveyevsky 1284:MOS:DABNAME 1280:WP:NAMELIST 1263:WP:SETINDEX 1203:section of 926:SMcCandlish 910:|class=List 788:Mondonville 36:This is an 4437:Thank you 4070:See also: 4022:There are 3819:Epicgenius 3630:Seconded. 2860:|surname}} 2612:WP:SPOILER 2090:given name 1702:given name 1465:PARAKANYAA 1380:Mary Jones 869:PARAKANYAA 415:PARAKANYAA 305:PARAKANYAA 261:PARAKANYAA 221:PARAKANYAA 207:PARAKANYAA 129:|class=SIA 4375:talk page 4327:Redrose64 4201:Redrose64 3945:(discuss) 3869:There is 3777:QuicoleJR 3764:(discuss) 3474:necessary 3424:Cleopatra 3356:(discuss) 3252:(discuss) 3244:in 2024. 3207:(discuss) 2938:is a SIA 2877:TOC right 1601:|class=GA 1482:— Martin 1354:malformed 1272:Churchill 918:|class=NA 725:— Martin 319:|type=sia 138:— Martin 79:Archive 9 73:Archive 8 68:Archive 7 60:Archive 5 4253:Theobrad 4206:Theobrad 4169:Theobrad 4154:Theobrad 4139:Theobrad 4032:WP:ROADS 3973:This one 3940:Hawkeye7 3862:I found 3759:Hawkeye7 3748:I would 3686:WP:FAOWN 3478:possible 3443:granular 3351:Hawkeye7 3334:Zanahary 3277:Zanahary 3247:Hawkeye7 3202:Hawkeye7 3089:calling 2161:Naughton 1268:Einstein 1080:Di Menna 518:articles 3917:WP:PIQA 3815:support 3813:I also 3773:Support 3750:support 3704:support 3682:Comment 3653:Comment 3320:Johnbod 3131:WP:GACR 2946:. Our 2884:MOS:DAB 2849:surname 2842:MOS:DAB 2751:Hermann 2730:Hermann 2469:Baldwin 2343:Hermann 2341:out of 2207:MOS:DAB 2165:MOS:DAB 2148:MOS:DAB 2144:Mercury 2118:Hike395 1970:hike395 1959:MOS:DAB 1954:MOS:DAB 1712:surname 1658:Bellver 1652:Should 1397:Ipigott 1388:Mondino 1334:Mondino 1330:Mondino 1318:Mondino 1242:Mondino 1209:Ipigott 1164:Ipigott 1127:Ipigott 1088:Ipigott 1084:Erminio 1005:Ipigott 976:Ipigott 945:|class= 914:|class= 751:surname 744:Mondino 723:Bkonrad 491:Ipigott 448:Ipigott 176:surname 159:Ipigott 113:Recode 98:|class= 39:archive 4386:rose64 4313:rose64 4239:rose64 4187:rose64 4178:alone. 4010:rose64 3915:Since 3895::Ping 3732:Bilorv 3724:aren't 3702:Would 3598:Do we 3454:WP:FA? 3055:Certes 2984:Certes 2953:Certes 2888:Certes 2787:Certes 2518:Certes 2314:actual 2310:WP:SIA 2253:BD2412 2211:Certes 2170:Certes 2157:Corvin 2054:BD2412 2027:should 1546:Certes 1322:people 1121:or on 822:WP:SIA 487:Bkonad 440:Wagner 393:Sharon 235:WP:SIA 4425:48JCL 4423:Stub 4342:48JCL 4333:48JCL 4124:wiser 4120:older 4036:Maybe 3387:and: 3380:See: 3105:wiser 3101:older 3094:dmbox 2936:Braun 2813:Ayers 2759:wiser 2755:older 2720:wiser 2716:older 2553:). -- 2537:wiser 2533:older 2514:Ayers 2203:Ayers 2185:Ayers 2153:Ayers 2035:known 2031:named 1990:wiser 1986:older 1440:wiser 1436:older 1420:Jones 1384:Jones 1309:wiser 1305:older 1292:wiser 1288:older 1276:Obama 1229:wiser 1225:older 898:wiser 894:older 860:wiser 856:older 813:wiser 809:older 779:wiser 775:older 682:wiser 678:older 668:wiser 664:older 638:wiser 634:older 606:wiser 602:older 574:wiser 570:older 543:wiser 539:older 509:wiser 505:older 471:wiser 467:older 16:< 4485:talk 4481:MSGJ 4468:talk 4464:Nurg 4443:talk 4429:talk 4414:talk 4410:2RDD 4390:talk 4388:🌹 ( 4364:talk 4317:talk 4315:🌹 ( 4292:talk 4257:talk 4243:talk 4241:🌹 ( 4210:talk 4191:talk 4189:🌹 ( 4158:talk 4143:talk 4097:talk 4093:MSGJ 4048:talk 4014:talk 4012:🌹 ( 3981:talk 3928:talk 3924:MSGJ 3906:talk 3886:talk 3823:talk 3781:talk 3738:talk 3730:. — 3694:talk 3671:talk 3658:ever 3636:talk 3622:talk 3608:talk 3600:need 3590:talk 3563:talk 3548:talk 3520:talk 3506:talk 3486:talk 3462:talk 3420:ever 3399:talk 3338:talk 3324:talk 3304:talk 3281:talk 3224:talk 3190:talk 3176:talk 3162:talk 3142:talk 3138:MSGJ 3077:talk 3059:talk 3036:talk 3032:MSGJ 3020:talk 2988:talk 2973:talk 2969:MSGJ 2957:talk 2925:talk 2921:MSGJ 2909:talk 2892:talk 2867:wikt 2791:talk 2775:talk 2771:MSGJ 2740:talk 2736:MSGJ 2700:talk 2696:MSGJ 2662:talk 2622:Main 2601:talk 2559:talk 2522:talk 2499:talk 2479:talk 2475:MSGJ 2432:talk 2426:. -- 2403:talk 2399:MSGJ 2355:talk 2294:talk 2288:. -- 2275:talk 2240:Re: 2230:talk 2215:talk 2193:talk 2174:talk 2159:and 2128:talk 2124:MSGJ 2103:talk 2099:MSGJ 2003:talk 1974:talk 1921:talk 1899:talk 1885:talk 1869:talk 1865:MSGJ 1856:WPBS 1832:talk 1809:talk 1784:talk 1764:talk 1760:MSGJ 1748:talk 1740:MSGJ 1730:talk 1726:MSGJ 1707:and 1684:talk 1680:MSGJ 1660:and 1630:talk 1615:talk 1611:MSGJ 1595:Per 1587:talk 1568:talk 1550:talk 1534:talk 1530:MSGJ 1512:talk 1490:talk 1486:MSGJ 1469:talk 1459:and 1455:See 1401:talk 1362:talk 1358:Nurg 1282:and 1252:talk 1248:MSGJ 1213:talk 1168:talk 1148:talk 1144:MSGJ 1131:talk 1108:talk 1104:MSGJ 1092:talk 1082:and 1072:MSGJ 1062:talk 1058:MSGJ 1046:talk 1042:Nurg 1030:talk 1026:MSGJ 1009:talk 997:MSGJ 980:talk 960:talk 956:MSGJ 950:look 873:talk 844:talk 840:MSGJ 832:and 824:are 798:talk 794:MSGJ 764:talk 760:MSGJ 733:talk 729:MSGJ 653:talk 649:MSGJ 622:talk 618:MSGJ 590:talk 586:MSGJ 559:talk 555:MSGJ 528:talk 524:MSGJ 495:talk 452:talk 419:talk 403:talk 399:MSGJ 374:talk 370:MSGJ 357:talk 344:MSGJ 333:talk 329:MSGJ 309:talk 293:talk 289:MSGJ 281:and 265:talk 249:talk 245:MSGJ 225:talk 211:talk 193:talk 189:MSGJ 163:talk 146:talk 142:MSGJ 4384:Red 4311:Red 4304:伟思礼 4288:伟思礼 4237:Red 4185:Red 4008:Red 4003:are 3806:😼 3618:CMD 3580:LLM 3497:are 3482:CMD 3186:CMD 3073:CMD 3016:CMD 3014:?) 2905:CMD 2854:by 2833:😼 2815:", 2658:Joy 2650:did 2641:😼 2597:Joy 2584:😼 2555:Joy 2549:or 2495:Joy 2455:😼 2428:Joy 2385:😼 2351:Joy 2330:😼 2290:Joy 2271:Joy 2226:Joy 2189:Joy 2020:not 1895:Joy 1881:Joy 1848:not 1828:Joy 1822:or 1780:Joy 1695:Yes 1626:CMD 1583:CMD 1162:?-- 935:😼 321:to 4483:· 4470:) 4445:) 4431:) 4416:) 4392:) 4366:) 4319:) 4294:) 4259:) 4245:) 4230:; 4226:; 4222:; 4212:) 4193:) 4160:) 4145:) 4122:≠ 4095:· 4050:) 4034:. 4016:) 3999:}} 3995:{{ 3983:) 3961:}} 3955:{{ 3926:· 3908:) 3888:) 3847:. 3825:) 3794:— 3783:) 3742:) 3696:) 3673:) 3638:) 3624:) 3610:) 3592:) 3584:. 3565:) 3550:) 3542:" 3522:) 3508:) 3488:) 3464:) 3449:. 3438:. 3401:) 3340:) 3326:) 3308:) 3283:) 3226:) 3192:) 3178:) 3164:) 3156:. 3140:· 3103:≠ 3097:}} 3091:{{ 3079:) 3061:) 3053:. 3034:· 3022:) 2990:) 2971:· 2959:) 2923:· 2911:) 2894:) 2880:}} 2874:{{ 2872:, 2870:}} 2864:{{ 2856:{{ 2852:}} 2846:{{ 2821:— 2793:) 2773:· 2757:≠ 2738:· 2718:≠ 2698:· 2664:) 2629:— 2624:}} 2620:{{ 2603:) 2572:— 2561:) 2535:≠ 2524:) 2501:) 2477:· 2443:— 2434:) 2422:, 2418:, 2401:· 2373:— 2365:is 2357:) 2318:— 2296:) 2277:) 2246:is 2232:) 2224:-- 2217:) 2195:) 2176:) 2155:, 2126:· 2101:· 2093:}} 2087:{{ 2016:No 2005:) 1988:≠ 1976:) 1923:) 1901:) 1887:) 1867:· 1859:}} 1853:{{ 1834:) 1811:) 1786:) 1762:· 1750:) 1728:· 1715:}} 1709:{{ 1705:}} 1699:{{ 1682:· 1656:, 1632:) 1613:· 1589:) 1570:) 1552:) 1532:· 1514:) 1488:· 1471:) 1438:≠ 1403:) 1364:) 1307:≠ 1290:≠ 1274:, 1270:, 1250:· 1227:≠ 1215:) 1170:) 1146:· 1133:) 1106:· 1094:) 1060:· 1048:) 1028:· 1011:) 982:) 958:· 923:— 896:≠ 875:) 858:≠ 842:· 828:, 811:≠ 796:· 777:≠ 762:· 754:}} 748:{{ 731:· 680:≠ 666:≠ 651:· 636:≠ 620:· 604:≠ 588:· 572:≠ 557:· 541:≠ 526:· 507:≠ 497:) 469:≠ 454:) 421:) 401:· 372:· 359:) 331:· 311:) 291:· 277:, 267:) 247:· 237:, 227:) 213:) 191:· 179:}} 173:{{ 165:) 144:· 64:← 4487:) 4479:( 4466:( 4441:( 4427:( 4412:( 4362:( 4325:@ 4306:: 4302:@ 4290:( 4255:( 4208:( 4199:@ 4171:: 4167:@ 4156:( 4141:( 4099:) 4091:( 4046:( 3979:( 3930:) 3922:( 3904:( 3899:. 3884:( 3821:( 3804:¢ 3801:☏ 3779:( 3734:( 3692:( 3669:( 3634:( 3620:( 3606:( 3588:( 3578:( 3561:( 3546:( 3518:( 3504:( 3484:( 3460:( 3397:( 3336:( 3322:( 3300:( 3279:( 3222:( 3188:( 3174:( 3160:( 3144:) 3136:( 3075:( 3057:( 3038:) 3030:( 3018:( 2986:( 2975:) 2967:( 2955:( 2944:) 2927:) 2919:( 2907:( 2890:( 2831:¢ 2828:☏ 2789:( 2777:) 2769:( 2742:) 2734:( 2702:) 2694:( 2660:( 2639:¢ 2636:☏ 2599:( 2582:¢ 2579:☏ 2557:( 2520:( 2497:( 2488:@ 2481:) 2473:( 2453:¢ 2450:☏ 2430:( 2405:) 2397:( 2383:¢ 2380:☏ 2353:( 2328:¢ 2325:☏ 2292:( 2273:( 2260:T 2228:( 2213:( 2191:( 2172:( 2130:) 2122:( 2116:@ 2105:) 2097:( 2061:T 2001:( 1972:( 1919:( 1897:( 1883:( 1871:) 1863:( 1830:( 1807:( 1782:( 1766:) 1758:( 1746:( 1732:) 1724:( 1686:) 1678:( 1628:( 1617:) 1609:( 1585:( 1566:( 1548:( 1536:) 1528:( 1510:( 1492:) 1484:( 1467:( 1399:( 1360:( 1254:) 1246:( 1211:( 1166:( 1150:) 1142:( 1129:( 1110:) 1102:( 1090:( 1064:) 1056:( 1044:( 1032:) 1024:( 1007:( 978:( 962:) 954:( 933:¢ 930:☏ 871:( 846:) 838:( 800:) 792:( 766:) 758:( 735:) 727:( 655:) 647:( 624:) 616:( 592:) 584:( 561:) 553:( 530:) 522:( 493:( 450:( 417:( 405:) 397:( 376:) 368:( 355:( 342:@ 335:) 327:( 307:( 295:) 287:( 263:( 251:) 243:( 223:( 209:( 195:) 187:( 161:( 148:) 140:( 50:.

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