Knowledge (XXG) talk:Featured articles/Archive 18

797:), but I'm guessing you may have some further insights. My sense is that articles tend to get expanded, and that the new (or updated) stuff isn't up to FA standard. Is that right, or are there other major culprits? As a thought experiment, how many of articles that get brought to FAR wouldn't have been if they'd just stayed in their original FA state? (I do think our standards for comprehensiveness have risen over time, so that may be part of the issue. They might continue to rise in the future or Knowledge (XXG) might be mature enough at this point that they'll stay roughly the same. If they continue to rise, that could be bad, lowering the editor-to-content ratio, and a project-wide effort to enforce a stricter version of summary style could be needed.)On solutions, I suspect it doesn't really help to tell editors to take special care, since the editors adding subpar content don't generally know that it's subpar (if they knew, they'd add quality content). That means our only current recourse is to try to get them to go through the talk page, where we hope that someone with more of a clue will intervene. But that adds a ton of friction, which hinders updating of outdated content. (Maybe it makes more sense to add notices/controls to historical FAs, since those don't need as much updating?) Brainstorming, maybe we ought to have a featured article recent edit feed linked prominently from 355:

affirm my Dixie credentials), but of my 7 FAs, 5 concern Africa, comprising two Congolese nationalists, the first Congolese chief justice of his country's supreme court, a peacekeeping operation in the Congo (coincidentally involved a large Indian army contingent), and a history making battle in Uganda. Three of them have featured on the main page. And I wouldn't have been able to do it without the support and (usually constructive) criticism of the people here at FAn. On an "unrelated note", please stay tuned for January 18, 2022, when one of my other featured articles on how a bunch of Native Americans kicked the KKK's ass is

4355: 3398:

an older database, but why do we need to re-capture, at this point, articles that were once FAs (that is, pre some very archaic date) but as of the first version of the Brilliant Prose pages, no longer were? That would be a TON of work for just about no benefit, to identify what an archaic process considered an FA which then lost status in another archaic process (a straight-up vote). Perhaps I'm misunderstanding; could you provide an example of what it is you want done for one sample article? For example, if you look at the articlehistory at

1596: 966:, yes, but on way too many of the Old and Very old FAs, there is no one watching the articles, much less responding on talk. This is a fact of Knowledge (XXG) that we have to accept (maintaining an article at FA standard requires constant vigilance from someone who cares, and editors move on or lose interest), and the only way to deal with this is to encourage active URFA, URFA, URFA, and FAR, FAR, FAR. Some of our most worthy articles have gained new watchers/keepers/maintainers as a result of FAR, hence the importance of 376:

They are taken from all of the possible FAs, which are written by volunteer editors, 2) FAs are going to be written by users who have a dedicated interest in a specific field. There will be a culmination to a specific set of items (MIHIST, VG, Sports etc) and that users are incredibly unlikely to write about things that aren't in their wheelhouse, as it takes an ubsurd amount of effort to get something through FAC. I'm unlikely to write about African nobility for instance, and others might not want to write about

123:; dislike of a topic is not reason for its removal. We are also constrained as to what can run as featured based on the sort of articles that are nominated, as you note, we do have an underrepresentation of some topics as featured articles, which means that they are less likely to run on the main page. (A very large proportion of English Knowledge (XXG) editors are from those 5 countries you listed, and naturally people are more likely to write about what they are familiar with/interests them) 1160:

is expected for an article to be considered comprehensive. It's important to note that level of detail ≠ quality—if you look at e.g. many Encyclopedia Britannica entries, they're generally high quality but much shorter than Knowledge (XXG) articles, just since they've decided to write at a more summarized level. But granted, I don't have extensive personal knowledge of what Knowledge (XXG) used to be like, so I defer to you and others who have been around for longer.

688:

articles, I now estimate it at about 40%. Ummmm ... if more editors would indicate more "Satisfactory" at URFA, we could now move more of them off the list ... see the instructions tab ... hint, hint, hint.) I would feel much better about adding an editnotice on FAs if FAR had not gone moribund for a decade, such that we now have a considerable backlog in restoring both the Very old and the Old to anything that actually enjoys consensus as being of featured quality.

2241:

material to read up than the micro-topics that most FA writers favour. But we do have lots of Anglo-Saxon kings, to sit beside the hurricanes, coins and naval ships. FAR has had rather a blitz on the 18th-century literature FAs by one editor, sadly now deceased. 6 of that 20 are on books not bios, and several more are people not mainly known as writers, whether Hilary Clinton or Margaret Thatcher. Quite a lot of work needed on those two, I'd guess.

31: 4037: 1184:

take me a bit to get to it). Another, perhaps more controversial thought: if we want to incentivize more people to take articles to FAR, should we be giving out some form of recognition for that? Something like "here's an award for every FA you get delisted" would obviously be toxic, but maybe something like "here's an award for every FAR you started where the FA was ultimately saved (whether by you or someone else)" could be appropriate.

1128:, so we can actually discuss these issues without personalization. We cannot change the fact that editors write on topics that interest them, and tend to eventually leave Knowledge (XXG). We can make sure we bring deficient articles to FAR as soon as needed, so that we can then expect the project to defend the overall pool of FAs as examples of Knowledge (XXG)'s finest work, which they no longer are in huge numbers, as demonstrated by 1056:(sporadically) more rigorously applied today, simply because of the efforts of one editor (Buidhe). And all too often, what gets reviewed seriously at FAC depends on who is doing the reviews; while we have lost out on prose, we have gained on what Buidhe adds. On the flip side of that coin, we frequently find reviewers misapplying 1b and 1c at FAR. It is not sufficient to say that an article lacks comprehensiveness because 4159: 1251:, and where the idea of making FAR more prominent was quite clearly expressed and yet ignored), but the entire discussion was personalized and went nowhere, and I am no longer interested in dealing with that toxicity. Perhaps others can effect some improvements, but I am apparently not that person. In fact, if I propose something, I seem to increase the chances it will be rejected :) Bst, 4307: 1824: 3580:

just can't convince myself that a version that old is worth linking to. I am open to overseeing the work if someone else wants to do it; pls ping my talk page if there are questions, but you can see how we had to rig the RBP FAC simulations. (I still consider Sex Pistols the oldest as I have serious doubts anyone will ever update the 17,000 words of readable prose at BE :)

1001:

That is, we have furthered OWNership that is not in the best interest of the FA process or the articles. I don't know why we are enabling such behavior. FA writers should not be adding more FAs if they aren't maintaining the ones they have, and while we have countless exceptions, we have plenty of this. This has been, to me, one of the most revealing issues of the

1090:. We now have hundreds of cyclone/hurricane/weather FAs that need a CCI check, complicated by the fact that most of them have not been kept up to date to account for newer sources, and how to handle this is a challenge. I am still trying to develop a methodology for those checks, and each article so far has taken me four to six hours to check. 1905: 4061:, which does have coordinates, doesn't appear on the map? I will note the map is working again for me - the blank page does show up sometimes but waiting it out always seems to work eventually. I find it interesting to note that I'm responsible for all of the current FAs with pins in Mississippi and Missouri, and all but one for Arkansas. 3579:

articlehistory, you would want a) a link to the May 26, 2001 version, and b) an addition to the Featured log. Then you would want same for one or two hundred articles. I can't think of anyone besides me who understands how to make all that happen correctly in both archives and articlehistory, and I

1316:

has entertaining prose, but it's also white supremacy apologia lite. As far as maintaining FAs over time, it is indeed quite natural for FA writers to move on after earning the bronze star. I've done this as well, though occasionally I'll go back to my older FAs and think, "Oh, I could revise this to

1242:

has been more lukewarm that I would have liked. What I do know is that if we keep losing some of the meatier old FAs via FAR, while gaining more niche topics via FAC, that will not bode well for the overall FA process. As to merging the talk pages, that could happen under a tabbed format, and we had

1159:

Regarding comprehensiveness, my rough sense from occasionally digging into the archives is that the average length of Knowledge (XXG) articles has increased over time, since adding things is a more common activity than removing them, and I hypothesize that this has led to a shift into how much detail

1119:

So, first, yes standards increased from the VERY VERY old FAs (2004 to 2008), but other than that, where is this oft-cited "increase in standards" notion coming from? What happens instead is the natural deterioration of a wiki if articles aren't constantly maintained. And the way to deal with that is

1000:

By scheduling out TFA so far in advance, and deferring entirely to the preferences of their writers, we have allowed a situation where editors can neglect their FAs 'til the last moment, and be guaranteed of plenty of notice to clean them up or that the article won't run TFA if they don't want it to.

996:

FAR, FAR, FAR. URFA, URFA, URFA. We have this problem now because FAR was moribund for a decade, and we no longer have a "buck stops here" as we once had in the FA director, who simply would not have allowed this to happen. Where FAC, FAR and TFA were presumed to work together for the preservation

3821:

I've always thought this article would fit the Art and architechture category, but considering that all of the recent comments about improving this article for the FA criteria have mentioned getting help from medical editors, reading medical articles etc. I have a feeling that everyone will disagree

3747:

Currently, out of the 122 Featured Articles in the "Business, economics, and finance" category, 106 are in the numismatics sub-section. I feel this is a bit unwieldy and awkward, as articles on numismatics topic often have quite little to do with business and economics itself, but rather the history

2601:

Sorry for that, that rollback is completely unintentional. I do have rollback confirmations and for some reason when the "confirm rollback" prompt appears more than once at the same time, even after I click "cancel" it rolls back the edit. This makes me roll back the edit without even realizing that

2519:

It would seem that, being an FA, the first paragraph of the intro, or the first sentences of that paragraph if it needs to be cut down, would contain the most notable details. There shouldn't be any rewriting, if the purpose is to highlight the quality of the writing. Maybe there's no way to enforce

2167:

There are lots of kings and other heads of state, and so on. The useful way to look at such stats, avoiding historical issues, is to look at living people less sportspeople (where the overall figures have been over 30% for some years, though I haven't seen recent stats). Of course feel free to write

1399:

issues) trying to pull prose up to standards, and I believe we often don't make it there. The downward trend in prose reached a peak in about the period 2016 to 2018, when buddies pushed their buddies' articles through on a few prose nitpicks. The trend seems to be improving, but the absence of the

1223:

were more closely adhered to, ala Encyclopedia Britannica. To that end, when I was first writing the TS article, a most helpful mentor forced me to spin off the sub-articles on History, Management, Societal and cultural ... and I thank him every day for that wisdom. Imagine if I had to keep up with

3397:

It's not entirely clear to me what you've done or what you're asking. When we (Gimmetrow, Maralia, and me) first built articlehistory at every FA and FFA, we went back to the first version of the FA and brilliant prose pages and captured everything then available. It seems you're saying you found

2415:

I happened to read today's front page featured article excerpt. The writing quality seemed poor, particularly in comparison with the actual intro to the featured article. How is the front page excerpt created? Wouldn't using the FA's intro be more representative, even if it was truncated for space?

2331:

is a former featured article. Delisted just over a year ago for various concerns, I spent months bringing it up to GA class. Having achieved that, I would like to return it to FA class. Not sure where to begin. Would any editors please provide me with some feedback on what they'd like to see, or if

1321:

things aren't constantly changing, and comprehensiveness is not some constantly evolving yardstick. I don't know how people who write in the dumpster fire of current affairs do it without losing their minds. For the more static historically subjects, I think it can suffice to do a new source search

1216:

It's important to note that level of detail ≠ quality—if you look at e.g. many Encyclopedia Britannica entries, they're generally high quality but much shorter than Knowledge (XXG) articles, just since they've decided to write at a more summarized level. But granted, I don't have extensive personal

1107:

3 Media. I don't understand images, and can't comment. I relied on two or three top-notch media people, and I have no reason to believe that Nikkimaria and Buidhe AREN'T keeping up that good work, but I wouldn't know. I do think that media reviewing has become less complex because we now have far

1060:

it would cover X, Y or Z, if sources don't cover that, and it is equally unhelpful to pop up a list of sources that aren't covered if one hasn't verified that there is actually missing content from those sources. Also, in general, how often do you see a FAC reviewer actually go and do a minimal (eg

752:

Yes, we have a broader problem when we have a policy page that applies to FAs, and attempts to protect their status, but we aren't working adequately to assure that application of that policy is valid since status has so often deteriorated (and quite alarmingly in a huge percentage of cases). That

707:

Excellent point Sandy, although for what it's worth I wasn't thinking the FAOWN tag should be placed retroactively, just on the recent stuff we "know" to be worthy of the star. The scary thing is of course that per that policy, it strictly applies to everything until it's busted down a grade a FAR!

92:

I am curious as to why an article regarding a Confederate American soldier is being headlined. I don't believe German-language Knowledge (XXG) features articles regarding Nazi soldiers, and I have yet to see a featured article that glorifies the Provisional IRA, the Ku Klux Klan, or other terrorist

3661:

Importing the article history is an error-prone process especially these days, so I'm generally fairly reserved about doing it (and I like minimal gaps in the history when importing). I can deal with specific one-off requests but I'm not hugely in to the early history of brilliant prose like this.

2240:

That's 18.19% compared to an overall ~25% of bios. Personally I think this is a good thing, and wp in general has far too many biographies, and far too much emphasis on them. But one knows that the actual reason is that even a not fantastically well-recorded life from recent centuries leaves more

1985:

Just wondering who the Georgetown University alum is who has selected Georgetown priests, presidents, and administrators numerous times over the past year and a half for the featured article? I have noted 5 times since Feb 2021 (I got tired of looking for 3-4 months earlier this year, so probably

1413:

with a real error in the lead and in the blurb. That error was in the article when it came to FAC, and when it left FAC. The lead is where our most serious scrutiny of prose should be happening. I looked at the FAC for that TFA and saw that the lead had actually been damaging during its FAC, by

1163:

On solutions, the main point I take away from your insights is the importance of having FA-knowledgeable editors present (both in nominating and in the different forums for reviewing). Unfortunately, from a long-term systemic point of view, having more editors participating isn't a solution alone,

1005:

effort. There are scores of editors who have dutifully gone through their extreme number of FAs and made sure they were updated (as well as updating FAs that they didn't write!!) But there are similar numbers of still active editors who don't or won't. It seems as if, now that they've had their

928:

Two kinds of problems. 1. They actually don't get expanded and aren't kept up to date. This happens often in Geography, Education (as you know), Chemistry, Astronomy, Health and medicine ... lots of areas. 2. When the FA knowledgeable watcher moves on, poor quality additions do happen, alarmingly

908:

The specific items mentioned in Measures are fine, and helpful but won't forestall all of the problems we see at FAR. (And a good number of those points should be regularly reviewed for at FAC, but aren't always.) From the vantage point of the problems we eventually see at FAR, it would be nice if

375:

I'd like to ditto the above, although I'd like to comment further that we seem to have someone calling out "under representation" in TFA (and FA in general) all the time. Is it worth us putting a message somewhere explaining the saga, that 1) TFAs are not representative of all genres and cultures.

354:

I understand your frustration with lack of global coverage, but the proper response is to simply work to improve global content. Anyone can do it; I may be a Southerner who likes barbeque and catfishing and shooting shotguns (some of my ancestors were those said "Confederate American soldier"s, to

3402:, you can see how we re-captured the Refreshing Brilliant Prose votes. Refreshing brilliant prose was a straight up-and-down vote to keep or remove the older FAs, and to my knowledge, we captured that. I'm not understanding the benefit in going back further. And while we are on the subject of 1311:

though. I've only been here since 2016, but my fear is that demanding "brilliant" prose leads to embellishment and departures from NPOV. Sounding good is often in tension with being accurate and true to the source material, since its often boring material we work with; also the need for things in

1277:

Sandy's explanation of deteriorating FA is great. In my opinion, FA needs a culture shift on what happens after an FA is promoted, as many editors think getting an article to FA is the end. Instead, it is the beginning of maintaining an article. Before I nominated my first FA, I read everything I

1183:

recently set up—I think it's fantastic to make it clear that saving an FA at FAR is valued work for which you can earn a gold star. Setting up an ongoing task force to monitor edits to FAs is also something that I think could have a lasting impact. I'll see about putting that page together (might

1010:

You mention comprehensiveness standards having changed. Our standard for comprehensiveness has not changed at all, but whether or not FAC reviewers check that comprehensiveness is met is a separate issue. Ditto for every important aspect like POV, compliance with LEAD, involved supports, and the

884:

On the other hand, some very old or older FAs do have watchers, but they may refuse to maintain them to standards; that's more of a behavioral issue than a matter of FA standards. URFA has, unfortunately, unmasked some previously prolific FA writers who just can't be bothered to update their FAs,

687:

is substantiating my long-held statement that a rather enormous percentage of our FAs ... aren't ... and we are not protecting an FA version of them. (I used to say the percentage of older FAs that no longer meet criteria was about 50%; because URFA has spurred a good amount of upgrading on dated

4202:

seems to be down), and I've been racking my brains to think of a page that isn't too high-traffic (e.g., WP:VPP) or too biased (e.g., WP:FTN) but still cares about content. I picked you. If you have an opinion about what we really ought to do when there's no consensus – when you want to add or

3623:

Again, this is just an archivist's hobby, of interest to WikiArchaeologists and the potential of a "crossover" between them and the FAC crowd. Obviously no one would ever think about using 2001 Knowledge (XXG) as an unironic source of information, so this is just as a sort of "look how far we've

3007:

Hello, I was hoping to see if there was a way to submit a forum to inform an article. Since I think the directions were confusing for me, I would appreciate if there was any link or some guidelines to submit a request. (Also, I have a lot of certain articles that seem interesting…) Thank you to

1550:

The Cyclone CCI did not lead up to 1f; we put 1f in place before we knew about the Cyclone CCI. And since it doesn’t mostly pertain to FA writers or FAs (rather a lot of lack of attribution and copying within done by other editors that affect the entire content area), I’m not sure mentioning it

1346:. As an editor who works mostly with such material (medicine), I believe it is even more important to make sure our prose shines in the "boring material" areas. I have often said that the problem with our math articles is not the math, but the english. (I saw an a journal article in this week's 1286:

FAR and URFA needs more editors to identify problems in FAs. It needs more editors to nominate at FAR to give editors the nudge they need to come back and fix their articles. If anyone needs someone to be the bad guy, ping me and I will review the article (and give my honest assessment on if the

439:

for TFAs. I'm curious to take stock of where folks' views are about the idea of having a general editnotice that applies to all FAs. I think there are certainly a few things we'd like to communicate to folks about FAs (e.g. it's fairly safe to assume anything in them has been chosen deliberately

2499:

nominator when the article was proposed for TFA or the TFA coordinator when it was selected. Since 2016 the TFA coordinator has created the blurb shortly the article passes FAC, and it is checked and edited by the FAC nominator. Most of the work is cutting the blurb down to between 925 and 1025

2363:

Special leave to appeal to the High Court was made by Dietrich on the grounds the Court of Appeal erred in law by holding Dietrich did not have a right to be provided with counsel at public expense, and/or by not granting adjournment his lack of representation meant a miscarriage of justice had

383:

I realise I have added 20 or so items to the log for a reasonably niche topic (cue sports) and I do have intentions to work on other items in the future, but this should always be seen as a positive to the project, rather than over highlight a specific series of articles. As for "glorifying" a

1282:

concerns about a nominator gatekeeping an article, but an editor needs to be watching every FA to ensure new sources and information are properly incorporated into the article. This responsibility needs to be clearly communicated to FA nominators so that they are more likely to maintain their

872:

It is shocking to see the current versions of some FAs I promoted last decade, and what almost always divides those that are still in good shape from those that are not is far less attributable to (an off-miscited) change in standards than to the simple issue of whether or not the article has

96:

On an unrelated note, why are articles discussing content from English-speaking countries that are not majority White rarely featured? The headlined articles focus almost exclusively on the United Kingdom, United States, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. I have yet to see a featured article

526:

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. Explaining civilly why sources and policies support a particular version of a featured article does not necessarily constitute

3414:. Because of its history, it would be just grand if some FAC regulars could weigh in at that FAR to help assure that our oldest continuous FA is truly up to snuff when Ceoil finishes (right now, he's got a long list to work on still from HogFarm and me, but pls watchlist the FAR for now). 1015: 3494:

was first featured, before it was then twice de-featured. If we have to do that across several hundred then-extant FAs, what is the benefit? The content of all of those articles -- and what is considered an FA -- has so radically changed that I'm unsure what we are gaining by doing this.

444:. There's also the question of who we'd want to be communicating to: newcomers generally have more important things to learn, and experienced editors generally already know about FA norms. Typing this out, I think I've talked myself out of supporting them, but curious to hear from others. 650:, I agree that FAs should not be tagged with NOBOTS, simply because there are times where bots improve articles. I'm not sure how Cluebot or some of Citation bot's more reasonable changes interact with NOBOTS, but there's potential value in bot edits to FAs, especially as time goes by. 1408:

On a side note, I saw the oddest thing this month at TFA, but was reading from the car on my iPad, and by the time I got home, forgot to make note and now don't remember what article it was (and WP:ERRORS has no archives, so finding old stuff is horrible). But an article showed at

597:

I don't think I'd support adding NOBOTS to all FAs. If we can expect that everything about an article has been considered at its FAC, we can expect that to include adding NOBOTS if an article does anything likely to upset a bot. More saliently, the goal of an editnotice would be to

1224:

every bit of yearly detail on medication, and so on. And I can keep out a lot of the cruft by referring it to sub-articles (eg Societal on every notable person with a new TS diagnosis, or every new song about Tourette's). This is why I encouraged you to define your criteria at

1287:

article is at FA standards). If you want to adopt an FA, do so now and fix it up; some of these articles only need an afternoon to get fixed up. The important thing is to get involved in FAR and URFA, because we need as many editors as we can to help us review these FAs.

1283:

articles after promotion. Articles that are not being watched need to be sent to FAR faster: many editors don't "want to lose their star" so pointing out problems on the talk page or sending the article to FAR sometimes gives editors the nudge to improve "their" articles.

2827:

I also tend to think that this wouldn't be useful; my (limited) experience with the vital articles process has indicated to me that it is primarily an extended exercise in navel-gazing, trying to determine what is "important" or not in ways that usually miss the point.

909:

summary style and length were better enforced at FAC. The (good) advice given there in the Broad-scope articles rarely gains consensus at FAC. Pet-peeve alert, as I have never supported a very long article, although I did have to promote some because, consensus. The

1404:

button continues to produce sub-optimal results and poor allocation of resources. It would be more expedient to encourage those editors whose prose isn't up to FA level to go out and develop a network of collaborators-- which is what I have had to do, since my prose

1093:

2a is also identical. This is one of the unfortunate areas of current reviewing, where we no longer expect coordination between what FAC produces and what TFA needs. Leads are now very rarely scrupulously examined and in too many cases, that leads to difficulties at

2848:

Well since it ain't gonna happen, I had to resolve some of my curiosity by hand. Here is all the navel-gazing you can handle (I won't be able to do level 4 or 5 by hand). There are 8 wikipedians who have nominated at least 2 current FAs that are Level 3 or above

1551:

there will be helpful. Doing so may leave the impression that the most prolific FA hurricane writers are serial copyright violators, when in fact, the case is that some of their articles may be victims of copying within going to and fro, not necessarily by them.

2279:, there are 1,138 Featured Articles that have cleanup issues, or 18% of all Featured Articles. Is this something that should be receiving more attention? It feels like most cleanup issues would mean that an article does not meet the Featured Article criteria. 2143:

Ack, I was hoping it'd be a little better than the Knowledge (XXG) baseline, but that's worse — 16% compared to 20% overall at this point. A concerted effort to get more women bios (or articles of particular interest to women) to FA status might be warranted.

3556:. You're certainly correct that it's a bit of work for rather niche benefit, but I believe completeness of the FA/BP record (except from August to November 2001, which are well and truly lost with current knowledge and technology) is a worthwhile pursuit. – 2332:

they feel it may be ready for a nom for formal review? I have not changed much since the GA nom, however the GA nom was much more strict than the basic GA criteria. The entire article was re-written from the ground up with the referencing system replaced.

230:

your claim is clearly based on emotion or suspicion, rather than real facts. I've just check what I'm scheduling for January, and of those that have a geographical link, three relate to eastern Europe, one to the Middle East, and two to south-east Asia.

678:

Serial, while I agree that we already have policy on our side (and note that the Medical FA editnotice mimics that very wording while adding mention of MEDRS), I remain reluctant to implement any editnotice on FAs more broadly, because the work at

3056:

It's neither preferred nor not preferred - as long as the treatment is consistent, any style of internal linking in citations is permissible. Note also that as long as it's internally consistent, the style shouldn't be changed without discussion.

602:, and often the work of bots is to update parameter names, MOS compliance elements, etc. as they change over time. They're never 100% immune to errors, but my impression is that overall we can trust BAG to only approve bots that won't do harm. 1061:

google) check to make sure all sources and issues are considered? And we have seen a recent issue at FAR where reviewers had a mistaken understanding of when primary sources or sources not independent from the subject can be used. It is my

1083: 3040:

I have noticed that many articles have malformed sources, such as "New York Times" instead of "The New York Times" or "The Associated Press" instead of "Associated Press", which beg a link to assure appropriate spelling. Please advise.

3919:

Thanks for the ping. The fact that all graphs across Knowledge (XXG) are non-functional right now is deeply unfortunate, but I don't think mass-removing them would be an appropriate response. Taking the long-term view, they'll be back

1474:

technical. I see your point there; perhaps you could supply an example of a history-esque FA article that you think has brilliant prose? Also, in the future I'm always willing to look over any Africa military/history/politics at FAR.

1767:

is a standard copy of the book of hours texts, also of interest only for the illustations. It should go under art, & possibly religion, though I don't think we do that. Probably we need a new category in Biology for the parrots,

1493:

and basically make the prose very technical. It is extremely difficult to make them lay-friendly, especially if you don't really care about the subject to begin with. That can also explain why FA growth on these topics are very low.

2584:

Based on the edit tags this edit is a mobile rollback edit. Presumably just a misclick. Would recommend that Sheep add the editing feature where it prompts for confirmation of rollback and then somebody manually add those FAs back.

1123:

I would summarize my very long response to a) better coordination of and respect for the necessary (and once helpful) relationship between FAC, FAR and TFA; b) URFA URFA URFA, FAR FAR FAR; and c) restore active healthy debate to

4123:. It is approaching its 30th anniversary and though I won't quite have exactly 30, unfortunately, I'm hoping to have it in February if it's deemed eligible. I have in recent months seen old FAs re-run, but I don't remember just 3437:, it seems that 81 FAs were voted out in the "Refreshing brilliant prose" up-or-down vote. Unless I am misunderstanding, you are asking that we incorporate those 81 delists into the FA archives (eg, add to artichistory, add to 3797:

Is there a json-file containing all featured articles or a module-function which could determine if the given article is featured? Want to use it in other module which would display a featured icon near the link if necessary.

2207:). Seems to me we should be giving more attention to improving the quality of biographies in general. As for FAs about women, it should not be too difficult to restore some of the 20 former FA articles listed on WikiProject 2523:

In any case, I pointed this out because this one example, the only I'd seen in ages, was truly not good. If I recall correctly, it actually gave me a different impression from the article intro. Maybe this rarely happens.

4195: 3603:

in the current database, and I believe you are saying the Featured version is even older than this. That is just embarrassing, and I'm not sure why we would expend the effort to link to something even older than that.

1394:

or something else, prose standards have dropped. Tony1 and Eric could be counted on to quickly shut down FACs with deficient prose, where these days, we struggle through pages and pages and pages of commentary (causing

2605:

My phone is a bit slow, and whenever I was opening up my watchlist/recent changes/related changes and click my desired link within a few seconds of the page loading, sometimes I accidentally click the rollback thing.

869:), they all turn to black goo on the internet unless constantly watched, upgraded and maintained. Because ... it's Knowledge (XXG). Just that simple, and not something we can change by any means I am familiar with. 356: 1636: 3703:

Give it its own section, or leave it. Culture and society isn't that big. As with Appalachian Spring a few sections above, there are some odd inclusions in C&S, things that should perhaps be in history.

933:

as the bellweather. When you look at an old FA that is chock full of images that are poorly laid out, you know the article isn't being watched by an FA-knowledgeable editor, and you're going to find deeper

850:) which requires constant and extreme maintenance efforts, so it is irksome to find topics that are relatively easier to maintain falling out of standard, with the attached problem that they jeopardize the 2808:, which reflects what readers want (by pageviews). For those who want to see them by editor, there's a sort button on the column. Another page encouraging entitlement by writer wouldn't be a good thing. 2641: 2630: 1418:

when it first came to FAC, but left FAC with a less-than-satisfactory lead, still with the error. There is nothing in LEAD that demands a very short lead for a short article, and a fine lead was lost at

3692:

is trying to get every McQueen collection to FA, so the topic is definitely going to grow over time. My suggestion is to place it under Art, but I understand that it may be controversial to purists. --

3149:

The general answer is yes, lest we fall into the trap of people's subjective opinions of "best work" and fall into even more elitism around here, although Lee is right (nothwithstanding the subjective "

2299: 2364:

occurred, first by finding Dietrich did not have a right for publicly funded representation, and second by failing to find that a miscarriage of justice had occurred due to this lack of representation.

3895: 1270:

Sandy is being too modest in how instrumental she was in getting FASA set up; I suggested the idea, but she created the infrastructure around it. The tabs in FASA and URFA were taken directly from

3729: 2701:

I am surprised to see no comment. Personally, seeing that my most important article creation has been delisted at FA, is part of the motivation for my current effort to get my only level 4 VA (

1274:, and it's used in many other places in Knowledge (XXG) like GOCE and MILHIST. Maybe I'll do a markup tomorrow on how it might look if FA implemented it and post it below. If I forget, ping me. 2439:

gives some rudimentary information about the process. The blurbs were historically always exactly as you suggest (truncated versions of the lead); these days, leads aren't always checked at

3748:

and design of the coinage. Additionally, four FAs in the Numismatics sub-section are themselves biographies, matching the number of bios in *Business, economics, and finance biographies*.

1640: 3411: 2644:. Could we add a number to the stars to show what VA levels some of the important FA contributions are recognized at. That would also encourage FA pursuit of the more important articles. 789:

I'd be curious to hear, given your experience at URFA2020, what you've noticed about how unmonitored FAs tend to change over time, and what we can do about it. My knowledge on this is at

2227:

BLPs and Biographies more widely are harder to progress than non-bios in my experience. I can't say I'd want to start working on female bios specifically to "tip the scales" as it were.

1086:, thank goodness we did that. Nonetheless, last month, a cyclone FAC passed without a check for the pervasive failures in most cyclone articles to attribute public domain sources and 3329: 1109: 819:. Maybe we could add a similar tag for unreferenced additions to FAs. Sorry for the rambling/tangents haha, but wanted to throw some ideas out there, and curious what you all think. 486: 481: 412: 1755: 2773:

project. The main objections that I see are that a) it's a largely arbitrary classification and b) that it's far from clear that these articles are actually the most important for

1317:

be more clear" or "Let me Google this subject to see if anyone's released a new book or article about it." I work in more historical areas (and especially stagnant ones at that)

1156:

Thanks for writing all that out, Sandy! It's very interesting to learn about the history of the FA system (I hadn't seen things like that massive 2010 copyvio discussion before).

3751:

Seperating it into its own category would allow the massive list to be broken up into sections, and better represent the current (low) number of FAs within the economics field.

3369: 1042:

1a has degraded; we no longer expect "brilliant prose". Since 2010, we have lost several of the better and more strict prose reviewers, for a variety of reasons. And it shows.

476: 468:

Here is the page where I keep track of medical FA notices, and the links to all previous discussions is in the second section (there were a few more than the one you linked):

3891: 905:... yes, and ? This doesn't really help us, because that means you shouldn't write Education FAs, and I shouldn't write medical ones. Not many FAs will endure in static form. 1414:

the faulty recommendation from a reviewer to cut down the perfectly adequate lead, based on a misinterpretation of the LEAD guidelines; the lead was in full compliance with

471: 426: 1172:

control from a systemic perspective is changing the incentive structure around the various tasks we want people to take on, since that changes behavior in an enduring way.

1068:

1d is identical. Same question: when was the last time you read of a reviewer who perused the article talk archives to assure there were no disputes swept into archives?

440:

through discussion, and it's a good idea to propose major changes to them first at talk), but I'm not sure whether any of them are so crucial that it's worth the cost in

2361:

if you want feedback in preparation for FAC. A quick look through suggests a thorough copyedit is in order – it reads pretty impenetrably in places to me. For example

2001:

Three different coordinates schedule, alternating per month, and they usually take what is available. There are more flowers and Georgetown people than other topics. --

647: 2496: 4169:

has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the

69: 64: 59: 3553: 1027: 1019: 926:

My sense is that articles tend to get expanded, and that the new (or updated) stuff isn't up to FA standard. Is that right, or are there other major culprits?

2436: 1711: 1519: 3071:

Thank you for the feedback, but this is a complicated situation since most pages I see are already hybrid and I tend to replace typos with internal links.

213:

If I'm allowed to, I'd rather keep it at Hayes Pond (if you mean what I think you mean), since its an anniversary date and those only happen once a year. -

1600: 1359: 1322:

re comprehensiveness every three to five years or so. An article on someone like Barack Obama is going to need to be checked every 6 months or less. -

731: 709: 626: 574: 533: 1164:

since it's not something we can directly control beyond ourselves, and even if all of us here decided to become more active in certain areas, that'd

3434: 3356: 2557: 2425: 1176: 4222:

This is more of a little nitpick than an actual issue, but there are at least four theatrical building FAs in two separate sections. Two of them (

3213:

was just promoted the FA and I found that it was placed under the "Culture and society" section. This seems rather odd to me- other ballets, like

2668:

are tied for the most FA promotions to include a level 2. It would be interesting to see who has a lot of FA VAs especially at the higher levels.-

1963:

do not allow non-free (under copyright) images on the main page, I believe for "contextual significance" (part of the fair use doctrine) reasons.

2186: 2055:

Please first outline your concerns on the article's talk page, and then if they are not addressed after a couple of weeks you can proceed with a

1423:

For the more static historically subjects, I think it can suffice to do a new source search re comprehensiveness every three to five years or so.

3355:. I have even used the Tim Starling logs to reconstruct some otherwise-unavailable "featured versions" in subpages, and I would love it if the @ 285: 145: 992:

You asked what we can do about this deterioration. I have long advocated for (and been ignored by all but a handful of editors) two things:

964:... our only current recourse is to try to get them to go through the talk page, where we hope that someone with more of a clue will intervene 1667:

It's my fault - I was trying to promote a FAC by memory without looking at the instructions, and happened to forget to add it to the log ...

1437:

is more settled (meaning the research money dried up), so a bi-annual check is fine. I wonder if we could come up with general guidelines ...

3538:, I'd like to at least have our old BP's that survived the up/down vote era (and, possibly, those who didn't) have that status reflected in 2705:) relisted at FA. I think seeing who is doing important work and what work has been delisted could be motivating to some of the FA hunters.- 2368:

I'm also baffled by the §Biography of Dietrich section which seems to just be tacked onto the end of the article for no discernable reason.

3633: 3565: 3387: 3170: 2758: 4199: 4171: 3875:? It's non-interactive, presumably out of date, and definitely not representative of all FA's (where does a biography go on a world map?) 938:

As a thought experiment, how many of articles that get brought to FAR wouldn't have been if they'd just stayed in their original FA state?

790: 4338: 2754: 3688:

I was wondering if there are enough articles relating to fashion to spin the topic out of the catch-all of Culture and society? I know

3642:

If you get someone interested in doing all that work, I can help make sure the archives and articlehistory parts are working right ...

1038:. An examination of past and present shows the early wisdom of FA leadership (although I'm not sure why it took us so long to add 1f). 960:

require constant vigilance and updating, but those are rare, and the idea that we can freeze an approved version of an FA is all wrong.

956:

twice since 2006; medicine advances. All city, state, country articles change. Lucky the few FA writers whose work is in topics that

127:

is the criteria for what featured articles must be; feel free to work an article up to those standards and help represent those areas!

47: 17: 3733: 2979: 2715: 2678: 2617: 878: 1470:

The science/math stuff is particularly incomprehensible, guess I was thinking more about historical subjects, where it's usually not

2373: 2189:

appears quite active. Primarily working on getting such articles to Good status, but it appears they are interested in FAs as well.

1344:

Sounding good is often in tension with being accurate and true to the source material, since its often boring material we work with

1278:

could find about the FA process. I do not recall an essay, signpost article, or explainer on maintaining FA status. Yes, there are

4028:

Accessibility nightmare but it does work for me. Not sure this is the first thing people should see if it's not working for all.

3339:

I worked on a few reconstructions of the pre-2003 "Brilliant Prose" log, originally in my userspace but, with some assistance by

1875: 1770: 1238:. I wish we would keep up that effort, but no one is interested. I'm unsure about the idea of more awards, as the reception to 865:

The short answer to your queries is, unless the FA is on a very obscure, little-read, and (rarely) static historical topic (take

380:, and that's ok. 3) The only way to change this, is to get on board and improve articles in areas where we are under represented. 2495:

The intro is the starting point for the blurb, but in almost all cases it is too long. In the past the blurb was written by the

3926:

And yes, it doesn't include items that lack a geolocation. But that's why it's only one way of several we offer to browse FAs.

3490:. If I'm understanding, you're asking that we dig back into a newly found copy of the old database, and find the version when 1490: 4165: 4147: 4119:

I'm working on repairing a 2007 wrecked FA via translating a newer FA from another language; it appeared on the front page on

1071:

1e also identical. Frequently misapplied though. A recent FAR talks about the number of reverts out of total edits; well, we

4238:) are under the "Architecture and archaeology" subheader. Should these articles all be listed under the Theatre subheader? – 4223: 3997:

Doesn't work for me, either, though it has in the past. Clicking it now just brings up a blank page. I like the idea though.

419: 4317: 1644: 1570:

Agreed, I just picked your example to make a very rough essay. Feel free to fix it, after all, this is Knowledge (XXG) :)

738: 716: 633: 581: 540: 4366: 3988: 3880: 2369: 1719: 1575: 1527: 1499: 3093:

Even if the topic of an article is about something very obscure, is it possible for it to still be a featured article?

1942: 1760: 1313: 903:... but if maintenance is so complicated or tedious that only you would reasonably do it, it's sure to eventually fail 4253:

Would anyone object to me moving the Harris Theater and New Amsterdam Theatre articles to the "Theatre" subheader? –

3352: 2850: 2770: 359:. At risk of sounding dismissive, if you are upset about the lack of non-Western featured articles, then write one. - 4393: 811:

about that sidebar) Or maybe we could employ edit filters? I know there's a "possible unreferenced addition to BLP"

1865: 1764: 1165: 913:

example was perfect (although even that article eventually fell apart), in contrast to the five miserable FACs for

573:, also this should justify the NOBOTS magic word as citations, etc., have also been considered at its candidature. 296: 38: 4313: 4203:

remove content from an article, and editors just can't agree – please tell me what the right answer is. Thanks.

4082: 3983:

It doesn't appear to be interactive for me, for whatever reason. Glad to hear it's functioning better for others.

2805: 2208: 1830: 4227: 2284: 1775: 1430: 1383: 981: 859: 3150: 2865:) has the most career FAs with 30 (29 current). There are 2 WPians who have more career FA, but only 1 Level 3: 1217:

knowledge of what Knowledge (XXG) used to be like, so I defer to you and others who have been around for longer.

757:, we risk losing the very policy that protects the newer FAs. So I am happy that the hint is taken :) :) Bst, 4389: 4231: 3629: 3561: 3542: 3383: 3166: 315:

It can probably wait … I was only trying to advance on the complaint above, and defer to Indy on when is best.

1991: 974:

Maybe it makes more sense to add notices/controls to historical FAs, since those don't need as much updating?)

881:; amazing to see what has crept in since I promoted it, while simultaneously, it hasn't been kept up to date. 120: 4342: 3441:, and add to the archived log), and I'm not seeing a benefit in the amount of work it would take to do that. 1104:

2c we dropped some older citation methods. Examination of 2c remains about the same as it was prior to 2011.

4019: 3984: 3973: 3876: 3756: 3689: 3286: 3232: 3013: 2782: 2750: 1715: 1571: 1541: 1523: 1495: 816: 794: 433: 377: 3728:

page on Knowledge (XXG). I think this is a great achievement of the world universal system of measurement.

3129: 2204: 1011:

like. I often see reference to these rising standards, and would be entertained to know what those are :)

97:

discussing a figure or event related to India or an African country. They also use English Knowledge (XXG)

4208: 4180: 3856: 3652: 3614: 3590: 3505: 3477: 3451: 3424: 3132:

are technically articles, and wouldn't be suitable either (maybe, I have no idea if anyone's ever tried).

2975: 2878: 2818: 2711: 2674: 2613: 2574: 2465: 2400: 2312: 2006: 1938: 1693: 1657: 1561: 1452: 1261: 1146: 767: 698: 509: 325: 264: 204: 173: 3968:

I notice that more than half the FAs in South America appear to be my work, and form a distinct cluster.

2661: 1987: 1426: 1279: 1248: 1133: 1002: 680: 4235: 4129: 4004: 3827: 3576: 3535: 2898: 2702: 2037: 1480: 1327: 808: 364: 235:, that article was a TFAR request for that sepcific date, so I'm reluctant to overturn the !votes there 218: 4397: 4377: 4346: 4287: 4273: 4262: 4247: 4212: 4184: 4141: 4106: 4072: 4040: 4023: 4009: 3992: 3977: 3957: 3944: 3914: 3884: 3860: 3841: 3831: 3807: 3784: 3775: 3760: 3737: 3713: 3697: 3671: 3656: 3637: 3618: 3594: 3569: 3509: 3481: 3455: 3428: 3391: 3311: 3276: 3257: 3196: 3174: 3140: 3128:

well, no, not ALL articles. List or glossary articles wouldn't be suitable, not would permanent stubs.

3123: 3108: 3080: 3066: 3050: 3017: 2996: 2839: 2822: 2799: 2786: 2762: 2732: 2695: 2621: 2596: 2578: 2533: 2511: 2486: 2469: 2404: 2387: 2383: 2377: 2344: 2316: 2288: 2250: 2235: 2220: 2198: 2177: 2162: 2138: 2120: 2097: 2068: 2042: 2010: 1995: 1974: 1922: 1896: 1808: 1787: 1742: 1723: 1697: 1678: 1661: 1621: 1579: 1565: 1545: 1531: 1503: 1484: 1456: 1331: 1296: 1265: 1209: 1188: 1150: 1129: 1125: 1030:

to see a footnoted list of the dates of significant changes at FAC or WIAFA. Looking at the changes to

873:

FA-knowledgeable watchers who are consistently maintaining and updating them. My shock of this week at

837: 771: 746: 724: 702: 684: 661: 641: 620: 589: 548: 513: 462: 400: 368: 329: 310: 268: 249: 222: 208: 177: 156: 138: 106: 1429:

has prompted a lot of updating). In medicine, articles need at least a yearly check for new reviews;

4283: 4258: 4243: 3910: 3803: 3119: 3062: 2340: 2328: 2280: 2064: 1738: 858:

FAs, included my 2006 FA. Heck I even had to make some pretty significant changes just this week at

185: 2987: 2723: 2686: 2203:

Surprising that only 1,484 of the 7,919 FA articles on the EN Knowledge (XXG) are about people (see

2025: 1214:

Z gets most of the credit for FASA; I just pushed the final buttons because Z was busy that day. Re

3625: 3557: 3379: 3162: 3076: 3046: 1794: 1375: 242: 119:- No, the article does not "glorify" Longstreet. I've read it and it's neutral. The Main Page is 4362: 3008:

whoever reads this. If I might’ve formatted anything wrong in this talk page, please let me know.

2991: 2727: 2690: 2276: 2111:

and got 1234 male, 250 female (plus 11 male and 5 female non-human organisms, mostly racehorses).

1730: 1410: 1396: 1243:

the beginnings of a good discussion about setting up tabbed pages (similar to what you now see at

1095: 889: 599: 4371: 4067: 4015: 3969: 3814: 3752: 3667: 3575:

Ah, yes, Byzantine; I probably overlooked it because it should come to FAR and be demoted. So at

3282: 3264: 3228: 3215: 3209: 3009: 2874: 2854: 2834: 2778: 2746: 2591: 2506: 1969: 1917: 1803: 1673: 1537: 1307:

Casual peruser here. Sandy's analysis is excellent and enlightening. I have a minor quibble with

656: 305: 133: 2791:

I feel like it's a different list: perhaps Wikipedians by Featured Vital articles or something.

1759:

is what it says, a book of illustrations, with no text at all. It should go under biology (like

1075:

allowed to revert vandalism, etc, and in my view, understanding of how 1e is applied has fallen.

1031: 521: 496: 3534:, which has been BP since May 26, 2001, and has never been demoted since. Using the example of 3153:") that some things are technically in the mainspace and are ineligible such as lists (we have 4204: 4176: 3847: 3771: 3709: 3643: 3605: 3581: 3521: 3496: 3487: 3468: 3442: 3415: 3362: 3192: 3183:, whose very existence is far from certain. It's been an FA since 2007, when it was like this 3180: 3134: 3102: 2970: 2809: 2793: 2706: 2669: 2607: 2570: 2563: 2548: 2529: 2482: 2456: 2421: 2391: 2303: 2246: 2229: 2216: 2193: 2173: 2168:

as many FAs as you like. Mildly interesting that we have a higher ratio of fictional females!

2133: 2115: 2002: 1950: 1934: 1783: 1684: 1648: 1552: 1465: 1443: 1434: 1387: 1355: 1252: 1137: 997:

of the overall pool of FAs a decade ago, they are now treated as three almost separate pieces.

977: 953: 847: 784: 758: 689: 500: 394: 316: 293: 275: 255: 232: 195: 164: 153: 102: 4384:

My name is Wilfred I Have Information about africa tribe in Tanzania Maasai and Nyaturu Tribe

2983: 2719: 2682: 2432: 1960: 1415: 1244: 1239: 1115:

4, identical wording, and frequently breached today, IMNSHO (but that is a pet peeve for me).

967: 495:

I think they are very necessary and most helpful on the medical FAs (obviously :) because of

385: 124: 4268: 3998: 3823: 3531: 3399: 3364: 3272: 2565: 2050: 1683:

Whew ... I had just verified the number was correct, and was going there next. Thanks, HF!

1476: 1337: 1323: 1047:

1 (b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context

866: 801: 441: 360: 279: 214: 191: 160: 4151: 3438: 2444: 2440: 2056: 1632: 1087: 874: 851: 625:

The important point, which you've completely disregarded, is the policy consideration! :o

528: 389: 4361:

it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a

4279: 4254: 4239: 3906: 3838: 3799: 3781: 3694: 3299: 3245: 3115: 3058: 2942: 2882: 2742: 2653: 2352: 2336: 2060: 1734: 1292: 914: 3872: 3154: 2637: 2358: 1858:#REDIRECT ] {{Redirect category shell| {{R from shortcut}} {{R to project namespace}} }} 1834: 1386:. But that FAC no longer has the services of some of our top copyeditors (eg, Tony1 and 1271: 1220: 1098:. Part of the reason LEAD was singled out historically was to aid in writing TFA blurbs. 986:

It is all about whether an article has active FA-knowledgeable watchers and maintainers.

4058: 4036: 3072: 3042: 2079:

I'm curious, has anyone calculated the percentage of FA bios that are male vs. female?

2018: 1379: 1225: 708:(Although I don't think I've ever seen it used on old material which is...reassuring!) 236: 4267:

Seems reasonable. They fit a bit better there than in a general architecture section.

3368:

would be so kind as to begin finishing this work and ultimately incorporating it into

1187:

Lastly, on improving the level of discussion here, should we be merging this page and

4078: 4062: 3663: 3549: 3360: 3306: 3252: 3158: 2866: 2829: 2586: 2561: 2501: 1964: 1912: 1888: 1798: 1668: 1232: 949: 651: 300: 184:

Jimfbleak I wonder if, considering the above, you might consider Boganda in place of

128: 1729:

It's not a bad essay, but it's also not the title - at the moment it's a version of

3952: 3767: 3705: 3552:) reconstruct the "featured versions" of each article as I have done, for example, 3491: 3346: 3188: 3095: 2914: 2804:

The Vital articles WikiProject is kind of a mess; we already note important FAs at

2525: 2478: 2417: 2242: 2212: 2190: 2169: 2130: 2112: 1779: 1601:

Knowledge (XXG) talk:Today's featured article § Adjusting the TFA re-running period

941: 930: 812: 349: 289: 227: 149: 114: 98: 3923:

The map is generated dynamically, if I recall, so datedness shouldn't be an issue.

3037:

Where the source, Los Angeles Times isn't an internal link. Is this preferred?

1084:

Knowledge (XXG):Contributor copyright investigations/WikiProject Tropical cyclones

2474:

I don't remember which article now, it would be the one featured on May 30, 2023.

2024:

As the subject says we seriously need re-assessment as most of the citations are

1308: 4120: 3962:

Seems like it sometimes takes more than one click. It's not out-of-date either;

3725: 3527: 3403: 3366: 3268: 3224: 3028: 2918: 2906: 2870: 2741:

I agree it would be interesting, but the bot that maintains that page is run by

2645: 2567: 46:

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

3548:, and preferably, using the Starling logs (and possibly arch-WikiArchaeologist 3267:

you’re absolutely correct, and I have moved it there. Apologies for the mixup.

3462: 3407: 2962: 2881:

47 FAs—19 current). There are 4 WPians with more than 2 at Level 3 and above:

2447:

readiness, and lots of editors subsequently edit the TFA blurb. For example,

2125:

I just realised that included fictional characters which maybe we don't want.

1371: 1367: 1351: 1288: 1180: 846:

Admitting I have a pony in this editnotice race, as I have a 2006 medical FA (

520:

As at least one mod here knows ;) we already have policy on our side (see

4094: 4030: 3963: 3932: 3901: 2966: 2958: 2934: 2886: 2183: 2150: 2104: 2085: 1609: 1197: 825: 608: 450: 291: 151: 1228:. If you want more history of the process, do go and browse everything at 4388:

I wish to have people to support me write clear article about these tribe

4196:

Knowledge (XXG):Requests for comment/When there is no consensus either way

885:

which is sad. (Some of those had former collaborators who have moved on.)

3292: 3238: 2950: 2922: 2910: 2902: 1956: 1883: 3486:

A better and more complete example can be seen in the articlehistory at

3372:

so we can have a near-complete archive stretching back to January 2001.

3034:"Disney to Quit Post at Studio". Los Angeles Times. September 11, 1945. 1489:

I can agree with this, as people in aerospace often write big rocket as

1433:

research is moving fast, so I browse Pubmed at least every two months.

3410:

and others are diligently working to restore it to modern standards at

3406:, to my knowledge, it is our oldest continuously featured article, and 3342: 2946: 2926: 2858: 2294:

That listing isn't particularly helpful for a variety of reasons; what

1955:

Since the dress is under copyright, any image of it would have to meet

917:

whose main author refused to trim in accordance with the Islam example.

3031:

Article doesn't have links to the sources in citations. For example:

2300:

Knowledge (XXG):Knowledge (XXG) Signpost/2022-01-30/WikiProject report

4115:

When is an article old enough to be featured on the front page twice?

2890: 2862: 1052:

1c is similarly identical to today. I would say that both 1b and 1c

3157:

for that, although the demarcation is murky as demonstrated by the

2642:

Knowledge (XXG):List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations

2631:

Knowledge (XXG):List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations

1442:

While I have your attention, thank you for the fine work at FAR !!

1358:

for weeks before I brought it to FAC (Tony1 is the language mentor

1065:

that understanding of things like these have fallen over the years.

2938: 2649: 1101:

2b identical. But I rarely see editors reviewing for that anymore.

1014:

I tend to divide FAC into pre- and post-October 31, 2010 when the

910: 4278:

Sounds good. I've moved the articles to the Theatre subheader. –

3724:

Dear gold star editors, i request your assitance in updating the

3530:

is the longest continuously-Featured article; that honor goes to

1710:

Alright, here's my attempt to list resources for building FAs at

1536:

I think it's missing the part about keeping articles up-to-date.

2930: 1219:

I suspect we would have FAR fewer problems eventually at FAR if

4301: 2954: 2894: 2665: 2657: 1818: 1425:

Possibly, but we generally aren't getting even that (although

25: 1522:

as a primer for some solution eventually, what do you think?

940:

This is a misunderstanding we should combat aggressively :)

897:

Most content on Knowledge (XXG) naturally improves over time.

499:. The MilHist editnotice, discussed, was never implemented. 3412:

Knowledge (XXG):Featured article review/Sex Pistols/archive2

1635:, there were 6,053 FAs end of January. For February so far, 976:

I hope my other answers have demonstrated the variability.

532:. A link to this at the top of every open FA would be good. 1078:

1f brand new, based on an RFC last year, and in light of a

3822:

with me on this. Interested to see your thoughts on this.

1753:

There are some misclassificationbs here. In "Literature",

1366:). Now that Tony1 is gone from FA-level work, I relied on 411:

I know that there's been some discussion previously, e.g.

2410: 793:(recently expanded with a broad-scope article section by 384:

subject - there's little chance of an item that isn't at

295:- If Boganda clears FAR quickly enough, it can take "my" 4230:) are under the "Theatre" subheader, and the other two ( 3966:

was promoted just a few days ago and already shows up.

3600: 3184: 2553: 2452: 2448: 2126: 2108: 1035: 1929:

Why is there no image for Billy Porter's tuxedo dress?

1756:

Illustrations of the Family of Psittacidae, or Parrots

1309:

1a has degraded; we no longer expect "brilliant prose"

472:

Knowledge (XXG):Featured articles/Editnotice templates

1006:

mainpage day, some have decided it no longer matters.

159:

was run TFA in 2009, and is looking to be a save by

4198:

is not getting many responses (possibly because the

3320:

Pre-2003 Brilliant Prose donated to the coordinators

753:

is, unless URFA makes a dent, and we refocus on the

3951:If you click on the map it becomes interactive. -- 1933:An image of him in it would help fill up the space 3435:Knowledge (XXG):Featured article statistics#Tables 2769:I am not sure that a lot of people care about the 2411:"From today's featured article" front page excerpt 3223:not belong in the same place? Thanks! (ping for @ 2497:Knowledge (XXG):Today's featured article/requests 980:is a 2006 FA; it is no different in quality than 4057:A bit of a question here - does anyone know why 929:and quickly. I have taken lately to cleaning up 646:While I have less faith in BAG than Sdkb due to 1861:This would automatically tag the redirect with 1520:Knowledge (XXG):After achieving featured status 3601:this is the oldest version of Byzantine Empire 3114:As long as the sourcing exists to support it. 2806:Knowledge (XXG):Million Award#Featured content 2437:Knowledge (XXG):About Today's featured article 1049:the wording is identical to the wording today. 899:You're familiar with that bridge in Brooklyn? 755:overall FA process and the entire pool of FAs 8: 4298:Semi-protected edit request on 28 March 2024 1590:Proposal to adjust the TFA re-running period 3219:, are under "Classical music works"- would 3187:. There's rather a lot of context/padding. 388:passing FA, and if you see one, take it to 1599:You are invited to join the discussion at 562:The following discussion has been closed. 553: 3837:He is primarily notable as an artist. -- 3526:I believe you're mistaken in saying that 2652:is the only nominator with a Level 1 FA. 2357:It might be worth listing the article at 2028:. This page should be handled carefully. 1643:equals 12, so total should be 6,065, but 1312:Wikivoice to be factually authoritative. 557:Cul-de-sac into an unnecessary diversion 4194:Because I'm not sure what else to say. 3793:Function to check if article is featured 3433:Also, if you look at the oldest date at 3330:History of the Featured article process 1981:Georgetown University Featured Articles 1815:Protected edit request on 29 April 2022 1778:all far more biological than literary. 1175:On that note, I'm very glad to see the 970:(HINT, reminder, go enter your votes :) 3730:2406:3400:212:D700:3F52:FB52:BC6B:B290 3720:Help gold star editors - Metrification 3089:Can any article become a featured one? 3023:Citation Source Links vs Text Question 2745:, so he is who you would have to ask. 2382:This post would get more attention at 2362: 1422: 1343: 1215: 1046: 973: 963: 948:; how could it have stayed the same? 937: 925: 902: 896: 807:? (Although, another sidenote, I have 525: 85:Featured Article for December 10, 2021 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 18:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Featured articles 3281:No worries, thanks for the quick fix 3179:In the past, the usual case cited is 2059:. See the instructions on that page. 1961:Knowledge (XXG)'s fair use guidelines 7: 2664:(24 FAs, 15 current) with his FA of 2656:(24 FAs, 24 current) with his FA of 2648:(20 FAs, 17 current) with his FA of 2127:Narrowing it to "instance of: human" 1797:belongs under warfare, not history. 1120:... URFA URFA URFA and FAR FAR FAR. 1018:left a permanent dent upon FAC (see 4190:This is a clickbait section heading 4005: 3003:How can I ask to future an article? 2636:Have we ever considered indicating 2271:Featured articles requiring cleanup 1082:with broad-ranging implications at 988:Those that don't need to go to FAR. 194:and Boganda should clear FAR soon. 4166:Knowledge (XXG):Content assessment 4148:Knowledge (XXG):Content assessment 4081:, it's because the Wikidata item ( 4014:For me, it takes a while to load. 3161:case) and disambiguation pages. – 2431:It would be helpful to know which 1959:to be useable on Knowledge (XXG). 921:On your other specific questions: 879:Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy 24: 4318:Knowledge (XXG):Featured articles 3871:What's the point of the map atop 1645:Knowledge (XXG):Featured articles 1518:I just made an essay about this: 1390:), no matter whether we label it 4353: 4305: 4157: 4088:) doesn't have the coordinates. 4035: 1903: 1855:Please replace everything with: 1822: 1771:A History of the Birds of Europe 1594: 1108:fewer fair-use images than when 29: 1793:Likewise, I would suggest that 1491:super heavy-lift launch vehicle 2851:Knowledge (XXG):Vital_articles 2840:17:07, 30 September 2023 (UTC) 2823:14:43, 30 September 2023 (UTC) 2800:11:12, 30 September 2023 (UTC) 2787:08:45, 30 September 2023 (UTC) 2771:Knowledge (XXG):Vital articles 2763:23:12, 29 September 2023 (UTC) 2733:23:06, 29 September 2023 (UTC) 2696:22:45, 27 September 2023 (UTC) 1177:WP:Featured Article Save Award 1088:copying within Knowledge (XXG) 1022:). Before that, standards had 1: 4224:His Majesty's Theatre, London 4107:07:31, 29 December 2023 (UTC) 4073:03:04, 29 December 2023 (UTC) 3684:Spin-off Fashion from Culture 2435:you were dissatisfied with. 2317:03:39, 19 December 2022 (UTC) 2289:03:34, 19 December 2022 (UTC) 2251:15:37, 25 November 2022 (UTC) 2236:07:27, 25 November 2022 (UTC) 2221:07:05, 25 November 2022 (UTC) 2199:00:21, 25 November 2022 (UTC) 2178:05:47, 24 November 2022 (UTC) 2163:02:14, 24 November 2022 (UTC) 2139:00:46, 24 November 2022 (UTC) 2129:gives 1203 male, 235 female. 2121:00:36, 24 November 2022 (UTC) 2098:23:28, 23 November 2022 (UTC) 2069:12:53, 5 September 2022 (UTC) 2043:10:06, 5 September 2022 (UTC) 2011:17:34, 1 September 2022 (UTC) 1996:17:28, 1 September 2022 (UTC) 1928: 1698:17:09, 26 February 2022 (UTC) 1679:17:05, 26 February 2022 (UTC) 1662:16:40, 26 February 2022 (UTC) 1580:13:44, 26 December 2021 (UTC) 1566:13:20, 26 December 2021 (UTC) 1546:10:07, 26 December 2021 (UTC) 1532:09:35, 26 December 2021 (UTC) 1504:02:50, 30 December 2021 (UTC) 1485:02:47, 30 December 2021 (UTC) 1457:18:28, 29 December 2021 (UTC) 1382:and others for prose work at 1332:12:50, 24 December 2021 (UTC) 1297:04:42, 23 December 2021 (UTC) 1266:00:04, 23 December 2021 (UTC) 1210:23:47, 22 December 2021 (UTC) 1151:22:10, 22 December 2021 (UTC) 1026:increased: you can scroll to 854:wording that should apply to 838:19:39, 22 December 2021 (UTC) 772:19:17, 22 December 2021 (UTC) 747:18:54, 22 December 2021 (UTC) 725:18:53, 22 December 2021 (UTC) 703:18:37, 22 December 2021 (UTC) 662:17:44, 22 December 2021 (UTC) 642:17:40, 22 December 2021 (UTC) 621:17:34, 22 December 2021 (UTC) 590:17:19, 22 December 2021 (UTC) 549:18:53, 22 December 2021 (UTC) 514:00:15, 19 December 2021 (UTC) 463:21:03, 18 December 2021 (UTC) 401:10:03, 20 December 2021 (UTC) 369:15:21, 19 December 2021 (UTC) 330:04:34, 20 December 2021 (UTC) 311:04:27, 20 December 2021 (UTC) 269:15:37, 19 December 2021 (UTC) 250:15:19, 19 December 2021 (UTC) 223:15:21, 19 December 2021 (UTC) 209:15:10, 19 December 2021 (UTC) 178:15:03, 19 December 2021 (UTC) 139:04:20, 11 December 2021 (UTC) 107:02:49, 11 December 2021 (UTC) 4288:18:23, 22 January 2024 (UTC) 4274:17:41, 22 January 2024 (UTC) 4263:14:48, 22 January 2024 (UTC) 4248:20:44, 7 December 2023 (UTC) 4213:02:30, 10 January 2024 (UTC) 4041:01:46, 31 October 2023 (UTC) 4024:13:27, 28 October 2023 (UTC) 4010:12:28, 28 October 2023 (UTC) 3993:10:18, 28 October 2023 (UTC) 3978:11:48, 24 October 2023 (UTC) 3958:11:27, 24 October 2023 (UTC) 3945:22:39, 23 October 2023 (UTC) 3915:22:35, 23 October 2023 (UTC) 3885:19:23, 23 October 2023 (UTC) 3861:20:02, 8 December 2023 (UTC) 3842:20:01, 8 December 2023 (UTC) 3832:19:46, 8 December 2023 (UTC) 3808:03:43, 1 December 2023 (UTC) 3785:13:09, 5 November 2023 (UTC) 3776:19:24, 4 November 2023 (UTC) 3761:19:16, 4 November 2023 (UTC) 3743:Numismatics as own category? 3738:22:44, 31 October 2023 (UTC) 3714:04:05, 27 October 2023 (UTC) 3698:21:35, 26 October 2023 (UTC) 3672:02:07, 23 October 2023 (UTC) 3657:23:46, 22 October 2023 (UTC) 3638:23:08, 22 October 2023 (UTC) 3619:20:50, 22 October 2023 (UTC) 3595:20:03, 22 October 2023 (UTC) 3570:19:16, 22 October 2023 (UTC) 3536:Byzantine Empire's talk page 3510:18:05, 22 October 2023 (UTC) 3482:17:53, 22 October 2023 (UTC) 3456:17:53, 22 October 2023 (UTC) 3429:17:47, 22 October 2023 (UTC) 3392:16:48, 22 October 2023 (UTC) 3312:01:04, 23 October 2023 (UTC) 3277:00:31, 23 October 2023 (UTC) 3258:00:10, 23 October 2023 (UTC) 3197:17:46, 22 October 2023 (UTC) 3175:16:36, 22 October 2023 (UTC) 3081:17:19, 16 October 2023 (UTC) 3067:03:49, 16 October 2023 (UTC) 3051:03:26, 16 October 2023 (UTC) 2477:Thanks for the information. 2405:16:49, 12 January 2023 (UTC) 2378:16:41, 12 January 2023 (UTC) 1622:17:26, 15 January 2022 (UTC) 415:, about FA editnotices, and 4332:to reactivate your request. 4320:has been answered. Set the 4185:22:39, 9 January 2024 (UTC) 4142:20:21, 1 January 2024 (UTC) 3141:15:47, 25 August 2023 (UTC) 3018:17:59, 4 October 2023 (UTC) 2997:14:46, 2 October 2023 (UTC) 2622:20:12, 25 August 2023 (UTC) 2597:16:38, 25 August 2023 (UTC) 2579:15:34, 25 August 2023 (UTC) 2386:. Also, have you posted at 2345:00:32, 6 January 2023 (UTC) 2298:being done is explained at 2277:WikiProject cleanup listing 2017:Re-assessment required for 1849:to reactivate your request. 1837:has been answered. Set the 1761:Lemurs of Madagascar (book) 1350:which seems to agree.) And 1314:Rhodesian mission in Lisbon 477:Administrator's noticeboard 4413: 4378:01:02, 29 March 2024 (UTC) 4347:23:15, 28 March 2024 (UTC) 4200:WP:Feedback request system 3124:03:47, 7 August 2023 (UTC) 3109:03:26, 7 August 2023 (UTC) 2187:WikiProject Women in Green 1975:12:18, 8 August 2022 (UTC) 1943:08:35, 8 August 2022 (UTC) 1923:18:20, 29 April 2022 (UTC) 1897:18:13, 29 April 2022 (UTC) 1765:Black Hours, Morgan MS 493 1743:03:36, 29 March 2022 (UTC) 1724:17:40, 28 March 2022 (UTC) 1166:only last as long as we do 1034:since the end of 2010 ... 791:WP:Build content to endure 730:...and hint(s) taken ;) 524:) which explicitly states 297:1st Missouri Field Battery 4398:10:06, 9 April 2024 (UTC) 4270:Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 4228:Theatre Royal, Drury Lane 4127:old those examples were. 3817:be in if it became an FA? 2534:23:22, 21 June 2023 (UTC) 2487:23:10, 21 June 2023 (UTC) 1809:18:50, 5 April 2022 (UTC) 1788:15:30, 4 April 2022 (UTC) 1776:Nature fakers controversy 1763:) and art, but not here. 1431:dementia with Lewy bodies 1384:dementia with Lewy bodies 982:dementia with Lewy bodies 860:dementia with Lewy bodies 155:per the complaint above, 4232:Harris Theater (Chicago) 4006:Penny for your thoughts? 2512:18:47, 30 May 2023 (UTC) 2470:03:15, 30 May 2023 (UTC) 2426:03:05, 30 May 2023 (UTC) 1016:mainpage copyvio scandal 565:Please do not modify it. 188:for January 18, 2022 TFA 93:and seditionist groups. 2969:, 13 FAs—12 current).-- 2873:71 FAs—71 current) and 2370:Caeciliusinhorto-public 2057:Featured Article Review 1876:Redirect category shell 1028:just above this section 984:, which is a 2020 FA. 946:before he was President 299:'s slot on January 4. 4363:"change X to Y" format 2941:, 20 FAs—17 current), 2897:, 24 FAs—24 current), 2879:Elizabeth I of England 2453:Boulton and Park blurb 888:You mention the essay 407:General FA editnotice? 378:Barbie & Ken Dolls 254:Got it, struck above, 4236:New Amsterdam Theatre 3985:~~ AirshipJungleman29 3877:~~ AirshipJungleman29 3577:Talk:Byzantine Empire 3554:for Japanese Language 2899:User:PericlesofAthens 2542:Unexplained reversion 1871:(which is handled by 1714:. What do you think? 862:, which is a 2020 FA. 420:Medical FA editnotice 42:of past discussions. 4390:Wilfred Japhet Lotha 3954:In actu (Guerillero) 3813:What category would 3780:Seems reasonable -- 2917:23 FAs—23 current), 2703:Campbell's Soup Cans 2516:Thanks for the info. 2449:Ignacio Tonene blurb 2329:Dietrich v The Queen 1336:Delayed response to 1110:Elcobbola wrote this 952:? I have rewritten 843:Because ... long :) 186:Battle of Hayes Pond 4349:Not accurate dates 3890:It was added after 3467:faulty ping above. 3027:I noticed that the 2662:User:Worldtraveller 1795:Operation Boomerang 3815:William Utermohlen 3690:Premeditated Chaos 3221:Appalachian Spring 3216:The Rite of Spring 3210:Appalachian Spring 3203:Appalachian Spring 2875:User:Lord Emsworth 2855:User:Serendipodous 1986:missed a couple). 1835:Knowledge (XXG):FA 1749:Misclassifications 1716:CactiStaccingCrane 1572:CactiStaccingCrane 1524:CactiStaccingCrane 1496:CactiStaccingCrane 1360:mentioned in this 1036:here is WIAFA then 795:CactiStaccingCrane 357:due to be featured 157:Barthélemy Boganda 4336: 4335: 4218:Theatre buildings 4135: 4104: 4092: 4086: 3942: 3930: 3898:. Courtesy ping: 3488:Talk:Prostitution 3353:WP:BrilliantProse 3310: 3303: 3296: 3256: 3249: 3242: 2995: 2731: 2694: 2569:for information. 2275:According to the 2160: 2148: 2095: 2083: 2075:Gender breakdown? 1866:R fully protected 1853: 1852: 1627:Count off again ? 1619: 1607: 1435:Tourette syndrome 1356:Tourette syndrome 1207: 1195: 978:Tourette syndrome 954:Tourette syndrome 848:Tourette syndrome 835: 823: 749: 675: 674: 618: 606: 460: 448: 233:User:SandyGeorgia 82: 81: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 4404: 4374: 4369:if appropriate. 4357: 4356: 4327: 4323: 4309: 4308: 4302: 4271: 4161: 4160: 4138: 4133: 4132: 4121:February 2, 2008 4105: 4102: 4101: 4099: 4090: 4084: 4039: 4033: 4007: 3955: 3943: 3940: 3939: 3937: 3928: 3905: 3853: 3649: 3611: 3587: 3547: 3541: 3532:Byzantine Empire 3525: 3502: 3474: 3466: 3448: 3421: 3400:Talk:Sex Pistols 3357:FAC coordinators 3350: 3304: 3297: 3290: 3250: 3243: 3236: 3227:, the promoter) 3137: 3107: 3099: 2973: 2945:has 5 level 3s ( 2921:has 4 level 3s ( 2901:has 4 Level 3s ( 2885:has 2 level 3s ( 2815: 2796: 2709: 2672: 2610: 2602:I've done so. :( 2558:FAC coordinators 2552: 2509: 2504: 2462: 2397: 2356: 2309: 2232: 2196: 2161: 2158: 2157: 2155: 2146: 2136: 2118: 2096: 2093: 2092: 2090: 2081: 2054: 2040: 2036: 2032: 1954: 1911: 1907: 1906: 1895: 1886: 1880: 1874: 1870: 1864: 1844: 1840: 1826: 1825: 1819: 1690: 1654: 1620: 1617: 1616: 1614: 1605: 1598: 1597: 1558: 1469: 1449: 1310: 1258: 1237: 1231: 1208: 1205: 1204: 1202: 1193: 1143: 867:Red River Trails 836: 833: 832: 830: 821: 806: 800: 788: 764: 744: 736: 729: 722: 714: 695: 639: 631: 619: 616: 615: 613: 604: 587: 579: 567: 554: 546: 538: 506: 461: 458: 457: 455: 446: 442:banner blindness 438: 432: 424: 418: 397: 353: 346:(edit conflict) 322: 286:TFA coordinators 283: 261: 247: 201: 170: 146:TFA coordinators 118: 78: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 4412: 4411: 4407: 4406: 4405: 4403: 4402: 4401: 4386: 4372: 4367:reliable source 4354: 4350: 4325: 4321: 4306: 4300: 4269: 4220: 4192: 4172:discussion page 4162: 4158: 4155: 4136: 4130: 4117: 4095: 4093: 4089: 4083:Duckport Canal 4071: 4029: 3953: 3933: 3931: 3927: 3899: 3869: 3851: 3819: 3795: 3745: 3722: 3686: 3647: 3609: 3599:As an example, 3585: 3545: 3543:Article history 3539: 3519: 3500: 3472: 3460: 3446: 3419: 3340: 3322: 3205: 3151:permanent stubs 3135: 3097: 3094: 3091: 3035: 3025: 3005: 2943:User:TimVickers 2883:User:Cwmhiraeth 2838: 2813: 2794: 2775:Knowledge (XXG) 2654:User:Cwmhiraeth 2634: 2608: 2595: 2546: 2544: 2507: 2502: 2460: 2413: 2395: 2350: 2325: 2307: 2281:Thebiguglyalien 2273: 2230: 2194: 2151: 2149: 2145: 2134: 2116: 2086: 2084: 2080: 2077: 2048: 2038: 2034: 2033: 2030: 2022: 1983: 1973: 1948: 1931: 1921: 1904: 1902: 1884: 1882: 1878: 1872: 1868: 1862: 1859: 1842: 1838: 1823: 1817: 1807: 1751: 1708: 1688: 1677: 1652: 1629: 1610: 1608: 1604: 1595: 1592: 1556: 1463: 1447: 1256: 1235: 1229: 1198: 1196: 1192: 1141: 931:MOS:SANDWICHing 915:Catholic Church 826: 824: 820: 804: 798: 782: 762: 739: 732: 717: 710: 693: 660: 634: 627: 609: 607: 603: 582: 575: 563: 541: 534: 504: 451: 449: 445: 436: 430: 422: 416: 409: 395: 392:. Best Wishes, 347: 320: 309: 273: 259: 243: 199: 168: 137: 112: 87: 74: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 4410: 4408: 4385: 4382: 4381: 4380: 4365:and provide a 4337: 4334: 4333: 4310: 4299: 4296: 4295: 4294: 4293: 4292: 4291: 4290: 4219: 4216: 4191: 4188: 4156: 4154: 4145: 4116: 4113: 4112: 4111: 4110: 4109: 4065: 4059:Duckport Canal 4054: 4053: 4052: 4051: 4050: 4049: 4048: 4047: 4046: 4045: 4044: 4043: 3949: 3948: 3947: 3924: 3921: 3868: 3865: 3864: 3863: 3844: 3818: 3811: 3794: 3791: 3790: 3789: 3788: 3787: 3744: 3741: 3721: 3718: 3717: 3716: 3685: 3682: 3681: 3680: 3679: 3678: 3677: 3676: 3675: 3674: 3626:John M Wolfson 3597: 3558:John M Wolfson 3517: 3516: 3515: 3514: 3513: 3512: 3458: 3380:John M Wolfson 3337: 3336: 3335: 3334: 3333: 3332: 3321: 3318: 3317: 3316: 3315: 3314: 3204: 3201: 3200: 3199: 3181:Ælle of Sussex 3177: 3163:John M Wolfson 3155:Featured Lists 3146: 3145: 3144: 3143: 3130:WP:CONCEPTDABs 3090: 3087: 3086: 3085: 3084: 3083: 3033: 3024: 3021: 3004: 3001: 3000: 2999: 2965:) 1 level 2 (( 2937:) 1 level 1 (( 2893:) 1 level 2 (( 2845: 2844: 2843: 2842: 2832: 2825: 2802: 2767: 2766: 2765: 2736: 2735: 2640:status on the 2633: 2628: 2627: 2626: 2625: 2624: 2603: 2589: 2543: 2540: 2539: 2538: 2537: 2536: 2521: 2517: 2492: 2491: 2490: 2489: 2475: 2412: 2409: 2408: 2407: 2380: 2366: 2324: 2321: 2320: 2319: 2272: 2269: 2268: 2267: 2266: 2265: 2264: 2263: 2262: 2261: 2260: 2259: 2258: 2257: 2256: 2255: 2254: 2253: 2238: 2109:Wikidata query 2076: 2073: 2072: 2071: 2029: 2021: 2019:Kangana Ranaut 2015: 2014: 2013: 1988:Hootgoestheowl 1982: 1979: 1978: 1977: 1967: 1930: 1927: 1926: 1925: 1915: 1857: 1851: 1850: 1827: 1816: 1813: 1812: 1811: 1801: 1750: 1747: 1746: 1745: 1707: 1704: 1703: 1702: 1701: 1700: 1671: 1628: 1625: 1591: 1588: 1587: 1586: 1585: 1584: 1583: 1582: 1548: 1515: 1514: 1513: 1512: 1511: 1510: 1509: 1508: 1507: 1506: 1440: 1439: 1438: 1420: 1406: 1304: 1303: 1302: 1301: 1300: 1299: 1284: 1275: 1226:Pomona College 1185: 1173: 1161: 1157: 1117: 1116: 1113: 1105: 1102: 1099: 1091: 1076: 1069: 1066: 1050: 1043: 1008: 1007: 998: 990: 989: 971: 961: 935: 919: 918: 906: 900: 841: 840: 817:an edit filter 809:mixed feelings 779: 778: 777: 776: 775: 774: 727: 673: 672: 671: 670: 669: 668: 667: 666: 665: 664: 654: 569: 568: 559: 558: 552: 551: 517: 516: 493: 492: 491: 490: 489: 484: 479: 434:TFA editnotice 408: 405: 404: 403: 381: 372: 371: 343: 342: 341: 340: 339: 338: 337: 336: 335: 334: 333: 332: 303: 142: 141: 131: 121:WP:NOTCENSORED 86: 83: 80: 79: 72: 67: 62: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 4409: 4400: 4399: 4395: 4391: 4383: 4379: 4376: 4375: 4368: 4364: 4360: 4352: 4351: 4348: 4344: 4340: 4339:72.85.185.181 4331: 4328:parameter to 4319: 4315: 4311: 4304: 4303: 4297: 4289: 4285: 4281: 4277: 4276: 4275: 4272: 4266: 4265: 4264: 4260: 4256: 4252: 4251: 4250: 4249: 4245: 4241: 4237: 4233: 4229: 4225: 4217: 4215: 4214: 4210: 4206: 4201: 4197: 4189: 4187: 4186: 4182: 4178: 4175:. Thank you. 4174: 4173: 4168: 4167: 4153: 4149: 4146: 4144: 4143: 4140: 4139: 4126: 4122: 4114: 4108: 4100: 4098: 4087: 4080: 4076: 4075: 4074: 4070: 4069: 4064: 4060: 4056: 4055: 4042: 4038: 4032: 4027: 4026: 4025: 4021: 4017: 4016:Jo-Jo Eumerus 4013: 4012: 4011: 4008: 4002: 4001: 3996: 3995: 3994: 3990: 3986: 3982: 3981: 3980: 3979: 3975: 3971: 3970:Jo-Jo Eumerus 3965: 3961: 3960: 3959: 3956: 3950: 3946: 3938: 3936: 3925: 3922: 3918: 3917: 3916: 3912: 3908: 3903: 3897: 3893: 3889: 3888: 3887: 3886: 3882: 3878: 3874: 3866: 3862: 3858: 3854: 3850: 3845: 3843: 3840: 3836: 3835: 3834: 3833: 3829: 3825: 3816: 3812: 3810: 3809: 3805: 3801: 3792: 3786: 3783: 3779: 3778: 3777: 3773: 3769: 3765: 3764: 3763: 3762: 3758: 3754: 3753:Generalissima 3749: 3742: 3740: 3739: 3735: 3731: 3727: 3726:metrification 3719: 3715: 3711: 3707: 3702: 3701: 3700: 3699: 3696: 3691: 3683: 3673: 3669: 3665: 3660: 3659: 3658: 3654: 3650: 3646: 3641: 3640: 3639: 3635: 3631: 3627: 3622: 3621: 3620: 3616: 3612: 3608: 3602: 3598: 3596: 3592: 3588: 3584: 3578: 3574: 3573: 3572: 3571: 3567: 3563: 3559: 3555: 3551: 3544: 3537: 3533: 3529: 3523: 3511: 3507: 3503: 3499: 3493: 3489: 3485: 3484: 3483: 3479: 3475: 3471: 3464: 3459: 3457: 3453: 3449: 3445: 3440: 3436: 3432: 3431: 3430: 3426: 3422: 3418: 3413: 3409: 3405: 3401: 3396: 3395: 3394: 3393: 3389: 3385: 3381: 3376: 3375:Many thanks! 3373: 3371: 3367: 3365: 3363: 3361: 3358: 3354: 3348: 3344: 3331: 3328: 3327: 3326: 3325: 3324: 3323: 3319: 3313: 3308: 3301: 3294: 3288: 3284: 3283:MyCatIsAChonk 3280: 3279: 3278: 3274: 3270: 3266: 3265:MyCatIsAChonk 3262: 3261: 3260: 3259: 3254: 3247: 3240: 3234: 3230: 3229:MyCatIsAChonk 3226: 3222: 3218: 3217: 3212: 3211: 3202: 3198: 3194: 3190: 3186: 3182: 3178: 3176: 3172: 3168: 3164: 3160: 3159:Mercury Seven 3156: 3152: 3148: 3147: 3142: 3139: 3138: 3131: 3127: 3126: 3125: 3121: 3117: 3113: 3112: 3111: 3110: 3106: 3105: 3101: 3100: 3088: 3082: 3078: 3074: 3070: 3069: 3068: 3064: 3060: 3055: 3054: 3053: 3052: 3048: 3044: 3038: 3032: 3030: 3022: 3020: 3019: 3015: 3011: 3010:Ilikememes128 3002: 2998: 2993: 2989: 2985: 2981: 2977: 2972: 2968: 2964: 2960: 2956: 2952: 2948: 2944: 2940: 2936: 2932: 2928: 2924: 2920: 2916: 2912: 2908: 2904: 2900: 2896: 2892: 2888: 2884: 2880: 2876: 2872: 2868: 2867:User:SchroCat 2864: 2860: 2856: 2853:. Of those 8 2852: 2847: 2846: 2841: 2837: 2836: 2831: 2826: 2824: 2820: 2816: 2812: 2807: 2803: 2801: 2798: 2797: 2790: 2789: 2788: 2784: 2780: 2779:Jo-Jo Eumerus 2776: 2772: 2768: 2764: 2760: 2756: 2752: 2748: 2747:Mike Christie 2744: 2740: 2739: 2738: 2737: 2734: 2729: 2725: 2721: 2717: 2713: 2708: 2704: 2700: 2699: 2698: 2697: 2692: 2688: 2684: 2680: 2676: 2671: 2667: 2663: 2659: 2655: 2651: 2647: 2643: 2639: 2632: 2629: 2623: 2619: 2615: 2611: 2604: 2600: 2599: 2598: 2594: 2593: 2588: 2583: 2582: 2581: 2580: 2576: 2572: 2568: 2566: 2564: 2562: 2559: 2555: 2550: 2541: 2535: 2531: 2527: 2522: 2518: 2515: 2514: 2513: 2510: 2505: 2498: 2494: 2493: 2488: 2484: 2480: 2476: 2473: 2472: 2471: 2467: 2463: 2459: 2454: 2450: 2446: 2442: 2438: 2434: 2430: 2429: 2428: 2427: 2423: 2419: 2406: 2402: 2398: 2394: 2389: 2385: 2381: 2379: 2375: 2371: 2367: 2365: 2360: 2354: 2349: 2348: 2347: 2346: 2342: 2338: 2333: 2330: 2322: 2318: 2314: 2310: 2306: 2301: 2297: 2293: 2292: 2291: 2290: 2286: 2282: 2278: 2270: 2252: 2248: 2244: 2239: 2237: 2234: 2233: 2226: 2225: 2224: 2223: 2222: 2218: 2214: 2210: 2209:Women Writers 2206: 2205:WP:Statistics 2202: 2201: 2200: 2197: 2192: 2188: 2185: 2181: 2180: 2179: 2175: 2171: 2166: 2165: 2164: 2156: 2154: 2142: 2141: 2140: 2137: 2132: 2128: 2124: 2123: 2122: 2119: 2114: 2110: 2106: 2102: 2101: 2100: 2099: 2091: 2089: 2074: 2070: 2066: 2062: 2058: 2052: 2047: 2046: 2045: 2044: 2041: 2027: 2020: 2016: 2012: 2008: 2004: 2000: 1999: 1998: 1997: 1993: 1989: 1980: 1976: 1972: 1971: 1966: 1962: 1958: 1952: 1947: 1946: 1945: 1944: 1940: 1936: 1935:Pink Saffron 1924: 1920: 1919: 1914: 1910: 1901: 1900: 1899: 1898: 1894: 1892: 1887: 1877: 1867: 1856: 1848: 1845:parameter to 1836: 1832: 1828: 1821: 1820: 1814: 1810: 1806: 1805: 1800: 1796: 1792: 1791: 1790: 1789: 1785: 1781: 1777: 1773: 1772: 1766: 1762: 1758: 1757: 1748: 1744: 1740: 1736: 1732: 1728: 1727: 1726: 1725: 1721: 1717: 1713: 1705: 1699: 1695: 1691: 1687: 1682: 1681: 1680: 1676: 1675: 1670: 1666: 1665: 1664: 1663: 1659: 1655: 1651: 1646: 1642: 1638: 1637:25 promotions 1634: 1626: 1624: 1623: 1615: 1613: 1602: 1589: 1581: 1577: 1573: 1569: 1568: 1567: 1563: 1559: 1555: 1549: 1547: 1543: 1539: 1538:Jo-Jo Eumerus 1535: 1534: 1533: 1529: 1525: 1521: 1517: 1516: 1505: 1501: 1497: 1492: 1488: 1487: 1486: 1482: 1478: 1473: 1467: 1462: 1461: 1460: 1459: 1458: 1454: 1450: 1446: 1441: 1436: 1432: 1428: 1424: 1421: 1417: 1412: 1407: 1403: 1398: 1393: 1389: 1385: 1381: 1377: 1373: 1369: 1365: 1363: 1357: 1353: 1349: 1345: 1342: 1341: 1339: 1335: 1334: 1333: 1329: 1325: 1320: 1315: 1306: 1305: 1298: 1294: 1290: 1285: 1281: 1276: 1273: 1269: 1268: 1267: 1263: 1259: 1255: 1250: 1246: 1241: 1234: 1227: 1222: 1218: 1213: 1212: 1211: 1203: 1201: 1190: 1186: 1182: 1179:that you and 1178: 1174: 1171: 1167: 1162: 1158: 1155: 1154: 1153: 1152: 1148: 1144: 1140: 1135: 1131: 1127: 1121: 1114: 1111: 1106: 1103: 1100: 1097: 1092: 1089: 1085: 1081: 1080:four-page CCI 1077: 1074: 1070: 1067: 1064: 1059: 1055: 1051: 1048: 1044: 1041: 1040: 1039: 1037: 1033: 1029: 1025: 1021: 1017: 1012: 1004: 999: 995: 994: 993: 987: 983: 979: 975: 972: 969: 965: 962: 959: 955: 951: 950:J. K. Rowling 947: 944:was featured 943: 939: 936: 932: 927: 924: 923: 922: 916: 912: 907: 904: 901: 898: 895: 894: 893: 891: 886: 882: 880: 876: 870: 868: 863: 861: 857: 853: 849: 844: 839: 831: 829: 818: 814: 810: 803: 796: 792: 786: 781: 780: 773: 769: 765: 761: 756: 751: 750: 748: 745: 742: 737: 735: 728: 726: 723: 720: 715: 713: 706: 705: 704: 700: 696: 692: 686: 682: 677: 676: 663: 659: 658: 653: 649: 648:this incident 645: 644: 643: 640: 637: 632: 630: 624: 623: 622: 614: 612: 601: 600:prevent decay 596: 595: 594: 593: 592: 591: 588: 585: 580: 578: 571: 570: 566: 561: 560: 556: 555: 550: 547: 544: 539: 537: 531: 530: 523: 519: 518: 515: 511: 507: 503: 498: 494: 488: 485: 483: 480: 478: 475: 474: 473: 470: 469: 467: 466: 465: 464: 456: 454: 443: 435: 428: 427:fairly widely 421: 414: 406: 402: 399: 398: 391: 387: 382: 379: 374: 373: 370: 366: 362: 358: 351: 345: 344: 331: 327: 323: 319: 314: 313: 312: 308: 307: 302: 298: 294: 292: 290: 287: 281: 277: 272: 271: 270: 266: 262: 258: 253: 252: 251: 248: 246: 240: 239: 234: 229: 226: 225: 224: 220: 216: 212: 211: 210: 206: 202: 198: 193: 189: 187: 182: 181: 180: 179: 175: 171: 167: 162: 158: 154: 152: 150: 147: 140: 136: 135: 130: 126: 122: 116: 111: 110: 109: 108: 104: 100: 94: 90: 84: 77: 73: 71: 68: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 4387: 4370: 4358: 4329: 4314:edit request 4221: 4205:WhatamIdoing 4193: 4177:Schierbecker 4170: 4164: 4163: 4128: 4124: 4118: 4096: 4085:(Q112567707) 4066: 3999: 3967: 3934: 3870: 3848: 3820: 3796: 3750: 3746: 3723: 3687: 3644: 3606: 3582: 3522:SandyGeorgia 3518: 3497: 3492:Prostitution 3469: 3443: 3416: 3377: 3374: 3338: 3220: 3214: 3208: 3206: 3185:more or less 3136:Lee Vilenski 3133: 3103: 3096: 3092: 3039: 3036: 3026: 3006: 2971:TonyTheTiger 2915:Tang Dynasty 2833: 2810: 2795:Lee Vilenski 2792: 2774: 2707:TonyTheTiger 2670:TonyTheTiger 2635: 2590: 2571:Gog the Mild 2549:Sheep8144402 2545: 2500:characters. 2457: 2414: 2392: 2334: 2326: 2304: 2295: 2274: 2231:Lee Vilenski 2228: 2152: 2087: 2078: 2035:NeverTry4Me⛅ 2023: 2003:Gerda Arendt 1984: 1968: 1951:Pink Saffron 1932: 1916: 1908: 1890: 1860: 1854: 1846: 1831:edit request 1802: 1769: 1754: 1752: 1709: 1685: 1672: 1649: 1647:show 6,066. 1641:13 demotions 1630: 1611: 1593: 1553: 1471: 1466:SandyGeorgia 1444: 1427:WP:URFA/2020 1401: 1391: 1388:Eric Corbett 1361: 1354:slaved over 1347: 1318: 1280:WP:OWNERSHIP 1253: 1249:WP:URFA/2020 1199: 1169: 1138: 1134:WP:URFA/2020 1122: 1118: 1079: 1072: 1062: 1057: 1053: 1023: 1020:yearly stats 1013: 1009: 1003:WP:URFA/2020 991: 985: 957: 945: 942:Barack Obama 920: 887: 883: 871: 864: 855: 845: 842: 827: 785:SandyGeorgia 759: 754: 740: 733: 718: 711: 690: 681:WP:URFA/2020 655: 635: 628: 610: 583: 576: 572: 564: 542: 535: 501: 452: 410: 396:Lee Vilenski 393: 317: 304: 276:SandyGeorgia 256: 244: 237: 196: 183: 165: 143: 132: 95: 91: 88: 75: 43: 37: 4000:HJ Mitchell 3896:discussions 3824:Realmaxxver 3528:Sex Pistols 3404:Sex Pistols 3300:also not me 3246:also not me 3029:Walt Disney 2919:User:RJHall 2907:Han Dynasty 2871:Walt Disney 2646:User:RJHall 2359:Peer review 2327:Hello all. 2051:NeverTry4Me 1477:Indy beetle 1338:Indy beetle 1324:Indy beetle 1130:WP:FARGIVEN 685:WP:FARGIVEN 361:Indy beetle 280:Indy beetle 245:talk to me? 215:Indy beetle 192:Indy beetle 190:… both are 161:Indy beetle 89:Hello all, 36:This is an 4322:|answered= 4280:Epicgenius 4255:Epicgenius 4240:Epicgenius 3907:Nikkimaria 3839:Guerillero 3800:Kammerer55 3782:Guerillero 3695:Guerillero 3370:the FA log 3116:Nikkimaria 3059:Nikkimaria 2988:WP:CHICAGO 2963:Metabolism 2743:Rick Block 2724:WP:CHICAGO 2687:WP:CHICAGO 2353:MaxnaCarta 2337:MaxnaCarta 2107:I tried a 2061:Nikkimaria 2026:WP:PRIMARY 1839:|answered= 1735:Nikkimaria 1712:this essay 1168:. What we 1058:one wishes 144:Note for @ 76:Archive 18 70:Archive 17 65:Archive 16 60:Archive 15 4359:Not done: 3964:Incapillo 3846:Art bio. 3624:come". – 3207:Hey all, 3073:DarkLilac 3043:DarkLilac 2992:WP:WAWARD 2967:Evolution 2959:Influenza 2935:Supernova 2887:Amphibian 2728:WP:WAWARD 2691:WP:WAWARD 2508:(discuss) 2433:TFA blurb 1731:WP:ASSESS 1411:WP:ERRORS 1397:WP:TLIMIT 1392:brilliant 1380:Yomangani 1096:WP:ERRORS 934:problems. 890:WP:ENDURE 815:added by 529:ownership 238:Jimfbleak 163:at FAR. 4079:Hog Farm 4063:Hog Farm 3766:Agreed. 3664:Graham87 3634:contribs 3566:contribs 3550:Graham87 3388:contribs 3307:still no 3253:still no 3171:contribs 3098:Millows! 2951:Bacteria 2923:Electron 2911:Shen Kuo 2903:Augustus 2830:Hog Farm 2755:contribs 2587:Hog Farm 2503:Hawkeye7 2323:Feedback 1965:Hog Farm 1957:fair use 1913:Hog Farm 1799:Hog Farm 1669:Hog Farm 1376:Outriggr 1348:Signpost 1191:? Best, 1032:WP:WIAFA 652:Hog Farm 522:WP:FAOWN 497:WP:MEDRS 429:, as is 425:is used 301:Hog Farm 129:Hog Farm 4150:has an 3852:Georgia 3768:Johnbod 3706:Johnbod 3648:Georgia 3610:Georgia 3586:Georgia 3501:Georgia 3473:Georgia 3447:Georgia 3420:Georgia 3351:now at 3347:Wbm1058 3189:Johnbod 2984:WP:FOUR 2947:Archaea 2927:Neptune 2859:Neptune 2814:Georgia 2759:library 2720:WP:FOUR 2683:WP:FOUR 2526:Tsavage 2479:Tsavage 2461:Georgia 2418:Tsavage 2396:Georgia 2335:Cheers 2308:Georgia 2243:Johnbod 2213:Ipigott 2191:the wub 2170:Johnbod 2131:the wub 2113:the wub 1780:Johnbod 1689:Georgia 1653:Georgia 1557:Georgia 1448:Georgia 1416:WP:LEAD 1405:stinks. 1364:article 1319:because 1257:Georgia 1245:WP:FASA 1240:WP:FASA 1142:Georgia 1063:opinion 1024:already 968:WP:FASA 802:FApages 763:Georgia 694:Georgia 505:Georgia 386:WP:NPOV 350:021120x 321:Georgia 260:Georgia 228:021120x 200:Georgia 169:Georgia 125:WP:FACR 115:021120x 99:021120x 39:archive 4137:editor 3439:WP:FFA 3293:not me 3269:FrB.TG 3239:not me 3225:FrB.TG 2961:, and 2933:, and 2891:Rodent 2889:& 2863:Uranus 2861:& 2618:he/him 2445:WP:TFA 2441:WP:FAC 2388:WT:LAW 2384:WT:FAC 1774:, and 1639:minus 1633:WP:FAS 1402:Oppose 1362:Nature 1189:WT:FAC 1126:WT:FAC 1054:may be 875:WP:FAR 852:WP:OWN 390:WP:FAR 4326:|ans= 4312:This 4134:music 4131:danny 3920:soon. 3892:these 3873:WP:FA 3849:Sandy 3645:Sandy 3607:Sandy 3583:Sandy 3498:Sandy 3470:Sandy 3463:Ceoil 3444:Sandy 3417:Sandy 3408:Ceoil 2939:Earth 2811:Sandy 2650:Earth 2638:WP:VA 2609:Sheep 2520:that. 2458:Sandy 2393:Sandy 2305:Sandy 1843:|ans= 1829:This 1706:Essay 1686:Sandy 1650:Sandy 1554:Sandy 1445:Sandy 1372:Colin 1368:Ceoil 1352:Tony1 1289:Z1720 1272:WP:GA 1254:Sandy 1221:WP:SS 1181:Z1720 1139:Sandy 958:don't 911:Islam 760:Sandy 743:erial 721:erial 691:Sandy 638:erial 586:erial 545:erial 502:Sandy 487:FAC 2 482:FAC 1 318:Sandy 284:and @ 257:Sandy 197:Sandy 166:Sandy 16:< 4394:talk 4343:talk 4284:talk 4259:talk 4244:talk 4234:and 4226:and 4209:talk 4181:talk 4097:Sdkb 4091:{{u| 4068:Talk 4031:Moxy 4020:talk 3989:talk 3974:talk 3935:Sdkb 3929:{{u| 3911:talk 3902:Sdkb 3894:two 3881:talk 3857:Talk 3828:talk 3804:talk 3772:talk 3757:talk 3734:talk 3710:talk 3668:talk 3653:Talk 3630:talk 3615:Talk 3591:Talk 3562:talk 3506:Talk 3478:Talk 3452:Talk 3425:Talk 3384:talk 3345:and 3287:talk 3273:talk 3233:talk 3193:talk 3167:talk 3120:talk 3104:| 🪧 3077:talk 3063:talk 3047:talk 3014:talk 2931:Star 2835:Talk 2819:Talk 2783:talk 2751:talk 2660:and 2614:talk 2592:Talk 2575:talk 2554:Why? 2530:talk 2483:talk 2466:Talk 2451:and 2443:for 2422:talk 2401:Talk 2374:talk 2341:talk 2313:Talk 2285:talk 2247:talk 2217:talk 2195:"?!" 2184:Sdkb 2174:talk 2153:Sdkb 2147:{{u| 2135:"?!" 2117:"?!" 2105:Sdkb 2088:Sdkb 2082:{{u| 2065:talk 2007:talk 1992:talk 1970:Talk 1939:talk 1918:Talk 1909:Done 1891:Talk 1881:). – 1804:Talk 1784:talk 1739:talk 1720:talk 1694:Talk 1674:Talk 1658:Talk 1612:Sdkb 1606:{{u| 1576:talk 1562:Talk 1542:talk 1528:talk 1500:talk 1481:talk 1453:Talk 1419:FAC. 1328:talk 1293:talk 1262:Talk 1247:and 1233:FCDW 1200:Sdkb 1194:{{u| 1147:Talk 1132:and 877:was 828:Sdkb 822:{{u| 768:Talk 699:Talk 683:and 657:Talk 611:Sdkb 605:{{u| 510:Talk 453:Sdkb 447:{{u| 413:here 365:talk 326:Talk 306:Talk 278:and 265:Talk 219:talk 205:Talk 174:Talk 134:Talk 103:talk 4373:JTP 4324:or 4316:to 4152:RfC 4125:how 3867:Map 3859:) 3655:) 3617:) 3593:) 3508:) 3480:) 3454:) 3427:) 2955:DNA 2895:Sea 2821:) 2757:- 2666:Sun 2658:Sea 2468:) 2403:) 2315:) 2302:. 2211:.-- 2039:C♯ 2031:-✍ 1885:MJL 1841:or 1833:to 1696:) 1660:) 1631:At 1603:. 1564:) 1472:too 1455:) 1264:) 1170:can 1149:) 1073:are 1045:On 892:. 856:all 813:tag 770:) 701:) 512:) 328:) 267:) 207:) 176:) 4396:) 4345:) 4330:no 4286:) 4261:) 4246:) 4211:) 4183:) 4103:}} 4022:) 4003:| 3991:) 3976:) 3941:}} 3913:) 3883:) 3830:) 3806:) 3774:) 3759:) 3736:) 3712:) 3670:) 3636:) 3632:• 3568:) 3564:• 3546:}} 3540:{{ 3390:) 3386:• 3378:– 3359:: 3343:SJ 3289:) 3275:) 3235:) 3195:) 3173:) 3169:• 3122:) 3079:) 3065:) 3049:) 3016:) 2990:/ 2986:/ 2982:/ 2978:/ 2957:, 2953:, 2949:, 2929:, 2925:, 2913:, 2909:, 2905:, 2785:) 2777:. 2761:) 2753:- 2726:/ 2722:/ 2718:/ 2714:/ 2689:/ 2685:/ 2681:/ 2677:/ 2620:) 2616:• 2577:) 2560:: 2532:) 2485:) 2455:. 2424:) 2390:? 2376:) 2343:) 2296:is 2287:) 2249:) 2219:) 2176:) 2159:}} 2094:}} 2067:) 2009:) 1994:) 1941:) 1879:}} 1873:{{ 1869:}} 1863:{{ 1847:no 1786:) 1741:) 1733:. 1722:) 1618:}} 1578:) 1544:) 1530:) 1502:) 1483:) 1378:, 1374:, 1370:, 1340:. 1330:) 1295:) 1236:}} 1230:{{ 1206:}} 1136:. 834:}} 805:}} 799:{{ 734:—— 712:—— 629:—— 617:}} 577:—— 536:—— 459:}} 437:}} 431:{{ 423:}} 417:{{ 367:) 241:- 221:) 105:) 4392:( 4341:( 4282:( 4257:( 4242:( 4207:( 4179:( 4077:@ 4034:- 4018:( 3987:( 3972:( 3909:( 3904:: 3900:@ 3879:( 3855:( 3826:( 3802:( 3770:( 3755:( 3732:( 3708:( 3666:( 3651:( 3628:( 3613:( 3589:( 3560:( 3524:: 3520:@ 3504:( 3476:( 3465:: 3461:@ 3450:( 3423:( 3382:( 3349:, 3341:@ 3309:) 3305:( 3302:) 3298:( 3295:) 3291:( 3285:( 3271:( 3263:@ 3255:) 3251:( 3248:) 3244:( 3241:) 3237:( 3231:( 3191:( 3165:( 3118:( 3075:( 3061:( 3045:( 3012:( 2994:) 2980:C 2976:T 2974:( 2877:( 2869:( 2857:( 2817:( 2781:( 2749:( 2730:) 2716:C 2712:T 2710:( 2693:) 2679:C 2675:T 2673:( 2612:( 2573:( 2556:@ 2551:: 2547:@ 2528:( 2481:( 2464:( 2420:( 2399:( 2372:( 2355:: 2351:@ 2339:( 2311:( 2283:( 2245:( 2215:( 2182:@ 2172:( 2103:@ 2063:( 2053:: 2049:@ 2005:( 1990:( 1953:: 1949:@ 1937:( 1893:‐ 1889:‐ 1782:( 1737:( 1718:( 1692:( 1656:( 1574:( 1560:( 1540:( 1526:( 1498:( 1479:( 1475:- 1468:: 1464:@ 1451:( 1326:( 1291:( 1260:( 1145:( 1112:. 787:: 783:@ 766:( 741:S 719:S 697:( 636:S 584:S 543:S 508:( 363:( 352:: 348:@ 324:( 288:: 282:: 274:@ 263:( 217:( 203:( 172:( 148:: 117:: 113:@ 101:( 50:.

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

Knowledge (XXG)

talk:Featured articles/Archive 18 - Knowledge (XXG)

Index