744:
time to review as a single non-formulaic list." But, just to pick an example, ChrisTheDude has done over 150 lists of music charts. Each list is a table with a lede, and certainly follows a formula. But even on their latest nomination people find small points to comment on. So, even our most prolific series-of-lists isn't getting and shouldn't get just a rubber-stamp review on each entry. If they nominated them in blocks of 5, would they get the same level of review, or would it become a rubber stamp? I think the latter.
790:, it seems like a good idea, but in practice likely wouldn't improve the project. Although featured content exists to incentivize, reward and acknowledge excellent articles, it shouldn't be the (only) goal. A good list exists for the benefit of the reader, regardless of whether it has the star in the corner or not. The star doesn't even show up on mobile view! There's no rush to getting the star or any other formal recognition. I currently have 16 active
818:
I nominated. The things I learned, and the improvements that were suggested, I went back and applied to all of the other lists I did and kept it in mind for the future. I think had I nominated them together I wouldn't have gotten the quality reviews I did because people would get worn out reviewing the batch. Does that then become part of the gaming of the system? A large batch which would be difficult to properly review in depth all at once?
388:
1154:
that's been contested, more reliable sources will be required. I ask myself, when reviewing, how controversial or likely is this? Do I need a high quality reliable source, or is a newspaper source adequate? I do believe our requirements are not as officially as "strict" as FAC, but at the end of the day the goal is verifiability, and so long as it's verifiable from an appropriately reliable source, I'm personally happy.
21:
841:
correlation we've had way more promotions this summer than ever before. (Could also be our endless shilling on
Discord.) If people have ideas to improve things- (promote after 2 weeks instead of 3? Allow more simultaneous nominations? Have another 3 delegates?) We would love to hear them. The delegates were chosen for many reasons, but "best opinion havers" wasn't one of them. --
621:
723:
to note this wouldn't just mean similar subject matter; lists on the individual
Academy Awards tend to have wildly varying sources and formats, because the main sourcing here isn't a big database of academy award winners; it's contemporary news coverage, and reviewing one of these doesn't really tell you anything about the others.
722:
I think folks should be allowed to nominate a batch of lists simultaneously, so long as they are reasonably identical in their format and sourcing; in general, series of lists that would require significantly less effort to review in a batch as opposed to each one individually. I think it's important
1237:
regarding text alignment in tables. My typical approach has been text (like names, places or things) should be left-aligned, while values (like years, stats, etc) should be centered. I don't really hold nominators to my standard, but I try to make sure that it is consistent (so all text has the same
1086:
I think that last part better encapsulates what I was getting at above – quid pro quo is already unofficially followed by more active editors at FLC, and making the requirement official in some way might allow some way for them to be recognized. Maybe it would just be better to be more upfront about
817:
I would LOVE to nominate a batch of lists and get it completed faster, but, I think it would result in the batch being of worse quality than if the nominations were more spread out. The last series I worked on and completed, first-round NFL draft picks, I ended up learning from almost every one that
718:
To me, it seems like we're unnecessarily stifling the rate at which we can promote deserving articles to FL status by only allowing a single list within a single nomination. It is not significantly more work to check the sourcing on a dozen articles drawing from the same database than it is to check
1135:
has a nice statement they typically put in their source reviews that says something like "sources are appropriate quality for what is being sourced". Having been through a few FACs, I think anecdotally, FLC's sourcing requirements are less stringent. I think we usually leave it to the discretion of
1008:
I think the problem with FLC, as with all the other similar processes, is not enough reviewers. So I think the solutions we should be focusing on is how to get more reviewers. These solutions seem to be more focused on how we can get more FLCs passed quickly, which is an admirable goal, but doesn't
743:
While in the best case scenario it would work as described, more likely it results in less rigorous reviewing. What it seems like you're saying is "more formulaic lists in a series take less time to review, so it would be more efficient to nominate them in blocks of 4, which then would take as much
1069:
find support. Those 2 have struggled a bit for unique reasons (one has predominantly foreign sources, the other is a text-heavy list). I actually think FLC is working pretty well! Kudos to everyone who participates here. I will also note that FLC works really well for editors who review other noms!
1068:
just wanted to add on a little. Right now there are 51 nominations on the FLC page. 14 of those have 3+ supports and are possibly eligible for promotion right now. Only 7 of those 51 have taken longer than one month to resolve as the writing of this comment, and only 2 of those 7 have struggled to
859:
Maybe something along the lines of "if you have at least two supports and no outstanding concerns, then you can nominate another FLC, regardless of how many you have open"? I feel like that could increase the flow rate of promotions while still making sure that each individual list receives proper
747:
There's no objective way to determine what list series should count. Does the
Billboard series count? Probably. Does the World Heritage Sites series? Maybe, but there's a lot of in-table prose that's always unique. What about my animal lists? They're all similar, but often super-long with a lot of
1153:
While I don't want to speak on behalf of the entire team, I do believe that sources can be contextually appropriate for some things and not others. Depending on the statement or item being verified, there's some leeway offered. For obviously controversial inclusions or statements, or information
969:
to collect accolades), my personal pitch would be to require 2 reviews for every additional simultaneous nomination after the first two, with FLC delegates allowed to block nominations if it seems like the required reviews are too cursory and are gaming the system. I think this is reasonable for
886:
To keep things orderly with higher volume, maybe we could have a separate "bucket" to put ones that are ready for promotion and just need to wait out the clock? Checking people's work seems like a distinct task from reviewing it from scratch, and I'd worry about nominations that really need the
840:
Seconded - I know my post was "I don't think so", but I'm also genuinely interested in making the process better. To pull out an example, other people pushed for us to close nominations more aggressively a few months back, and I was hesitant, but while it's hard to say that it was causation vs.
964:
If we expand the number of simultaneous nominations, I think we should consider some form of quid pro quo, whether it's the explicitly defined requirements used at DYK, a system of sorting by reviews like at GAN, or something else. If we do add more simultaneous nominations (which I would push
163:
1197:: Typically for someone who has a few successful nominations under their belt, and is in good standing, we're fine to let them make a second nom after a bit of time after the first, so long as everything on their first has already been addressed. You fit this description, so go right ahead.
825:
Thank you for your suggestion and thank you for caring enough about promoting content (because I know you very genuinely do) to make this post. I want to hear your pitches for how we can be doing better or improve things, so please don't be shy if you have any other thoughts and time.
213:
242:
203:
143:
680:
A lot of featured lists tend to be in series drawing from the same set of sources. Nominators, having interest in a broad subject area, often try to fill out this entire series into FLs. These also tend to have identical or near-identical formatting and structures.
193:
173:
339:
329:
1029:
Empowering our coordinators to be more quantitative in passing noms (i.e. if a nom has been open for 2 weeks, has 3 or more supports, and has a source review, then promote immediately; this could be made automatic by a bot flagging noms that are ready for
153:
223:
183:
133:
1175:
1012:
Mandating a talk page notification to at least the most relevant WikiProject (I know article alerts exists, but a personal message notifying a WikiProject of a new FLC and requesting subject matter experts to review it likely could be more
755:
If "some types" of lists get the right to have block nominations and there's no objective criteria, then we give the impression that their nominators are first-class citizens and everyone else has to stay in the slow lane for not being as
272:
821:
I agree with PresN on the points they made. It's a good idea in theory, and I (and I think the rest of the team) appreciate, welcome, and encourage any and all suggestions and criticisms, but I don't think this one plays out well in
252:
751:
If "some types" of lists get the right to have block nominations, then we incentivize formulaic lists over non-formulaic. I don't think formulaic lists are bad at all, but I don't want to disincentivize the more unique or difficult
1238:
alignment). That said, I noticed that the accessibility features inherently center text, which sometimes isn't desired. Just curious if there is some way to standardize the approach to text alignment? Thanks for any insight!
262:
883:
I agree. As PresN mentioned above, the most quickly nominated ones are the most formulaic, and so I think the increased "flow rate" would be unproblematic, as most of the new workload would be easy reviews.
1087:
how editors who perform reviews will often receive more reviews in return; just a small note in the nomination instructions might encourage new nominators to get more involved right away.
159:
1009:
necessarily enhance the process. As I said above, the addition of the star doesn't move the dial much for our readers. Some ideas that could be more focused on getting more reviewers:
528:
523:
516:
511:
506:
499:
494:
489:
482:
477:
472:
465:
460:
455:
209:
448:
443:
438:
431:
426:
421:
414:
409:
404:
30:. Off-topic discussions, including asking for peer reviews or asking someone to promote an FLC you are involved in, are not appropriate and may be removed without warning.
1026:
Adding to existing page notices with a big banner laying out that although there is no QPQ, the quickest way to move a nomination forward is to review other nominations
1109:
Does FLC have the same source requirements as FAC, i.e. sources are required to be "high quality", or do sources just need to meet the less stringent requirements of
712:
708:
704:
238:
199:
139:
1178:
has been open since 26 July and, at the time of writing this, has three supports and no opposes. Would it be OK for me to make another nomination? Regards,
1023:
Identifying first-time nominators in the nomination page so that reviewers can focus on those noms first and hopefully bring new FL editors to the process
719:
one. Many of these sorts of lists are so prose-light that they're easy to check through; and that leaves formatting, which again, tends to be identical.
189:
169:
574:
603:
does not have a source review but also isn't in the list for those needing a source review. Is it possible to add it so everyone can see? Thanks!
149:
646:
may have been missed out on being listed as well? Several other nominations both above and below it on the nominations page have been listed.
692:
219:
179:
129:
102:
292:
27:
696:
1033:
Create a week-long "reviewer drive" every 3 months or so where the regulars press pause on nominating and we focus on reviewing other noms
703:, with nearly identical formatting and list 'design'. Where their sources differ, it's minor distinctions about the context of each team.
684:
335:
798:. Do I wish they got reviewed quicker? Sure! But I would prefer a more thorough and thoughtful review over pure speed of promotion.
992:
quid pro quo; if you don't review, you don't get reviews very quickly, and if you review a bunch, you hardly have to wait at all.
600:
325:
74:
268:
578:
931:
874:
248:
748:
little details to check. What about accolade lists- they're all very similar, but by different nominators. Does that count?
688:
643:
1110:
561:
88:
768:
I know that we all want good lists to get promoted as fast as possible, but I'm not sure this is the way to do it. --
903:
If we were to consider something like that I think it would make sense to have a minimum time between nominations.
1216:
1202:
1183:
1159:
1092:
979:
908:
831:
96:
540:
332:) – Concerns were not addressed in a timely manner, with no one stating an intention to do so. (Hey man im josh)
1243:
1141:
1074:
1043:
998:
946:
893:
803:
729:
258:
544:
664:
365:
1212:
1198:
1194:
1179:
1155:
1132:
1088:
975:
904:
827:
92:
68:
1118:
759:
We already have a mechanism for formulaic lists to go faster: they get reviewed quicker. There's a
633:
608:
1250:
1220:
1206:
1187:
1163:
1148:
1122:
1096:
1081:
1050:
1003:
983:
966:
951:
935:
912:
898:
878:
854:
835:
810:
781:
734:
667:
637:
612:
1016:
Adding the number of FLCs and number of reviews after each nominator (similar to what is done at
994:
942:
927:
889:
870:
725:
546:
763:
ChrisTheDude has so many FLs: his nominations get closed after 3 weeks pretty much on the dot.
647:
542:
387:
105:), and other notes of pertinence. Should you wish to contact the delegates, you can use the
1234:
1017:
795:
791:
848:
775:
82:
64:
715:, etc. are similar; all are mainly sourced to NHC reports, all within the same database.
1128:
1114:
629:
604:
918:
861:
585:
109:
740:
We've (or at least I've) considered this before, and rejected it for a few reasons:
642:
Not sure when the list of those needing one is typically updated, but it looks like
1176:
Knowledge (XXG):Featured list candidates/1987–88 snooker world rankings/archive1
295:
for the oldest ones. Please do what you can to contribute to these nominations!
1136:
the reviewers and expect nominators to defend or replace questionable sources.
843:
787:
770:
78:
860:
scrutiny, though it might not hurt to cap successive nominations to a point.
581:. To send a message to the FLC director and the FLC delegates, use the
917:
Yeah that sounds like a good idea. Maybe a week, or ten days?
547:
381:
15:
26:
Please note that this talk page is for discussion related to
676:
Idea: Allowing for multiple lists within a single nomination
988:
I don't think that's really necessary - we already have a
887:
review getting lost in a sea of the more formulaic stuff.
166:) – A consensus existed for promotion. (Hey man im josh)
160:
List of Green Bay
Packers NFL All-Rookie Team selections
156:) – A consensus existed for promotion. (Hey man im josh)
573:
For a "table of contents"-only list of candidates, see
373:
57:
53:
49:
45:
342:) – A consensus existed for removal. (Hey man im josh)
210:
List of
Billboard Easy Listening number ones of 1973
265:) – No consensus existed for promotion. (PresN)
226:) – A consensus existed for promotion. (Giants)
216:) – A consensus existed for promotion. (Giants)
713:Timeline of the 2002 Atlantic hurricane season
709:Timeline of the 2001 Atlantic hurricane season
705:Timeline of the 1996 Atlantic hurricane season
206:) – A consensus existed for promotion. (PresN)
196:) – A consensus existed for promotion. (PresN)
186:) – A consensus existed for promotion. (PresN)
176:) – A consensus existed for promotion. (PresN)
1020:, would require a bot and some data analysis)
575:Knowledge (XXG):Featured lists/Candidate list
555:This page has archives. Sections older than
239:List of Vegas Golden Knights general managers
200:Timeline of the 1995 Pacific hurricane season
140:Timeline of the 2011 Pacific hurricane season
8:
970:people who are engaged at FLC without being
275:) – Nomination withdrawn. (Hey man im josh)
190:List of Coachella Valley Firebirds players
170:List of accolades received by Carol (film)
255:) – List too short for promotion. (PresN)
245:) – List too short for promotion. (PresN)
28:Knowledge (XXG):Featured list candidates
150:List of World Heritage Sites in Brazil
693:List of Washington Commanders seasons
291:lists in need of more attention. See
220:List of municipalities in Guadalajara
180:List of World Heritage Sites in Egypt
130:List of Inkigayo Chart winners (2019)
7:
697:List of Jacksonville Jaguars seasons
685:List of New Orleans Saints seasons
579:Knowledge (XXG):Nominations Viewer
14:
559:may be automatically archived by
336:List of deaths at the Berlin Wall
1111:Knowledge (XXG):Reliable sources
619:
601:List of cities in Donetsk Oblast
386:
326:List of sister cities in Florida
19:
628:Josh seems to have done this. -
269:United States presidential pets
37:
32:Thank you for your cooperation.
249:List of Seattle Kraken seasons
1:
1038:Just spit-balling some ideas.
689:List of Detroit Lions seasons
644:List of Line of Duty episodes
599:Hi everyone, I noticed that
1251:15:34, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
1233:Is anyone familiar with an
1266:
1221:23:38, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
1207:23:34, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
1188:23:02, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
1097:03:30, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
1082:21:06, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
701:Pro-Football-Reference.com
572:
363:
1164:14:26, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
1149:14:14, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
1123:02:38, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
1105:A question about sourcing
1051:15:45, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
1004:03:57, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
984:03:46, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
952:01:22, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
940:A week seems reasonable.
936:00:44, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
913:23:53, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
899:23:18, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
879:23:06, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
855:22:53, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
836:22:26, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
811:22:23, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
782:21:09, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
735:20:41, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
668:04:33, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
638:08:32, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
613:19:01, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
1229:Text Alignment in Tables
786:I generally agree with
595:Source reviewer needed?
259:List of Apollo missions
699:are mainly sourced to
562:Lowercase sigmabot III
1174:My current candidate
350:FLRCs of special note
1211:Thank you. Regards,
283:FLCs of special note
965:against – there is
1246:
1144:
1077:
1046:
1002:
950:
897:
806:
733:
569:
568:
534:
533:
362:
361:
36:
35:
1257:
1249:
1244:
1242:
1147:
1142:
1140:
1080:
1075:
1073:
1049:
1044:
1042:
993:
941:
924:
921:
888:
867:
864:
851:
846:
809:
804:
802:
778:
773:
724:
662:
657:
652:
627:
623:
622:
590:
584:
564:
548:
401:
400:
390:
382:
376:
114:
108:
38:
23:
22:
16:
1265:
1264:
1260:
1259:
1258:
1256:
1255:
1254:
1241:« Gonzo fan2007
1240:
1239:
1231:
1213:BennyOnTheLoose
1199:Hey man im josh
1195:BennyOnTheLoose
1180:BennyOnTheLoose
1172:
1156:Hey man im josh
1139:« Gonzo fan2007
1138:
1137:
1133:hey man im josh
1107:
1089:RunningTiger123
1072:« Gonzo fan2007
1071:
1070:
1041:« Gonzo fan2007
1040:
1039:
976:RunningTiger123
922:
919:
905:Hey man im josh
865:
862:
849:
844:
828:Hey man im josh
801:« Gonzo fan2007
800:
799:
776:
771:
678:
658:
653:
648:
620:
618:
597:
592:
588:
582:
560:
549:
543:
395:
380:
379:
372:
368:
115:ping facility.
112:
106:
93:Hey man im josh
60:
43:
42:The closure log
20:
12:
11:
5:
1263:
1261:
1230:
1227:
1226:
1225:
1224:
1223:
1171:
1168:
1167:
1166:
1151:
1106:
1103:
1102:
1101:
1100:
1099:
1062:
1061:
1060:
1059:
1058:
1057:
1056:
1055:
1054:
1053:
1036:
1035:
1034:
1031:
1027:
1024:
1021:
1014:
962:
961:
960:
959:
958:
957:
956:
955:
954:
884:
823:
819:
815:
814:
813:
766:
765:
764:
757:
753:
749:
745:
677:
674:
673:
672:
671:
670:
596:
593:
567:
566:
554:
551:
550:
545:
541:
539:
536:
535:
532:
531:
526:
520:
519:
514:
509:
503:
502:
497:
492:
486:
485:
480:
475:
469:
468:
463:
458:
452:
451:
446:
441:
435:
434:
429:
424:
418:
417:
412:
407:
397:
396:
391:
385:
378:
377:
369:
364:
360:
359:
358:
357:
356:
355:
346:
345:
344:
343:
333:
317:
316:
315:
314:
305:
304:
300:
299:
298:
297:
296:
279:
278:
277:
276:
266:
256:
246:
230:
229:
228:
227:
217:
207:
197:
187:
177:
167:
157:
147:
137:
121:
120:
63:Comments from
61:
44:
41:
34:
33:
31:
24:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1262:
1253:
1252:
1247:
1236:
1228:
1222:
1218:
1214:
1210:
1209:
1208:
1204:
1200:
1196:
1192:
1191:
1190:
1189:
1185:
1181:
1177:
1169:
1165:
1161:
1157:
1152:
1150:
1145:
1134:
1130:
1127:
1126:
1125:
1124:
1120:
1116:
1112:
1104:
1098:
1094:
1090:
1085:
1084:
1083:
1078:
1067:
1064:
1063:
1052:
1047:
1037:
1032:
1028:
1025:
1022:
1019:
1015:
1011:
1010:
1007:
1006:
1005:
1000:
996:
995:Generalissima
991:
987:
986:
985:
981:
977:
973:
968:
963:
953:
948:
944:
943:Generalissima
939:
938:
937:
933:
929:
925:
916:
915:
914:
910:
906:
902:
901:
900:
895:
891:
890:Generalissima
885:
882:
881:
880:
876:
872:
868:
858:
857:
856:
853:
852:
847:
839:
838:
837:
833:
829:
824:
820:
816:
812:
807:
797:
794:and 2 active
793:
789:
785:
784:
783:
780:
779:
774:
767:
762:
758:
754:
750:
746:
742:
741:
739:
738:
737:
736:
731:
727:
726:Generalissima
720:
716:
714:
710:
706:
702:
698:
694:
690:
686:
682:
675:
669:
666:
663:
661:
656:
651:
645:
641:
640:
639:
635:
631:
626:
617:
616:
615:
614:
610:
606:
602:
594:
587:
580:
576:
571:
563:
558:
553:
552:
538:
537:
530:
527:
525:
522:
521:
518:
515:
513:
510:
508:
505:
504:
501:
498:
496:
493:
491:
488:
487:
484:
481:
479:
476:
474:
471:
470:
467:
464:
462:
459:
457:
454:
453:
450:
447:
445:
442:
440:
437:
436:
433:
430:
428:
425:
423:
420:
419:
416:
413:
411:
408:
406:
403:
402:
399:
398:
394:
389:
384:
383:
375:
371:
370:
367:
353:
352:
351:
348:
347:
341:
337:
334:
331:
327:
324:
323:
322:
319:
318:
312:
311:
310:
307:
306:
302:
301:
294:
290:
286:
285:
284:
281:
280:
274:
270:
267:
264:
260:
257:
254:
250:
247:
244:
240:
237:
236:
235:
232:
231:
225:
221:
218:
215:
211:
208:
205:
201:
198:
195:
191:
188:
185:
181:
178:
175:
171:
168:
165:
161:
158:
155:
151:
148:
145:
141:
138:
135:
131:
128:
127:
126:
123:
122:
118:
117:
116:
111:
104:
101:
98:
94:
90:
87:
84:
80:
76:
73:
70:
66:
59:
55:
51:
47:
40:
39:
29:
25:
18:
17:
1232:
1173:
1170:Another nom?
1108:
1065:
989:
971:
842:
769:
760:
721:
717:
700:
683:
679:
659:
654:
649:
624:
598:
570:
556:
392:
349:
320:
308:
288:
287:We now have
282:
234:Unsuccessful
233:
124:
99:
85:
71:
62:
1001:) (it/she)
949:) (it/she)
896:) (it/she)
732:) (it/she)
1030:promotion)
1013:impactful)
926:(he/him •
869:(he/him •
822:actuality.
529:Archive 23
524:Archive 22
517:Archive 21
512:Archive 20
507:Archive 19
500:Archive 18
495:Archive 17
490:Archive 16
483:Archive 15
478:Archive 14
473:Archive 13
466:Archive 12
461:Archive 11
456:Archive 10
65:Giants2008
1129:Steelkamp
1115:Steelkamp
974:onerous.
967:WP:NORUSH
756:prolific.
630:MPGuy2824
605:Mattximus
591:template.
449:Archive 9
444:Archive 8
439:Archive 7
432:Archive 6
427:Archive 5
422:Archive 4
415:Archive 3
410:Archive 2
405:Archive 1
990:de facto
393:Archives
366:Shortcut
321:Delisted
125:Promoted
103:contribs
89:contribs
75:contribs
1066:Comment
796:WP:FLCs
792:WP:GANs
557:10 days
91:), and
58:refresh
50:history
1245:(talk)
1235:WP:MOS
1143:(talk)
1076:(talk)
1045:(talk)
1018:WP:GAN
805:(talk)
761:reason
752:lists.
695:, and
665:(talk)
655:Doctor
374:WT:FLC
932:edits
920:Dylan
875:edits
863:Dylan
788:PresN
79:PresN
54:watch
1217:talk
1203:talk
1184:talk
1160:talk
1119:talk
1093:talk
999:talk
980:talk
947:talk
928:talk
909:talk
894:talk
871:talk
845:Pres
832:talk
772:Pres
730:talk
634:talk
625:Done
609:talk
586:@FLC
577:and
354:None
340:FLRC
330:FLRC
313:None
309:Kept
303:FLRC
293:here
289:many
110:@FLC
97:talk
83:talk
69:talk
46:edit
972:too
923:620
866:620
660:Who
650:The
273:FLC
263:FLC
253:FLC
243:FLC
224:FLC
214:FLC
204:FLC
194:FLC
184:FLC
174:FLC
164:FLC
154:FLC
144:FLC
134:FLC
119:FLC
77:),
1248:@
1219:)
1205:)
1186:)
1162:)
1146:@
1131:,
1121:)
1113:?
1095:)
1079:@
1048:@
982:)
934:)
930:•
911:)
877:)
873:•
834:)
808:@
711:,
707:,
691:,
687:,
636:)
611:)
589:}}
583:{{
113:}}
107:{{
56:·
52:·
48:·
1215:(
1201:(
1193:@
1182:(
1158:(
1117:(
1091:(
997:(
978:(
945:(
907:(
892:(
850:N
830:(
777:N
728:(
632:(
607:(
565:.
338:(
328:(
271:(
261:(
251:(
241:(
222:(
212:(
202:(
192:(
182:(
172:(
162:(
152:(
146:)
142:(
136:)
132:(
100:·
95:(
86:·
81:(
72:·
67:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.