729:
ratio, IMO. My main point was in reply to
Grapple X saying that GA should feed/does feed into FL - this may occasionally happen, but the GA criteria explicitly say it shouldn't. If people want that to happen, then a discussion needs to start to have the GA criteria changed. I don't think there's a call here for a good list page, since if this was at a theoretical GL page people would still probably be arguing over whether it was an article or a list. The argument here isn't "this is almost good enough to be FL, but not quite, so it should go to GL", it's "there's too much prose for it to be FL, so maybe it should go to GA". To be honest, I think that this type of situation isn't something that can be fixed by a hard-and-fast rule - it's more of a case-by-case thing, to my way of thinking.
637:(as is often the case with things like television seasons or summaries of warship classes, etc). I'd probably straight-pass this as a Good Article as I see no problems with it within the standard used at GA. However, another editor may fall under the "lists are for FL only" crowd and quick-fail it for that. It's a grey area that could probably do with a hard-and-fast rule somewhere down the line. I'm erring on the side of this one being FL, and not FA, territory, but ultimately I'll have to defer to Giants and Rambling Man as they're the ones with much more experience in this field. But to equate FL and GA isn't really right, as FL and FA are the equivalent processes, GA being a rung below either (and feeding into both).
769:
then do so formally rather than this "informal consensus" which is just outright wrong. There are few enough reviewers here that such a consensus can pretty well dominate all of the noms and it's not fair to the nominators to judge them by a hidden criteria. And if you do set a minimum please start the FLCR process for the
Russian battlecruiser list and all the other short FLCs so we can discuss things at length. Hell, maybe I'll do it myself, just to get the ball rolling. Oh, and I'm working on
755:
cannot subsumed into any other than a complete list of all decommissioned Greek warships, which is unlikely ever to be finished. Breaking that list down by type is a perfectly valid way to handle that information in bite-sized pieces. Otherwise you'd have to try and digest lists with over 100 entries as even the smallest navy has likely had that many warships over the years if you get down to gunboats and the like. Aside from the few entries I see no fundamental difference between this and
760:
reality and can easily be dealt with by looking at the organizing principle. List of The
Prisoner episodes that aired in Peoria, Illinois may not even be short, but is pretty easy to shoot down as an invalid basis to organize the list around as it is better subsumed into List of The Prisoner episodes. Just like List of battleships of the US Navy recommissioned in the 1980s is best incorporated in with the Iowa class battleship article, to go back to our original naval theme.
408:'s uselessness. Secondly, falling back to "unwritten benchmarks" every reviewer has to set for him- or herself and their unpredictability for nominators is the worst possible thing we can do. Relying on CFORK may only be a stopgap measure until the community finally decides on what lists should stand alone and what lists shouldn't, but it's still way better than arbitrary limits.
391:@Clay: If we were bound by what previously passed, in time we would not be able to oppose for any reason, because with every FLC that passes, things are missed. Reviewers aren't perfect. Furthermore, as Knowledge matures, its guidelines and policies evolve. Standards rise even if the wording of the featured list criteria remain the same.
808:
important, # of entries in the list or the number of articles? It matters because my forthcoming
American battlecruiser list has a dozen entries, although over half of them were never completed and they are covered in 5 individual ship articles and two class articles and I'd like to know if I should bother coming here or not.--
708:. Recently I tried getting things moving over there, but all I accomplished was stepping on tows and getting caught up in tedious debates over minor details. Anyway, we've been dancing around theses questions for long enough. A large scale RFC may be the only way to get this problem solved. If it even can be solved, that is.
1060:
entries without examining them first. It may be that some lists with a few entries might be better re-written as prose – or it may not. From that viewpoint, I agree with TRM's "rule-of-thumb" that lists with ten or more entries are clearly good candidates for being written as lists – and our mistake is to reach a
1059:
I recommend, therefore, that we strive for as much flexibility as possible in allowing borderline candidates to be assessed against our featured list criteria. While I don't believe that a list with a single entry meets my idea of why we have lists, I wouldn't want to disqualify lists with just a few
822:
Of course you should bother. This discussion has come about from a couple of editors (mainly me and Giants) who expressed concerns. It would appear that we are in the minority, and that's just fine. It would also appear that we need to revisit the "implementation" of 3b in this sense, so we should
728:
TRM, I definitely agree that there are many articles/lists that are borderline - the ones you note above are great examples. This battleships article/list I can see as going either way; however, I think it is more list, since if it went to FA they would ping it for having too high of a table to prose
669:
are very specific on that ("Stand-alone lists...should be nominated for featured list...status" under "what is not a good article"). Unless there is a discussion and the criteria are changed, lists should not be nominated, or passed, at GA. I realize that the majority of this discussion is focused on
304:
What Clay said. To argue that this list does not meet notability while numerous others on other countries' ships have passed without issue is ludicrous; it's systemic bias if nothing else. The same applies to SYNC; no one raised SYNC concerns when the previous FLs on types of warships I have written.
1055:
is what makes our list articles or list sections of hybrid articles so useful that we abandon normal prose. If you agree with my argument so far, it is difficult to disagree with the conclusion that confining articles to either "article" or "list" is not only unnecessary, but does nothing to improve
768:
with only three items two years ago, but have now problems with this one, which has even less text than the
Russian battlecruiser list, but I suppose that people can learn better over time what is GAN worthy or not. If y'all want to impose some sort of limit for minimum # of items to qualify for FLC
482:
important. We couldn't, for instance, imagine a list of two items becoming a featured list, it would simply be an article (or pair of articles) which should achieve GA or FA status if possible. I wonder (and I'll need to do some more research) how much more this list brings to the
Knowledge beyond
688:
Gah, I didn't want to come back here, but one question is clear and obvious to me, what is "a list" Dana? I noted two articles above that passed GA which are essentially lists with significant prose. We have many examples that are similar. What's a "true list"? Sounds like we're back to the old
636:
To be fair, "the Good
Article" people is a pretty nebulous term given that reviews can be done by anyone, whereas featured content has a set panel of delegates. I know I've passed GAs that could have been termed as lists, because I see GA as an intermediary step for FL when the list is prose-heavy
397:
been talked about as a group is impossible. There's no burden of proof on me here. The GNG isn't satisfied either. LISTN merely explains how notability guidelines should be interpreted for lists. That "There is no present consensus for how to assess ... cross-categorization lists" only supports my
225:
Perhaps you're thinking now that we're interpreting these guidelines overly strict, but we have to do that, because if we don't (and there was a time when we didn't) editors will go around scooping little pieces out of larger articles for the purpose of gaining featured credit at FLC as opposed to
1042:
It may be that there is no neat solution. Let's look at why we have list articles, which would normally breach our requirements to write articles in good prose. I would argue that in an encyclopedia, there often exists a need to collect together a number of related facts and present them in a way
184:
I didn't say we were bound by precedence, I was pointing out that lists of similar size have passed without issue. Since we're concerned with article size, then, this list is 12.7kb, the
Russian list is 16.8kb, and the Japanese list is 17.2. The difference is insignificant. But let me get back to
773:
right now with only two entries covering 7 articles and I expect that I'll be nominating it in a few weeks so y'all might want to put some effort into deciding this issue. It will be formatted about the same as the
Russian battlecruiser list so I wonder if I'll see some comments that it's really
759:
as they're both structured around the same fundamental principle. Just as List of birds of
Colorado is fundamentally equivalent to List of birds of Matto Grosso. So what if one has over 70 entries and the other only 4? I think that threat of an inundation of short lists is greatly exaggerated in
615:
I don't think we need such an RFC. What we need is clear criteria on what lists should exist. Dividing articles between FAC and FLC is not really a problem. We take what they don't want. As far as GA-lists are concerned, I'm in agreement with you, but if the Good Article people don't want lists,
582:
work as a list, as lists don't strictly need to have tabled data. The article is a list of entries, rather than a list of raw information in table form; if that's deemed to be outside of FL's purview then I think there'd be a few other FLs that would have to be taken to FLRC and then brought FAC
456:
lists? The only difference is size, and in the case of several of them, that difference is negligible. If you don't want short lists, fine, I'll withdraw the nomination and only work on categories of items that have more than some random, arbitrary limit. But decide on the limit and let everyone
319:
I think we all need to chill out a bit here. My concern over a "list" of four items still holds (while not in the criteria, we have, for some time, used ten items as an unwritten benchmark for submission), I've seen featured and good article nominations with less prose and more tables than this
100:
violations as the only reason to oppose based on criterion 3b. Anyone arguing that this is a content fork should name the article (existent or not) of which he or she believes this to be a content fork. I'm not particularly pleased about the shortness of this list, but without a reasonable merge
807:
Forgive me for mischaracterizing your comments, but you are correct that you did not support that list. Your characterization of the Russian list is correct, but limited. It does cover nine ships, but none of them were completed and all are covered in only three class articles. So which is more
754:
I can't believe that this nom is getting hung up on the number of entries; what does that matter? The main principle should be if it has a fundamental organizing principle. So what if the Greeks only bought two battleships and attempted to buy another pair? The organizing principle is valid and
703:
I think it's less one single question, but several related ones we (and the wider community) need to answer. To name the main ones: What distinguishes a stand-alone list (aka. list article) from a non-list article? And when is the existence of a list article justified? The page that should (but
1064:
conclusion that all those with fewer are not. I know it doesn't help nominators when we don't have rigid criteria that they can work to, but I'd rather leave sufficient margin for exceptions, as I think that leads to better results (even if we have to put more work into reaching a consensus at
274:
as are in place now without the hassle this one is receiving. I don't see how LISTN is failed here as I'm sure the battleships have been talked about as a group (prove me wrong), and it specifically states there is no consensus for assessing the notability of "List of X of Y" lists besides the
129:
If that list is improved to the quality of this list, it would be unmanageably large. I have plans to break out at least some other sections of the list (such as the ironclads and probably the cruisers for starters). Regardless, there is precedence for lists of this size:
823:
do that too. My suggestion here is to move this lengthy debate to the talk page, and restart the nomination so all this chatter doesn't get in the way of people deciding whether or not this is a piece of Knowledge's finest work. What say thee to that?
591:). I've seen a similar grey area over what is and isn't within the scope of FLC, and I'm wondering if perhaps an RFC on the subject to draw a line in the sand for what we do want here and what would be better served by FAC instead would be in order.
279:, which has been satisfied in this case. And I'm not sure a list that has precedence for inclusion (many "List of battleships of X" exist) will get everyone to go hog wild trying to force other small lists through FLC as you seem to imply.
209:
CFORK basically says that multiple articles (with a few exceptions) shouldn't cover the same subjects (note that it's about the articles' subjects, not their contents). One of the exceptions being articles created through following
350:
has five entries with six articles. If you want to have a cutoff, then do so, but tell people, and please do not apply it inconsistently. If I knew this was going to be an issue, I wouldn't have wasted my time writing this list.
926:
It seems apparent to me that there is some sort of unspoken size requirement for an article to be considered a list. Please decide what the requirement is and codify it. Hidden rules help no one and only cause frustration.
983:
You're wrong about that. TRM's opinion is highly respected at FLC and shared by a number of reviewers, but it's still an opinion that does not have sufficient support to be written into the criteria. It does
437:
which, while it has more prose, is essentially the same as this list). However, everyone's entitled to their opinion, of course. Probably best for me to withdraw here and let the community at large decide.
584:
1051:, where I can also count how many episodes that Frederick King Keller wrote, and even compare how well received each of them were (although that would be easier if the table were sortable). That sort of
377:
a list. It's mainly prose with some very brief tabulated information. I do think you need to remain calm, we're hear to discuss this, well I certainly am, and losing your temper won't help anything.
270:
interpreting the guidelines overly strict, and your analysis seems partially incorrect at best. What previously passed is relevant in the sense that two of the three lists above were passed with the
507:
So four items is too few. Gotcha. I won't be wasting my time here anymore. Archive the nomination so I can go over to GAN, where someone else can tell me it doesn't fit their criteria either.
945:
consensus. Editors (including nominators and reviewers) don't agree on how criterion 3b should be interpreted, what constitutes a list article, and what list articles are justified to exist.
793:
If you wish to single me out, then just a couple of minor points of information: the Russian list had nine items in three tables, and I don't recall supporting it, I simply reviewed it.
190:
161:
102:
988:
have consensus. Also, I don't think TRM meant to say that no list with less than 10 items should be promoted and that every list with more than 9 items is acceptable.
164:, with the largest sections (presumably the ones with the most items) being split first, I'm not convinced that the battleship section would have to be split at all.
60:, it certainly doesn't meet our 3b criteria, but I'm not sure if there's a main article for this to slip into. Either way, not sure it's a featured list candidate.
670:
whether this list is actually a list or more of an article, but I wanted to make the distinction between GA and FL clear before more confusion is sown. True lists
756:
770:
1074:
1037:
1017:
1003:
978:
960:
936:
920:
860:
846:
832:
817:
802:
787:
738:
723:
698:
683:
656:
631:
610:
552:
516:
502:
473:
447:
423:
404:@TRM: I'll have to disagree with you on two points. Firstly, this is a list. Of course I can't cite some guideline to support this opinion because of
386:
360:
347:
333:
314:
298:
245:
202:
179:
151:
139:
124:
87:
69:
48:
775:
342:. As I pointed out above, there are several examples of FLs with the same number of items (well below 10) that did not have these concerns raised.
74:
In what way does it not meet 3b? There's no length requirement for a number of subjects in a list, and it is a stand-alone topic, just the same as
433:, many GAs have more listness and less prose than this one. It could easily be submitted there without anyone blinking twice (and I saw this FA:
17:
1043:
that helps the reader to overview, to compare, to contrast, and to look up those facts. If I want to know who directed the ninth episode of
193:? As far as I can tell, CFORK prohibits articles that largely duplicate another, or are POV forks. How is this list either one of those?
343:
765:
131:
666:
339:
135:
689:"why isn't there a 'good list' if there's a 'good article'" discussion which I've never really seen satisfactorily resolved.
78:
or any other similar list. The list is a comprehensive topic (the battleships purchased by Greece) and is not a content fork.
75:
160:
exists for a reason. Also, we're not item counting; what we're concerned with is article size. Assuming a natural growth of
1008:
And that's why I restarted the discussion so the community could form an opinion without distraction from any directors.
588:
35:– In the lists there are only four items total. Do my fellow reviewers consider that to be enough to meet criterion 3b?
101:
target, I'd have to say that it meets criterion 3b. That said, I think it could "reasonably be included as part of"
1013:
856:
828:
798:
694:
498:
443:
382:
329:
290:
65:
778:
which covered 20-odd ships and classes and passed FLC a year and a half ago. But that was then and this is now.--
434:
366:
401:
I'm not implying anything. I'm saying it straight up: Promoting tiny lists makes editors create more tiny lists.
226:
creating spin-out articles when doing so is the best way to present the content and it outweighs the additional
398:
position. If we can't assess a subject's notability, then we can't consider it meeting notability guidelines.
842:
813:
783:
563:
211:
1048:
575:
1009:
852:
824:
794:
734:
690:
679:
571:
567:
494:
439:
378:
325:
61:
884:
Sharpen the line between list articles that should exist and list articles that shouldn't exist. -: -->
215:
42:
874:(Outdent) I'm curious where you people want to go from here. I see several (non-exclusive) options:
1030:
996:
974:
953:
932:
913:
716:
647:
624:
601:
512:
469:
416:
356:
310:
238:
198:
172:
147:
117:
83:
969:. Coming from one of the FLC delegates, I'd say that amounts to some kind of unspoken consensus.
838:
809:
779:
1044:
370:
365:
Yes, I am aware of the GA criteria (for recent examples of GAs which contain listed info, see
730:
675:
562:- For what it's worth, I don't see GA and FL as being mutually exclusive (see, for example,
548:
105:. If there's arguments against that, I'm willing to listen, but for the moment I'll have to
1070:
893:
453:
219:
186:
97:
36:
1061:
1025:
991:
970:
948:
928:
908:
899:
711:
638:
619:
592:
508:
465:
411:
352:
306:
288:
271:
233:
227:
194:
167:
157:
143:
112:
79:
898:
Make the criteria more explicit about what 3b means and how it is interpreted. -: -->
885:
879:
705:
487:
405:
321:
276:
93:
57:
1022:
A prudent decision. Still, we'll have to solve the underlying problem eventually.
967:"we have, for some time, used ten items as an unwritten benchmark for submission"
966:
837:
That would be fine. Let's clarify 3b so everybody knows what the standards are.--
889:
544:
460:
Having said that, no one has yet explained (as far as I can tell), how this is
207:
Let me put it differently: What previously passed is irrelevant. We don't care.
1066:
483:
the individual articles about each battleship, most of which seem to have a
281:
578:; and yes I do seem to focus on television a bit). I think this article
320:
candidate, hence my suggestion that it would be better suited to the
216:
recommends against splitting off sections not establishing notability
878:
Sharpen the line between list article and non-list article. -: -->
585:
List of Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow and Dawn of Sorrow characters
305:
Please stop wikilawyering and withdraw your baseless opposition.
941:
It's not that there is some unspoken consensus, there simply is
218:, which this list does not presently do in the way demanded by
189:- please explain how this list is an unacceptable fork of the
373:, by the way), but what I'm saying to you is that this isn't
764:
I find it odd that The Rambling Man supported the FLC for
27:
Comments about 3b transferred from initial FLC nomination
346:, one of my other FLs, has six entries with 9 articles;
674:
go to GA...it is not a stepping stone to FL status.
96:is basically useless for our purposes. That leaves
191:List of decommissioned ships of the Hellenic Navy
162:List of decommissioned ships of the Hellenic Navy
103:List of decommissioned ships of the Hellenic Navy
757:List of battleships of the United States Navy
539:Well I for one think it works as a list, and
8:
771:List of battlecruisers of the United States
452:If this is not a list, then why are any of
348:List of battleships of the Ottoman Empire
140:List of battleships of the Ottoman Empire
1049:List of House episodes#Season 1: 2004–05
776:List of battlecruisers of the Royal Navy
905:Is there other options I'm not seeing?
18:Knowledge talk:Featured list candidates
965:See The Rambling Man's comment above:
774:rather an article than a list. Unlike
478:I understand the frustration but size
457:know, so I don't keep wasting my time.
7:
704:doesn't) answer these questions is
344:List of armored cruisers of Germany
393:Proving that the battleships have
24:
766:List of battlecruisers of Russia
156:We are not bound by precedence;
132:List of battlecruisers of Russia
136:List of battlecruisers of Japan
92:The way it's presently worded,
76:List of battleships of Germany
1:
230:having sub articles creates.
138:both have only 3 entries and
589:List of Uncharted characters
56:yep, this is most likely a
1103:
1075:17:13, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
1038:16:30, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
1018:13:57, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
1004:13:26, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
979:12:59, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
961:12:35, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
937:11:44, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
921:19:45, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
861:16:45, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
847:14:57, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
833:14:01, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
818:13:16, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
803:07:10, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
788:00:27, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
739:22:00, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
724:19:45, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
699:18:11, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
684:16:42, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
657:13:35, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
632:13:21, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
616:that's fine with me also.
611:12:20, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
553:14:38, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
517:13:00, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
503:18:11, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
474:18:01, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
448:14:57, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
424:13:21, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
387:12:08, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
361:11:45, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
338:Lists cannot be GAs - see
334:11:39, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
315:11:33, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
299:04:48, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
246:00:20, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
203:21:53, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
180:21:24, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
152:19:59, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
125:17:02, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
88:01:08, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
70:20:14, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
49:02:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
435:Tanks in the Spanish Army
429:I'm not convinced of its
367:2011 Team Europcar season
667:WP:Good article criteria
661:As a point of order, GA
214:. Summary style in turn
564:The Simpsons (season 1)
576:The X-Files (season 1)
58:good article candidate
572:Millennium (season 1)
568:Smallville (season 1)
228:burden of maintenance
464:a stand-alone list.
665:feed into FL - the
1056:our encyclopedia.
1045:House (TV series)
653:
644:
607:
598:
371:Delaware Route 36
1094:
1036:
1033:
1028:
1010:The Rambling Man
1002:
999:
994:
968:
959:
956:
951:
919:
916:
911:
853:The Rambling Man
825:The Rambling Man
795:The Rambling Man
722:
719:
714:
691:The Rambling Man
654:
649:
645:
640:
630:
627:
622:
608:
603:
599:
594:
495:The Rambling Man
492:
486:
440:The Rambling Man
422:
419:
414:
379:The Rambling Man
326:The Rambling Man
297:
295:
284:
244:
241:
236:
212:WP:Summary style
178:
175:
170:
123:
120:
115:
62:The Rambling Man
45:
39:
1102:
1101:
1097:
1096:
1095:
1093:
1092:
1091:
1031:
1026:
1023:
997:
992:
989:
954:
949:
946:
914:
909:
906:
717:
712:
709:
648:
639:
625:
620:
617:
602:
593:
490:
484:
417:
412:
409:
294:
291:
287:
282:
239:
234:
231:
173:
168:
165:
118:
113:
110:
43:
37:
29:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1100:
1098:
1090:
1089:
1088:
1087:
1086:
1085:
1084:
1083:
1082:
1081:
1080:
1079:
1078:
1077:
1062:contrapositive
1057:
903:
902:
896:
882:
872:
871:
870:
869:
868:
867:
866:
865:
864:
863:
761:
752:
751:
750:
749:
748:
747:
746:
745:
744:
743:
742:
741:
726:
556:
555:
536:
535:
534:
533:
532:
531:
530:
529:
528:
527:
526:
525:
524:
523:
522:
521:
520:
519:
458:
292:
264:
263:
262:
261:
260:
259:
258:
257:
256:
255:
254:
253:
252:
251:
250:
249:
28:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1099:
1076:
1072:
1068:
1063:
1058:
1054:
1053:functionality
1050:
1046:
1041:
1040:
1039:
1035:
1034:
1029:
1021:
1020:
1019:
1015:
1011:
1007:
1006:
1005:
1001:
1000:
995:
987:
982:
981:
980:
976:
972:
964:
963:
962:
958:
957:
952:
944:
940:
939:
938:
934:
930:
925:
924:
923:
922:
918:
917:
912:
901:
897:
895:
891:
887:
883:
881:
877:
876:
875:
862:
858:
854:
850:
849:
848:
844:
840:
839:Sturmvogel 66
836:
835:
834:
830:
826:
821:
820:
819:
815:
811:
810:Sturmvogel 66
806:
805:
804:
800:
796:
792:
791:
790:
789:
785:
781:
780:Sturmvogel 66
777:
772:
767:
762:
758:
740:
736:
732:
727:
725:
721:
720:
715:
707:
702:
701:
700:
696:
692:
687:
686:
685:
681:
677:
673:
668:
664:
660:
659:
658:
655:
652:
646:
643:
635:
634:
633:
629:
628:
623:
614:
613:
612:
609:
606:
600:
597:
590:
586:
581:
577:
573:
569:
565:
561:
558:
557:
554:
550:
546:
542:
538:
537:
518:
514:
510:
506:
505:
504:
500:
496:
489:
481:
477:
476:
475:
471:
467:
463:
459:
455:
451:
450:
449:
445:
441:
436:
432:
428:
427:
426:
425:
421:
420:
415:
407:
402:
399:
396:
390:
389:
388:
384:
380:
376:
372:
368:
364:
363:
362:
358:
354:
349:
345:
341:
337:
336:
335:
331:
327:
323:
318:
317:
316:
312:
308:
303:
302:
301:
300:
296:
289:
286:
285:
278:
273:
272:same criteria
269:
248:
247:
243:
242:
237:
229:
223:
221:
217:
213:
206:
205:
204:
200:
196:
192:
188:
183:
182:
181:
177:
176:
171:
163:
159:
155:
154:
153:
149:
145:
141:
137:
133:
128:
127:
126:
122:
121:
116:
108:
104:
99:
95:
91:
90:
89:
85:
81:
77:
73:
72:
71:
67:
63:
59:
55:
52:
51:
50:
46:
40:
34:
31:
30:
26:
19:
1052:
1047:, I look at
1024:
990:
985:
947:
942:
907:
904:
873:
763:
753:
710:
671:
662:
650:
641:
618:
604:
595:
579:
559:
540:
479:
461:
430:
410:
403:
400:
394:
392:
374:
280:
267:
265:
232:
224:
208:
166:
111:
106:
53:
32:
731:Dana boomer
676:Dana boomer
1065:times). --
493:article.
324:process.
38:Giants2008
971:Parsecboy
929:Parsecboy
583:instead (
509:Parsecboy
466:Parsecboy
353:Parsecboy
307:Parsecboy
195:Parsecboy
144:Parsecboy
80:Parsecboy
894:WP:CFORK
663:does not
431:listness
220:WP:LISTN
187:WP:CFORK
98:WP:CFORK
54:Response
33:Question
900:WP:FLCR
642:GRAPPLE
596:GRAPPLE
560:Comment
541:support
340:the GAC
158:WP:FLRC
142:has 5.
886:WP:SAL
880:WP:SAL
851:Done.
706:WP:SAL
672:do not
545:Golbez
406:WP:SAL
375:really
322:WP:GAN
277:WP:GNG
107:oppose
94:WP:SAL
1067:RexxS
1032:raise
998:raise
955:raise
915:raise
718:raise
626:raise
454:these
418:raise
240:raise
174:raise
119:raise
16:<
1071:talk
1027:Good
1014:talk
993:Good
975:talk
950:Good
933:talk
910:Good
890:WP:N
857:talk
843:talk
829:talk
814:talk
799:talk
784:talk
735:talk
713:Good
695:talk
680:talk
621:Good
580:does
574:and
549:talk
543:. --
513:talk
499:talk
488:main
470:talk
444:talk
413:Good
383:talk
369:and
357:talk
330:talk
311:talk
293:Clay
283:Clay
266:You
235:Good
199:talk
169:Good
148:talk
134:and
114:Good
84:talk
66:talk
44:Talk
986:not
892:or
888:or
462:not
395:not
268:are
1073:)
1016:)
977:)
943:no
935:)
859:)
845:)
831:)
816:)
801:)
786:)
737:)
697:)
682:)
587:,
570:,
566:,
551:)
515:)
501:)
491:}}
485:{{
480:is
472:)
446:)
385:)
359:)
332:)
313:)
201:)
150:)
109:.
86:)
68:)
47:)
1069:(
1012:(
973:(
931:(
855:(
841:(
827:(
812:(
797:(
782:(
733:(
693:(
678:(
651:X
605:X
547:(
511:(
497:(
468:(
442:(
381:(
355:(
328:(
309:(
222:.
197:(
146:(
82:(
64:(
41:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.