Knowledge (XXG) talk:Redirects for discussion/Archive 8

31: 1354:, Italian-American composer and librettist. However there are at least 3 people and a draft being written to whom this could apply. It's not that I want to delete the redirect - I've boldly turned it into a disambiguation but I am not sure where/how I should have discussed it first - if it was causing errors in redirects it shouldn't go back to the composer only but I also didn't want to leave it blank... 1892: 2722: 2498: 2026: 1584:

for others' opinions, but if I add them, my watchlist feed gets inundated with edits about all the redirects that are on the same page. I'm wondering if there couldn't be an AfD-like system where each discussion would be on its own page and they would all then just get transcluded on the daily log. Would that be more trouble than it's worth?

406:(among others) don't fit that pattern, but since "other" doesn't imply one is "better" than the other, one could equally argue that they do. It's not important, really, is it... it would only matter if they went into different redirect categories, which they don't (and that I am forever trying to use the nonexistent 1267:

a move request. But who actually creates the move request? In your (Tavix' and Ivanvector's) statements above, you say that it's not the job of the closer. But it's unlikely to be done by the nominator either, because they didn't suggest a move – leaving bad faith aside, they probably just feel that it's

2659:

FWIW, I strongly oppose separate pages for discussions. It's a solution in search of a problem and having a daily log is very convenient when bundling related redirects, as well as being able to comment on several discussions with one edit and it makes closing discussion easy. I've seen other editors

1842:

would be to have the same text appear in all collapsed discussions, such as "Closed discussion" or maybe even "Closed discussion: see (direct link to daily subpage)" (I think this option is possible). I hope I explained this well enough without getting technical to a point where I am not being clear.

1583:

All redirects listed on a given day are discussed within sections of a single page. With the current volume of redirects getting listed here, this leads to some inconvenience for people like me who only comment on occasional redirects. I'd normally want them to be on my watchlist so I can keep an eye

157:

as redirects to this template. Of course, I could just create them, but would like to have consensus before I did so, as I don't want needlessly to multiply these redirects when editors "should" know, on the other hand the template's name is a bit long-winded and also it is common with others to have

2637:

I definitely support dedicated pages for special discussions, and special discussions includes any discussion that can lead to deletions. The main reason has to do with watchlisting. If a page exists only for the discussion, by watchlisting you can monitor contributions, and the close, and any odd

1278:

So we end up in the situation that we have consensus to move but don't follow through with it – a common outcome at other XfD's, I believe. Just as a closer deletes (or requests delete of) a redirect for which consensus is delete, or retargets an article for which there is consensus to retarget, the

1266:

But take the second case, where something has been brought to RfD and the nominator has suggested deletion. Consensus emerges to move an article over the redirect (and maybe do some other tidying up). (In the limiting case, that's reversing the redirect.) The RfD discussion is procedurally closed as

1094:

You're fixing the wrong problem. A redirect that's under discussion is merely that - under discussion. Editors should not be removing links pointing to the redirect until the discussion is complete. Well, unless they would have removed the link regardless of the RfD discussion. Normal editing on

964:

1636:

In addition, most of the templates that are currently used on RFD would either need to be updated or even new templates created. And then, the archiving system for the pages would need to be updated. There are probably some more things that would need to happen that I'm currently not thinking about

2064:

page but still appear correctly on their daily subpages. However, in effect, the discussion would still appear in the table of contents under its daily subpage, but would forward the reader to the bottom of the page when clicked from the table of contents. Does this sound like something we should

1212:

the other day that I normally don't create move requests for users who list them at RfD unless they specifically ask - better that they learn how to do it themselves (someone else said that to me once, but I don't remember who) and better that they provide their own rationale for the move than me

251:

for article content. Of course it is one of the core policies to be neutral, but also it is one of the less-than-core policies to allow people to find the information they are looking for, so if they search in a non-neutral way to end up at a neutral article, that's fine, and we should not hinder

494:

WMF Labs has a better stats view tool that is case-sensitive, though I can't find it just now. We could tinker with the RfD templates to use a different site. stats.grok.se is so good, though, despite being a "beta", and for the majority of our discussions, case sensitivity isn't very important.

1657:

There's a tweak that may or may not be feasible: could we collapse sections of closed discussions? When a long day is in the backlog because of one or two open discussions, could we hide the closed ones on the main page? Certainly it could be done manually on a daily page, but that seems like a

1183:

This does not seem overly onerous. While it adds a little work for the closer, this is no more than for a delete result, and I think would help editors who have just stumbled into the wrong forum. What do others think? It doesn't require a change in any policy, just a kinda "best practice".

1282:

This should not, or course, be seen as an attempt to make the move request a kangaroo court; more of an appeals court, really. The default is for the move to happen if there is no further discussion, so there's little question of it getting stuck one stage further down the pipeline.

1199:

An RfD which is clearly a move request is easy to spot and unambiguous: it has a nomination comment like "need to delete this redirect so the article can be renamed". That's a discussion we should not entertain at RfD - it's really not about the redirect, it's about the article, and

1035:

While a redirect is in discussion after being nominated for deletion it is no longer serving as a redirect for readers who get to see an ugly tagged page instead. This leads to other editors removing the link from pages that point to the redirect. See for example:

905:

1377:

and change all of the links that obviously should point to the composer. The change was correct, I would say, and shouldn't require discussion anywhere (though you could start a section on RfD I suppose if you wanted to get second eyes in a more controversial case)

2536:

As far as the collapse box, I think that's a good recommendation. It's what I usually do, with one exception when I accidently signed within the template. I kind of like how it looks though, someone can see who closed it and what time without uncollapsing...

1073:

No and no. For your first question, we lack a Special:Whatusedtolinkhere tool. For the second: if there is a problem with a redirect, that fact should not be hidden from not-logged in users (who are also able and allowed to comment at RFD).

943:

1516:

There is not, there is one. The rest got deleted. And the point is? Why could you not say it at RfD. Perhaps I am being so very 'meta' but RfD Talk is to complain about RfD itself, not about individual redirects. You can do that at, er,

1679:

The answer to that depends on if section redirects still function if their anchors are hidden. I think the fact that they didn't changed recently. I'll probably test this in a little while (unless someone else does and beats me to it.)

1204:

directs that those discussions should happen on the article's talk page. Unless they're clearly uncontroversial, in which case it's still not our venue. So I think a speedy procedural close explaining what to do with move requests is

706:

My immediate reaction is that TITLE should never be directly applied at RfD. That is to say, a redirect's degree of compliance with naming conventions is irrelevant. In a bit of that old RfD zen, I would say it's good for someone

1406:, and I'm worried that this discussion may have slipped through the cracks. If there are any uninvolved admins watching this page, can you please close or realist this discussion? Thanks in advance for your help. Best, -- 1259:

Yes, I think the courtesy offer of help that Ivanvector put on the last one was very good. I must admit, in retrospect, the "speedy close as RM" case is very different from the other, I should have kept that separate.

1279:

closer should do the boilerplate of a redirect for which consensus is to move something over it. As for coming up with a rationale for such a move, the RfD consensus is the rationale, there's no need to invent one.

1158:

opening the move request, which makes the process slower, and essentially regurgitates some of the previous RfD discussion. People who may be interested in the targets might not be aware of the discussion at

1488: 711:

a redirect to consider making it as compliant as possible. But redirects are primarily search aids, and they should serve readers unfamiliar with our naming conventions—perhaps even more so than veteran

1138:

That there has been no comment but the request is blatantly a move request that can't be handled as a bold move (which I believe is always the case if the R is at RfD, because it has history); a kinda

1978:

The discussions will be closed the same way they are now and the changes will in no way affect how the discussions are displayed on their daily subpages. In fact, look at the page I "tested" this on:

2608:

Ok I see the difference between the two templates, never mind that part. I still can't get the reason to show up in the collapse box header though, with the parameter or without it. I'm working on

545:

helpful for me). That might affect our decisions with regard to hyphenated Rs. As usual, if the hyphenated form explicitly exists, it prefers that. It doesn't do this for en and em dashes, though.

202:" and vice versa. Agreed with BDD that "R from neutral" shouldn't exist, since we would not redir from a neutral name to a PoV-pushing one on purpose. The only way that would happen would be on a 2583:? I just used the first one and the discussion is collapsed, but my reason didn't get picked up in the collapse box. I tried with the collapse template and got the same result. Is specifying 2376:

I think it's okay to paste the entire closing rationale onto the collapse box. It's gonna be something between 1 word and 1 paragraph. I usually put my closing rationale inside the template

1179:

should start the move request, referring back to the discussion. If a move request was already in place, the closer should add a link back to the RfD discussion if there is not one already.

1396: 515:

Here's a new one on me. The search add-in (for Mozilla Firefox, 64-bit Windows 7, at least) will replace the hyphen (U+002D HYPHEN-MINUS) with a space when searching. If you search for "

1979: 1614:, the bot that currently handles RfD, hasn't been really active on Knowledge (XXG) lately, so any request to change the automatic way this page is handled could take months to happen. 1521:

like normal people do. What you have done, unintentionally I imagine, is rather than having an open discussion having a sneaky private one. Of course that is not your intention but it

2697: 1012: 882: 2609: 1964:

Yeah, that looks good. Agreed about the color, but that's a minor detail. And this wouldn't require changes to how discussions are closed, or how they appear on a daily page? --

1172:

when someone suggests a move over redirect, the source and target of that moved should be informed of the RfD discussion on that talk page. I usually try to remember to do this.

94: 86: 440:

Something I didn't know: the external stats tool does not recognize case; I thought it did. The implication for us is when we're considering alternate-case redirects, such as

81: 69: 64: 59: 2285:|Fgzdabby}}".) Though it requires a tiny bit more effort by the discussion closer, your suggestion makes more sense than my idea in my aforementioned comment regarding "{{ 680:

I realise I have not put this well, but at RfD proper in individual discussions I have put it worse. I don't intend this to be policy, but a working guideline, somehow.

741:

editable. I don't know what happened, something perhaps with the coding of something added in the past 15 or less hours. Could someone analyze and fix this? Thanks.

1037: 907: 568: 252:

that. By tagging things as R from non-neutral (etc) and I am a great fan of tagging redirects, as I think is BDD, then we categorise them such and gaying into my

2134:

I've thought about the idea of a subpage per discussion for some time. It would greatly improve the ease in which discussions can be tracked. Though sometimes,

119: 1940:, specifically section "January 2", for how these changes would appear. (I'm actually not the biggest fan of the color I chose, but I'm not an expert with 2470:

It seems that the code you suggested is exactly what I probably would have done to accomplish your suggestion. Since you suggested the code, feel free to

2442:

in the current fashion. I'm going to attempt to figure this out here in the next few hours, most likely basing the changes off the code provided above.

47: 17: 2735: 2060:

Also, when I was doing all of these changes, I accidentally found out that these closed discussions can be forced to appear at the very bottom of the

672: 337: 1766:

would have to be changed in a way that might actually make it a bit different and possibly more difficult for closers to close discussions. First,

1162:

Running the two concurrently and cross-referring them, which can seem like predicting the outcome of the RfD (which might not, after all, go move).

1286:

Here's another thing: if the closer does it, the move request can be linked in the closing notes (and thus explicitly or by reference in the

2678:

to this idea - it makes anonymous users not be able to make the nominations properly (I once had to do the nomination for an anon at MfD).

2378:

but yes we will be introducing a breaking change to closers who put the rationale outside the template, so we need to get everyone on board.

2061: 1494:

Could someone with more experience in this are opine on whether these qualify as CSD? Should they be declined as CSD, and nominated as RfD?

285:

I guess the reason we have "to" and "from" forms is that it depends on whether one is taking the stance from the target ("it was redirected

1294:

tag on the R's talk page). The move request should, of course, likewise link back to the RfD discussion (do we have a more-general kind of

2406:

Actually I realised it isn't even a breaking change. We can have the line "Result was:" only if the closer has put their rationale inside

2416:. That way we'll introduce additional functionality for closers who put their statements inside the template, without breaking anything. 1780:

the section header instead of directly below it (as it currently is); I could see this causing problems with closers erroneously placing

661:. That does not mean it is OK; if it is a misspelling from a foreign language, well, that's a bit dubious. But if it were marked also as 1810:

would need to have the closer manually input another parameter to have text display when the section is collapsed (in the event that it

361: 345: 1047:

Can we at least remove the ugly page from the view of readers who are not logged in and allow the page to redirect as the intention is?

917:

Can we at least remove the ugly page from the view of readers who are not logged in and allow the page to redirect as the intention is?

2271:

I brought up a concern earlier in this discussion that conflicts with your suggestion: The need for adding an additional parameter in

813:. This is the page for discussing that Knowledge (XXG) page/process, not the forum for discussing the merits of individual redirects. 1497:

While there is no rush, they have been sitting most of the day, and my guess is no one feels confident enough to pull the trigger.--

222: 2392:

I do put my closing rationale outside the template, but that seems like a small adjustment to make for this sort of improvement. --

393: 113: 2289:|Fgzdabby}}". My only concern with this is how large that field could get in the event of grouped nominations that turn into 652: 409: 377: 1374: 2293:. I have a few ideas on how to make those suggestions a bit more user-friendly, (such as just leaving the suggested new " 2660:

get involved in unrelated discussions within a daily log that might not otherwise do so if the pages were separated. --

561: 2747: 2707: 2147: 2086:

Disregard that. I did some more testing, and apparently if that is done, it completely breaks the bottom of the page.

1610:

be more trouble than it's worth since it would require a new way for a bot to handle the pages. Also, the operator of

1263:

In the first case, you're probably right, that closing as a procedural close with an offer to help is the best thing.

1085: 955: 822: 664: 635: 643:

If it varies thus, it would be good were it marked thus, but this guideline should be though of as if it were there.

2643:

Dedicated discussion pages are the norm for AfD and MfD. The bots, their management, archiving, etc, work fine. --

1484: 401: 385: 369: 152: 38: 2638:

actions. If there are several other discussions intermixed in the history, watchlist following is nearly useless.

1065: 935: 210:, a core content policy. I.e., it would be an error to correct, not something to catalogue with an rcat template. 2577: 2512: 2205: 2174: 1464: 1411: 717:

I certainly may be overlooking something here, and I'm open to changing my mind, but that's my first reaction. --

685: 2755: 2711: 2685: 2669: 2652: 2628: 2599: 2546: 2531: 2489: 2457: 2423: 2401: 2386: 2364: 2259: 2245:{{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Knowledge (XXG):Redirects for discussion|{{Rfd top collapse|{{{reason|{{{1|}}}}}}}}|}} 2184: 2155: 2101: 2080: 2047: 2011: 1997: 1973: 1959: 1924: 1910: 1872: 1858: 1737: 1723: 1695: 1667: 1652: 1629: 1593: 1573: 1534: 1508: 1468: 1443: 1415: 1389: 1367: 1338: 1311: 1251: 1229: 1193: 1104: 1089: 1060: 1024: 998: 974: 959: 930: 894: 868: 844: 830: 792: 769: 750: 726: 697: 580: 554: 504: 485: 468: 423: 353: 329: 316: 302: 269: 231: 189: 170: 253: 681: 136: 2290: 203: 1937: 1056: 926: 840: 788: 765: 746: 125: 321:

Except it doesn't redirect to the redirect itself. That doesn't make any sense. Best to avoid confusion.

2528: 2420: 2383: 2256: 1483:

While I have deleted redirects which were absurd (e.g. Neelix) there are a number at CSD currently. See

1365: 1242:

about not creating move requests for someone, but I appreciate how smoothly the last one was handled. --

219: 144: 658: 307:

Ah, I see. I think since we're tagging the redirects, we have to be thinking from their perspective. --

244: 1884:

The alternative would be to collapse the discussion, but not hide the discussion's section header. If

538: 2682: 2624: 2595: 1569: 1503: 1460: 1425: 1407: 1225: 1119:

Over the last few days we've had a few listings that amounted to move requests – a couple by myself.

994: 864: 464: 103:

Tagging as R from non-neutral name, only just found this, can we make synonym redirects for it please

2281:

that needs to be manually inputted by the closer when closing discussions. (Above, I called this "{{

1402:

I noticed that the discussions for February 8, 2016 are no longer appearing in the complete list at

248: 2648: 2485: 2453: 2360: 2180:. Good job. I've got a recommended change though - can we transclude the result of the debate into 2097: 2076: 2043: 1993: 1955: 1906: 1854: 1784: 1719: 1691: 1648: 1625: 1530: 1384: 1334: 1307: 1189: 693: 550: 481: 419: 298: 265: 166: 737:

There's a problem editing (!voting on) each entry now, as the December 4 entries don't show up as

1744: 1558: 1351: 528: 516: 1863:

Yikes. That's too big a "but" for me, but it's something I can get used to if others want it. --

1456: 1431: 835:

I do not have time, I do not how to do it, can you do it for me please ? Thank you very much !--

628: 600: 588: 180:

neutral? Ideally, we shouldn't have those, because the titles themselves should be neutral... --

1815: 1589: 1297: 1100: 1052: 970: 922: 836: 800: 784: 761: 742: 657:, whether rcatted or not, I should say that it is an acceptable title under the guidelines at 445: 441: 326: 2471: 207: 2567: 2525: 2465: 2436: 2417: 2410: 2380: 2325: 2286: 2282: 2275: 2266: 2253: 2231: 2164: 1836: 1829: 1822: 1804: 1794: 1770: 1760: 1358: 1289: 1134:), and the closer should actually start the move request, if that is the consensus, either: 247:

is the fellow you want there, which suggests that more leeway is given to redirects than at

238: 213: 1705: 1518: 1403: 1326: 986: 856: 810: 806: 2704: 2679: 2617: 2588: 2002:

Awesome. Let's do it! Much more drastic changes than this have been implemented boldly. --

1562: 1498: 1239: 1235: 1218: 1081: 1006: 990: 951: 876: 860: 457: 206:-worshipping basis, employing a faulty analysis that ignored more important factors, like 2428:

Right, after thinking about it for a few hours, I arrived at the same conclusion. If the

1201: 1038:

Talk:Bernie_Sanders_presidential_campaign,_2016#Bernie_Sanders_interview_with_Diane_Rehm

908:

Talk:Bernie_Sanders_presidential_campaign,_2016#Bernie_Sanders_interview_with_Diane_Rehm

456:

pages. Something to keep in mind. Or maybe you knew that already and I'm just clueless.

2644: 2475: 2443: 2350: 2335: 2219:''Closed discussion, click ''"show"'' to expand.'' {{#if:{{{1}}}|Result was: {{{1}}}|}} 2087: 2066: 2033: 1983: 1945: 1896: 1844: 1709: 1681: 1638: 1615: 1526: 1379: 1330: 1303: 1185: 757: 689: 546: 477: 415: 294: 261: 162: 1321:

Now that we have the new Wikimedia-based stats tool, do we need to change the link to

2397: 2007: 1969: 1920: 1868: 1733: 1663: 1551: 1148:

The second is the more complicated case. As it stands, we have either the option of:

722: 576: 500: 312: 185: 677:, it gives knowledge to other editors that someone has considered why the R exists. 1611: 1601: 1585: 1217:

ask, I'm happy to create a move request for them, but I've only rarely been asked.

1096: 966: 322: 2520:

What goes inside the collapse box? I recommend {{subst:rfdt|'''result'''. }} ~~~~

634:

The title varies from that policy in a way that is obvious from a template under

194:

Already created the other two; it's standard operating procedure to have "R from

2321:), but I need to spend a bit more time thinking about this. For example, should 1273:

the RM is on behalf of the Knowledge (XXG) community who participated in the RfD

565: 524: 520: 46:

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

2741: 2701: 2661: 2538: 2141: 2135: 1941: 1756:

Okay, I found a way to make this work, but ... yes, there is a huge "but" ...

1450: 1435: 1243: 1209: 1076: 1016: 946: 886: 816: 617:

Some believe, they sometimes do and sometimes don't, depending on their fancy.

1397:

Knowledge (XXG):Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 February 8#The fiftieth day

1011:: Inter-language soft redirects are generally considered to be unhelpful. 881:: Inter-language soft redirects are generally considered to be unhelpful. 2393: 2346: 2055: 2018: 2003: 1965: 1931: 1916: 1879: 1864: 1751: 1729: 1674: 1659: 718: 572: 527:(which was not helpful for me). Similarly my somewhat random search for " 496: 308: 280: 257: 181: 2721: 2698:

Knowledge (XXG):Templates_for_discussion/Log/2016_July_11#Template:Rfd-t

1704:

be feasible it it can be done in a fashion similar to how it's done on

1344: 1044:

Is anyone restoring the removals of wiki-links if the result is a keep?

914:

Is anyone restoring the removals of wiki-links if the result is a keep?

780: 621:

I propose a fairly good standard and a fairly good rule and exception:

2728:

A proposal to summarily delete a large amount of redirects created by

414:, but Ï must be the only one, or it would have been created already). 1832:|Fgzdabby}}. The alternative to having a manually inputted option in 1547:

An editor has asked for comments regarding a proposed change to the

476:

I knew that. I thought it was common knowledge. But can we fix it?

2190:

so readers can still see the result of a debate in collapsed mode?

1434:. Not many admins watch this page, but several watch that one. -- 1915:

Huh. That doesn't sound so bad. So what would that look like? --

1489:

Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as implausible redirects

2563:

Coming late to this. What is the functional difference between

1982:. On that page, the closed discussion should appear as normal. 1015:

a semi-recent discussion that discussed the matter in depth. --

989:, a soft redirect to the main page of the Chinese wikipedia? -- 885:

a semi-recent discussion that discussed the matter in depth. --

859:, a soft redirect to the main page of the Chinese wikipedia? -- 809:

for instructions on how to nominate a redirect for deletion at

260:

some time in the future... thanks for creating the redirects.

2610:

Knowledge (XXG):Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 June 5#Facks

783:- should be deleted, the redirect is an error or something !-- 25: 2736:

Knowledge (XXG):Administrators' noticeboard#Neelix redirects

2730: 2720: 1980:

Knowledge (XXG):Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 January 2

1888:

is okay, then everything I just stated can be disregarded.

1814:

to be customized ). For example, if the redirect's name is

1525:

who in the world watches this page? I don't and I'm a reg.

760:'s incorrect closing coding, which Lenticel has now fixed. 1144:

That there has been discussion, and consensus is to move.

2349:

here to see if they have any opinions on this as well.)

1557:

template. Users watching this page may be interested in

610:

Some believe, whatever the wording, tghat they apply to

1322: 533: 358:, which all have the perspective of the redirect, and 256:

they can then more easily decide what to do with them

1175:

if a redirect is procedurally closed as a move, the

1168:

While I don't see a perfect solution, I think that:

2734:after a short period of time has been suggested at 2138:

gets the better of me, so I'm currently at neutral.

2432:parameter is left optional, closers can still use 1455:thanks for the suggestion; I posted a request at 1350:Apparently this was a redirect to the composer 1213:trying to come up with one. Of course, if they 448:, the stats tool for both links will show the 1800:of the discussion directly after it. Second, 985:Where do we stand on redirects such as this: 855:Where do we stand on redirects such as this: 374:), similarly (but not, perhaps surprisingly, 289:here") or the redirect itself ("it redirects 18:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Redirects for discussion 8: 2738:. Interested editors are welcome. Thank you. 1700:Actually, if it's just the main page, that 1126:, I think it's useful if we closed them as 2614:{{subst:rfd top|reason='''result''' etc.}} 1828:by itself, the closer would need to use {{ 1487:as an example. There are currently 14 in 599:Some believe, whatever the wording, that 2062:Knowledge (XXG):Redirects for discussion 1843:Feel free to contact me with questions. 2505:. I think I'll leave two issues open: 1944:, so I tried my best for the moment.) 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 1658:hassle. Maybe it's not feasible... -- 1095:those source pages should continue. 965:those source pages should continue. 382:. One could argue that the redirects 7: 2345:" field is empty? Etc... (I'll ping 1889: 595:I can put this, I hope, succinctly: 1031:Side effect of nominations for RfDs 901:Side effect of nominations for RfDs 627:A redirect title should conform to 519:" for example it goes via the R at 120:WP:Template_messages/Redirect_pages 1637:right now, but that's part of it. 1122:While these have been closed as a 24: 2616:both with and without "reason=". 161:I should appreciate your views. 2496: 2301:" instead so that closers don't 2024: 1890: 1132:procedural close as move request 436:Stats tool is not case-sensitive 29: 1728:That would be great. Thanks! -- 1154:waiting until the RfD finishes 673:R from title without diacritics 338:R from title without diacritics 118:(via a search which brought up 1485:Rudolf Francis Ferdinand Hoess 1: 2692:RfD template merge discussion 1390:18:00, 21 February 2016 (UTC) 1375:Special:WhatLinksHere/Menotti 1368:16:16, 21 February 2016 (UTC) 1339:08:22, 20 February 2016 (UTC) 845:21:32, 26 December 2015 (UTC) 831:03:58, 26 December 2015 (UTC) 793:21:51, 25 December 2015 (UTC) 727:04:07, 21 November 2015 (UTC) 698:01:28, 21 November 2015 (UTC) 581:04:01, 21 November 2015 (UTC) 555:02:02, 12 November 2015 (UTC) 505:03:59, 21 November 2015 (UTC) 424:06:58, 11 November 2015 (UTC) 410:R to title without diacritics 378:R to title without diacritics 211: 2696:Comments will be welcome at 1312:03:57, 6 February 2016 (UTC) 1252:20:13, 5 February 2016 (UTC) 1230:15:10, 5 February 2016 (UTC) 1194:05:02, 5 February 2016 (UTC) 1105:03:52, 25 January 2016 (UTC) 1090:22:10, 23 January 2016 (UTC) 1061:14:28, 23 January 2016 (UTC) 1025:15:07, 20 January 2016 (UTC) 999:13:38, 20 January 2016 (UTC) 975:03:52, 25 January 2016 (UTC) 960:22:10, 23 January 2016 (UTC) 931:14:28, 23 January 2016 (UTC) 895:15:07, 20 January 2016 (UTC) 869:13:38, 20 January 2016 (UTC) 770:00:42, 5 December 2015 (UTC) 751:00:23, 5 December 2015 (UTC) 669:or, less worrisome to some, 486:16:42, 8 November 2015 (UTC) 469:16:34, 31 October 2015 (UTC) 334:True. We have, for example, 330:00:52, 16 October 2015 (UTC) 317:13:22, 15 October 2015 (UTC) 303:05:52, 15 October 2015 (UTC) 270:06:01, 15 October 2015 (UTC) 232:07:23, 14 October 2015 (UTC) 190:13:16, 13 October 2015 (UTC) 171:08:27, 13 October 2015 (UTC) 158:both "to" and "from" forms. 1430:If you want, you could try 1357:What should I do/have done? 636:Category:Redirect templates 122:, but even then it was for 2771: 2508:Further cosmetic edits to 1111:Move Requests -- close as 362:R to title with diacritics 346:R to title with diacritics 2756:17:21, 16 July 2016 (UTC) 2712:03:54, 14 July 2016 (UTC) 2686:07:21, 19 June 2016 (UTC) 2670:20:15, 11 June 2016 (UTC) 2547:20:15, 11 June 2016 (UTC) 2160:Hey. I saw the change to 1509:23:06, 8 March 2016 (UTC) 1469:00:54, 3 March 2016 (UTC) 1444:00:48, 3 March 2016 (UTC) 1416:22:52, 2 March 2016 (UTC) 1329:? grok.se is still live. 2653:04:16, 9 June 2016 (UTC) 2629:12:34, 7 June 2016 (UTC) 2600:12:26, 7 June 2016 (UTC) 2532:18:04, 1 June 2016 (UTC) 2490:16:39, 1 June 2016 (UTC) 2458:15:23, 1 June 2016 (UTC) 2424:15:09, 1 June 2016 (UTC) 2402:13:26, 1 June 2016 (UTC) 2387:23:03, 31 May 2016 (UTC) 2365:22:38, 31 May 2016 (UTC) 2260:22:17, 31 May 2016 (UTC) 2156:06:41, 28 May 2016 (UTC) 2102:18:07, 27 May 2016 (UTC) 2081:17:58, 27 May 2016 (UTC) 2048:17:31, 27 May 2016 (UTC) 2012:01:03, 27 May 2016 (UTC) 1998:19:55, 26 May 2016 (UTC) 1974:19:49, 26 May 2016 (UTC) 1960:19:37, 26 May 2016 (UTC) 1925:18:25, 26 May 2016 (UTC) 1911:18:23, 26 May 2016 (UTC) 1873:18:19, 26 May 2016 (UTC) 1859:18:17, 26 May 2016 (UTC) 1818:, then instead of using 1776:would have to be placed 1738:18:12, 26 May 2016 (UTC) 1724:17:41, 26 May 2016 (UTC) 1696:16:12, 26 May 2016 (UTC) 1668:15:08, 26 May 2016 (UTC) 1653:01:58, 26 May 2016 (UTC) 1630:01:57, 26 May 2016 (UTC) 1594:01:32, 26 May 2016 (UTC) 1579:Splitting daily log page 1574:13:16, 12 May 2016 (UTC) 1559:the request for comments 811:Redirects for Discussion 198:" alternatives of "R to 133:I should like to create 1708:. I'll look into it... 1535:08:23, 6 May 2016 (UTC) 1240:I was hesitant at first 394:R from alternative name 114:R from non-neutral name 2725: 2724: 1317:link to stats.grok.se 653:R from other language 603:only ever applies to 42:of past discussions. 2313:but instead can use 2227:Required changes to 2201:Required changes to 1543:Request for comments 1051:Thanks in advance, 921:Thanks in advance, 2297:" parameter named " 1942:3-digit color codes 1479:Rudolf and company 733:Problem editing ... 649:If something is an 591:apply to redirects? 539:Brink's-MAT robbery 2726: 1352:Gian Carlo Menotti 665:R from misspelling 523:to the article at 110:I only just found 2754: 2492: 2341:if the proposed " 2307:{{Rfd top|reason= 2154: 1748: 1388: 1103: 973: 829: 446:Revolutionary War 442:Revolutionary war 402:R to modification 386:R from other name 370:R from diacritics 153:R to neutral name 100: 99: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 2762: 2750: 2744: 2739: 2733: 2717:Neelix redirects 2667: 2622: 2615: 2612:and I specified 2593: 2586: 2582: 2578:rfd top collapse 2576: 2572: 2566: 2544: 2517: 2513:rfd top collapse 2511: 2504: 2500: 2499: 2482: 2469: 2462: 2450: 2441: 2435: 2431: 2415: 2409: 2357: 2344: 2340: 2334: 2330: 2324: 2320: 2312: 2300: 2296: 2280: 2274: 2270: 2236: 2230: 2210: 2206:Rfd top collapse 2204: 2189: 2185:RfD top collapse 2183: 2179: 2175:Rfd top collapse 2173: 2169: 2163: 2150: 2144: 2139: 2094: 2073: 2059: 2040: 2032: 2028: 2027: 2022: 1990: 1952: 1935: 1903: 1895: 1894: 1893: 1883: 1851: 1841: 1835: 1827: 1821: 1809: 1803: 1799: 1793: 1789: 1783: 1775: 1769: 1765: 1759: 1755: 1742: 1716: 1688: 1678: 1645: 1622: 1605: 1567: 1556: 1550: 1506: 1501: 1454: 1441: 1429: 1382: 1362: 1301: 1293: 1249: 1223: 1124:procedural close 1099: 1069: 1022: 1010: 969: 939: 892: 880: 825: 819: 814: 804: 676: 668: 656: 536: 511:Hyphens (dashes) 462: 413: 405: 397: 389: 381: 373: 365: 357: 349: 341: 284: 242: 230: 156: 148: 140: 129: 117: 78: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 2770: 2769: 2765: 2764: 2763: 2761: 2760: 2759: 2753: 2748: 2742: 2729: 2719: 2710: 2694: 2662: 2620: 2613: 2591: 2584: 2580: 2574: 2570: 2564: 2539: 2515: 2509: 2497: 2495: 2476: 2463: 2444: 2439: 2433: 2429: 2413: 2407: 2351: 2342: 2338: 2332: 2328: 2322: 2314: 2306: 2298: 2294: 2278: 2272: 2264: 2246: 2234: 2228: 2220: 2208: 2202: 2187: 2181: 2177: 2171: 2167: 2161: 2153: 2148: 2142: 2088: 2067: 2053: 2034: 2025: 2023: 2016: 1984: 1946: 1929: 1897: 1891: 1877: 1845: 1839: 1833: 1825: 1819: 1807: 1801: 1797: 1791: 1787: 1781: 1773: 1767: 1763: 1757: 1749: 1710: 1682: 1672: 1639: 1616: 1599: 1581: 1565: 1554: 1548: 1545: 1523:looks like that 1504: 1499: 1481: 1461:Notecardforfree 1448: 1436: 1426:Notecardforfree 1423: 1408:Notecardforfree 1400: 1361:🍺 Antiqueight 1360: 1348: 1319: 1295: 1287: 1244: 1221: 1208:I mentioned to 1117: 1063: 1033: 1017: 1004: 983: 933: 903: 887: 874: 853: 828: 823: 817: 798: 778: 756:UPDATE: It was 735: 670: 662: 650: 593: 532: 513: 460: 452:view stats for 438: 407: 399: 391: 383: 375: 367: 359: 354:R to diacritics 351: 343: 335: 278: 236: 228: 201: 197: 150: 142: 134: 123: 111: 105: 74: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 2768: 2766: 2746: 2718: 2715: 2700: 2693: 2690: 2689: 2688: 2672: 2656: 2655: 2640: 2639: 2634: 2633: 2632: 2631: 2603: 2602: 2560: 2559: 2558: 2557: 2556: 2555: 2554: 2553: 2552: 2551: 2550: 2549: 2522: 2521: 2518: 2460: 2374: 2373: 2372: 2371: 2370: 2369: 2368: 2367: 2291:WP:TRAINWRECKs 2244: 2243: 2242: 2241: 2240: 2239: 2238: 2218: 2217: 2216: 2215: 2214: 2213: 2212: 2194: 2193: 2192: 2191: 2146: 2131: 2130: 2129: 2128: 2127: 2126: 2125: 2124: 2123: 2122: 2121: 2120: 2119: 2118: 2117: 2116: 2115: 2114: 2113: 2112: 2111: 2110: 2109: 2108: 2107: 2106: 2105: 2104: 1698: 1655: 1633: 1632: 1580: 1577: 1544: 1541: 1540: 1539: 1538: 1537: 1480: 1477: 1476: 1475: 1474: 1473: 1472: 1471: 1399: 1394: 1393: 1392: 1373:You can go to 1347: 1342: 1318: 1315: 1257: 1256: 1255: 1254: 1206: 1181: 1180: 1173: 1166: 1165: 1164: 1163: 1160: 1146: 1145: 1142: 1116: 1109: 1108: 1107: 1092: 1049: 1048: 1045: 1032: 1029: 1028: 1027: 982: 979: 978: 977: 962: 919: 918: 915: 902: 899: 898: 897: 852: 849: 848: 847: 833: 821: 777: 774: 773: 772: 734: 731: 730: 729: 714: 713: 647: 646: 645: 644: 640: 639: 632: 619: 618: 615: 608: 592: 585: 584: 583: 512: 509: 508: 507: 491: 490: 489: 488: 437: 434: 433: 432: 431: 430: 429: 428: 427: 426: 276: 275: 274: 273: 272: 254:WP:CRYSTALBALL 226: 199: 195: 137:R from neutral 104: 101: 98: 97: 92: 89: 84: 79: 72: 67: 62: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2767: 2758: 2757: 2751: 2745: 2737: 2732: 2723: 2716: 2714: 2713: 2709: 2706: 2703: 2699: 2691: 2687: 2684: 2681: 2677: 2673: 2671: 2668: 2665: 2658: 2657: 2654: 2650: 2646: 2642: 2641: 2636: 2635: 2630: 2626: 2619: 2611: 2607: 2606: 2605: 2604: 2601: 2597: 2590: 2579: 2569: 2562: 2561: 2548: 2545: 2542: 2535: 2534: 2533: 2530: 2527: 2524: 2523: 2519: 2514: 2507: 2506: 2503: 2494: 2493: 2491: 2487: 2483: 2481: 2480: 2473: 2467: 2461: 2459: 2455: 2451: 2449: 2448: 2438: 2427: 2426: 2425: 2422: 2419: 2412: 2405: 2404: 2403: 2399: 2395: 2391: 2390: 2389: 2388: 2385: 2382: 2379: 2366: 2362: 2358: 2356: 2355: 2348: 2337: 2327: 2318: 2310: 2304: 2292: 2288: 2284: 2277: 2268: 2263: 2262: 2261: 2258: 2255: 2252: 2251: 2250: 2249: 2248: 2247: 2233: 2226: 2225: 2224: 2223: 2222: 2221: 2207: 2200: 2199: 2198: 2197: 2196: 2195: 2186: 2176: 2166: 2159: 2158: 2157: 2151: 2145: 2137: 2133: 2132: 2103: 2099: 2095: 2093: 2092: 2085: 2084: 2083: 2082: 2078: 2074: 2072: 2071: 2063: 2057: 2051: 2050: 2049: 2045: 2041: 2039: 2038: 2031: 2020: 2015: 2014: 2013: 2009: 2005: 2001: 2000: 1999: 1995: 1991: 1989: 1988: 1981: 1977: 1976: 1975: 1971: 1967: 1963: 1962: 1961: 1957: 1953: 1951: 1950: 1943: 1939: 1933: 1928: 1927: 1926: 1922: 1918: 1914: 1913: 1912: 1908: 1904: 1902: 1901: 1887: 1881: 1876: 1875: 1874: 1870: 1866: 1862: 1861: 1860: 1856: 1852: 1850: 1849: 1838: 1831: 1824: 1817: 1813: 1806: 1796: 1786: 1779: 1772: 1762: 1753: 1746: 1745:edit conflict 1741: 1740: 1739: 1735: 1731: 1727: 1726: 1725: 1721: 1717: 1715: 1714: 1707: 1703: 1699: 1697: 1693: 1689: 1687: 1686: 1676: 1671: 1670: 1669: 1665: 1661: 1656: 1654: 1650: 1646: 1644: 1643: 1635: 1634: 1631: 1627: 1623: 1621: 1620: 1613: 1609: 1603: 1598: 1597: 1596: 1595: 1591: 1587: 1578: 1576: 1575: 1571: 1564: 1560: 1553: 1542: 1536: 1532: 1528: 1524: 1520: 1515: 1514: 1513: 1512: 1511: 1510: 1507: 1502: 1495: 1492: 1490: 1486: 1478: 1470: 1466: 1462: 1458: 1452: 1447: 1446: 1445: 1442: 1439: 1433: 1427: 1422: 1421: 1420: 1419: 1418: 1417: 1413: 1409: 1405: 1398: 1395: 1391: 1386: 1381: 1376: 1372: 1371: 1370: 1369: 1366: 1364: 1363: 1355: 1353: 1346: 1343: 1341: 1340: 1336: 1332: 1328: 1324: 1323:stats.grok.se 1316: 1314: 1313: 1309: 1305: 1299: 1291: 1284: 1280: 1276: 1274: 1270: 1264: 1261: 1253: 1250: 1247: 1241: 1237: 1234:I agree with 1233: 1232: 1231: 1227: 1220: 1216: 1211: 1207: 1203: 1198: 1197: 1196: 1195: 1191: 1187: 1178: 1174: 1171: 1170: 1169: 1161: 1157: 1153: 1152: 1151: 1150: 1149: 1143: 1141: 1140:speedy close' 1137: 1136: 1135: 1133: 1129: 1125: 1120: 1114: 1110: 1106: 1102: 1098: 1093: 1091: 1087: 1083: 1079: 1078: 1072: 1071: 1070: 1067: 1062: 1058: 1054: 1046: 1043: 1042: 1041: 1039: 1030: 1026: 1023: 1020: 1014: 1008: 1003: 1002: 1001: 1000: 996: 992: 988: 980: 976: 972: 968: 963: 961: 957: 953: 949: 948: 942: 941: 940: 937: 932: 928: 924: 916: 913: 912: 911: 909: 900: 896: 893: 890: 884: 878: 873: 872: 871: 870: 866: 862: 858: 850: 846: 842: 838: 834: 832: 826: 820: 812: 808: 802: 797: 796: 795: 794: 790: 786: 782: 775: 771: 767: 763: 759: 755: 754: 753: 752: 748: 744: 740: 732: 728: 724: 720: 716: 715: 710: 705: 704: 703: 700: 699: 695: 691: 687: 686:WP:RSAYWHYNOT 683: 678: 674: 666: 660: 654: 642: 641: 637: 633: 630: 626: 625: 624: 623: 622: 616: 613: 609: 606: 602: 598: 597: 596: 590: 586: 582: 578: 574: 570: 569:sort them out 567: 563: 562:kill them all 559: 558: 557: 556: 552: 548: 544: 540: 535: 530: 526: 522: 518: 510: 506: 502: 498: 493: 492: 487: 483: 479: 475: 474: 473: 472: 471: 470: 466: 459: 455: 451: 447: 443: 435: 425: 421: 417: 411: 403: 395: 387: 379: 371: 363: 355: 347: 339: 333: 332: 331: 328: 324: 320: 319: 318: 314: 310: 306: 305: 304: 300: 296: 292: 288: 282: 277: 271: 267: 263: 259: 255: 250: 246: 240: 235: 234: 233: 224: 221: 218: 216: 209: 205: 204:WP:COMMONNAME 193: 192: 191: 187: 183: 179: 175: 174: 173: 172: 168: 164: 159: 154: 146: 138: 131: 127: 126:R from gender 121: 115: 108: 102: 96: 93: 90: 88: 85: 83: 80: 77: 73: 71: 68: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 2727: 2695: 2675: 2663: 2540: 2501: 2478: 2477: 2446: 2445: 2377: 2375: 2353: 2352: 2316: 2308: 2302: 2090: 2089: 2069: 2068: 2052: 2036: 2035: 2029: 1986: 1985: 1948: 1947: 1899: 1898: 1885: 1847: 1846: 1811: 1777: 1712: 1711: 1701: 1684: 1683: 1641: 1640: 1618: 1617: 1607: 1606:It probably 1582: 1546: 1522: 1496: 1493: 1482: 1437: 1401: 1359: 1356: 1349: 1320: 1285: 1281: 1277: 1272: 1268: 1265: 1262: 1258: 1245: 1238:completely. 1214: 1205:appropriate. 1182: 1176: 1167: 1155: 1147: 1139: 1131: 1128:move request 1127: 1123: 1121: 1118: 1113:move request 1112: 1075: 1053:Ottawahitech 1050: 1034: 1018: 984: 945: 923:Ottawahitech 920: 904: 888: 854: 837:Alexiulian25 807:WP:RFD#HOWTO 801:Alexiulian25 785:Alexiulian25 779: 762:Softlavender 743:Softlavender 739:individually 738: 736: 708: 701: 679: 648: 620: 611: 604: 594: 542: 514: 453: 449: 439: 290: 286: 214: 177: 160: 145:R to neutral 132: 109: 106: 75: 43: 37: 2466:Deryck Chan 2267:Deryck Chan 1500:S Philbrick 1459:. Best, -- 1327:WP:RFD#KEEP 1325:in section 684:perhaps (R 659:WP:RFOREIGN 534:Brinks Matt 531:" goes via 529:brinks-matt 525:Blue/Orange 521:Blue Orange 517:blue-orange 245:WP:RNEUTRAL 239:SMcCandlish 215:SMcCandlish 36:This is an 2683:Od Mishehu 2618:Ivanvector 2589:Ivanvector 2587:required? 2331:return an 2315:{{Rfd top| 2065:consider? 1790:below the 1785:Rfd bottom 1563:Ivanvector 1561:. Thanks. 1271:, because 1236:Ivanvector 1219:Ivanvector 1007:Malcolmxl5 991:Malcolmxl5 877:Malcolmxl5 861:Malcolmxl5 682:WP:RSAYWHY 587:When does 564:, and let 458:Ivanvector 249:WP:NEUTRAL 95:Archive 15 87:Archive 10 2680:עוד מישהו 2674:I'm also 2645:SmokeyJoe 2479:Steel1943 2472:WP:BOLDly 2447:Steel1943 2354:Steel1943 2136:misoneism 2091:Steel1943 2070:Steel1943 2037:Steel1943 1987:Steel1943 1949:Steel1943 1938:this page 1900:Steel1943 1848:Steel1943 1713:Steel1943 1685:Steel1943 1642:Steel1943 1619:Steel1943 1380:Ajraddatz 1269:RfD's job 758:Legacypac 82:Archive 9 76:Archive 8 70:Archive 7 65:Archive 6 60:Archive 5 2474:add it. 1816:Fgzdabby 1457:WP:ANRFC 1432:WP:ANRFC 1298:Rfd note 712:editors. 709:creating 631:, unless 629:WP:TITLE 601:WP:TITLE 589:WP:TITLE 450:combined 293:here"). 258:en masse 107:Hi all, 2676:opposed 2585:reason= 2568:rfd top 2437:Rfd top 2430:reason= 2411:Rfd top 2326:Rfd top 2305:to use 2287:Rfd top 2283:Rfd top 2276:Rfd top 2232:Rfd top 2165:Rfd top 1837:Rfd top 1830:Rfd top 1823:Rfd top 1805:Rfd top 1795:Rfd top 1771:Rfd top 1761:Rfd top 1612:DumbBOT 1602:Uanfala 1586:Uanfala 1527:Si Trew 1345:Menotti 1331:Si Trew 1304:Si Trew 1290:old rfd 1186:Si Trew 1097:Rossami 1064:please 967:Rossami 934:please 781:Ion Pop 776:Ion Pop 690:Si Trew 614:titles. 607:titles. 605:article 547:Si Trew 541:(which 478:Si Trew 416:Si Trew 295:Si Trew 262:Si Trew 208:WP:NPOV 163:Si Trew 39:archive 2731:Neelix 2529:yck C. 2421:yck C. 2384:yck C. 2343:reason 2317:result 2309:result 2295:reason 2257:yck C. 2170:using 1706:WP:MFD 1519:WP:RFD 1505:(Talk) 1404:WP:RfD 1177:closer 1101:(talk) 1040:. So: 1013:Here's 971:(talk) 910:. So: 883:Here's 560:I say 366:as → 2743:Godsy 2336:Error 2143:Godsy 1812:needs 1778:above 1608:would 1451:Tavix 1210:Tavix 1202:WP:RM 1077:Kusma 987:Hans: 981:Hans: 947:Kusma 857:Hans: 851:Hans: 818:Godsy 350:as → 327:wiser 323:older 196:not-x 16:< 2749:CONT 2666:avix 2649:talk 2625:talk 2596:talk 2573:and 2543:avix 2502:Done 2486:talk 2454:talk 2398:talk 2361:talk 2303:need 2149:CONT 2098:talk 2077:talk 2044:talk 2030:Done 2008:talk 1994:talk 1970:talk 1956:talk 1936:See 1921:talk 1907:talk 1886:that 1869:talk 1855:talk 1734:talk 1720:talk 1692:talk 1664:talk 1649:talk 1626:talk 1590:talk 1570:talk 1552:rfd2 1531:talk 1465:talk 1440:avix 1412:talk 1385:Talk 1335:talk 1308:talk 1302:?). 1248:avix 1226:talk 1190:talk 1159:RfD. 1156:then 1130:(or 1066:ping 1057:talk 1021:avix 995:talk 936:ping 927:talk 891:avix 865:talk 841:talk 824:CONT 805:See 789:talk 766:talk 747:talk 723:talk 694:talk 577:talk 571:. -- 551:talk 501:talk 482:talk 465:talk 454:both 444:vs. 420:talk 398:and 390:and 342:and 313:talk 299:talk 287:from 266:talk 243:but 186:talk 178:from 167:talk 149:and 2705:-XT 2702:—PC 2526:Der 2418:Der 2394:BDD 2381:Der 2347:BDD 2254:Der 2056:BDD 2019:BDD 2004:BDD 1966:BDD 1932:BDD 1917:BDD 1880:BDD 1865:BDD 1752:BDD 1730:BDD 1702:may 1675:BDD 1660:BDD 719:BDD 688:). 612:all 573:BDD 566:God 543:was 537:to 497:BDD 309:BDD 281:BDD 229:ⱷ≼ 225:≽ⱷ҅ 182:BDD 130:). 2651:) 2627:) 2621:🍁 2598:) 2592:🍁 2581:}} 2575:{{ 2571:}} 2565:{{ 2537:-- 2516:}} 2510:{{ 2488:) 2456:) 2440:}} 2434:{{ 2414:}} 2408:{{ 2400:) 2363:) 2339:}} 2333:{{ 2329:}} 2323:{{ 2319:}} 2311:}} 2279:}} 2273:{{ 2235:}} 2229:{{ 2209:}} 2203:{{ 2188:}} 2182:{{ 2178:}} 2172:{{ 2168:}} 2162:{{ 2100:) 2079:) 2046:) 2010:) 1996:) 1972:) 1958:) 1923:) 1909:) 1871:) 1857:) 1840:}} 1834:{{ 1826:}} 1820:{{ 1808:}} 1802:{{ 1798:}} 1792:{{ 1788:}} 1782:{{ 1774:}} 1768:{{ 1764:}} 1758:{{ 1736:) 1722:) 1694:) 1666:) 1651:) 1628:) 1592:) 1572:) 1566:🍁 1555:}} 1549:{{ 1533:) 1491:. 1467:) 1414:) 1337:) 1310:) 1300:}} 1296:{{ 1292:}} 1288:{{ 1275:. 1228:) 1222:🍁 1215:do 1192:) 1088:) 1068:me 1059:) 997:) 958:) 938:me 929:) 867:) 843:) 791:) 768:) 749:) 725:) 702:, 696:) 675:}} 671:{{ 667:}} 663:{{ 655:}} 651:{{ 579:) 553:) 503:) 495:-- 484:) 467:) 461:🍁 422:) 412:}} 408:{{ 404:}} 400:{{ 396:}} 392:{{ 388:}} 384:{{ 380:}} 376:{{ 372:}} 368:{{ 364:}} 360:{{ 356:}} 352:{{ 348:}} 344:{{ 340:}} 336:{{ 325:≠ 315:) 301:) 291:to 268:) 212:— 188:) 176:R 169:) 155:}} 151:{{ 147:}} 143:{{ 141:, 139:}} 135:{{ 128:}} 124:{{ 116:}} 112:{{ 91:→ 2752:) 2740:— 2708:+ 2664:T 2647:( 2623:( 2594:( 2541:T 2484:( 2468:: 2464:@ 2452:( 2396:( 2359:( 2299:1 2269:: 2265:@ 2237:: 2211:: 2152:) 2140:— 2096:( 2075:( 2058:: 2054:@ 2042:( 2021:: 2017:@ 2006:( 1992:( 1968:( 1954:( 1934:: 1930:@ 1919:( 1905:( 1882:: 1878:@ 1867:( 1853:( 1754:: 1750:@ 1747:) 1743:( 1732:( 1718:( 1690:( 1677:: 1673:@ 1662:( 1647:( 1624:( 1604:: 1600:@ 1588:( 1568:( 1529:( 1463:( 1453:: 1449:@ 1438:T 1428:: 1424:@ 1410:( 1387:) 1383:( 1333:( 1306:( 1246:T 1224:( 1188:( 1115:? 1086:c 1084:· 1082:t 1080:( 1074:— 1055:( 1019:T 1009:: 1005:@ 993:( 956:c 954:· 952:t 950:( 944:— 925:( 889:T 879:: 875:@ 863:( 839:( 827:) 815:— 803:: 799:@ 787:( 764:( 745:( 721:( 692:( 638:. 575:( 549:( 499:( 480:( 463:( 418:( 311:( 297:( 283:: 279:@ 264:( 241:: 237:@ 227:ᴥ 223:¢ 220:☏ 217:☺ 200:x 184:( 165:( 50:.

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

Knowledge (XXG)

talk:Redirects for discussion/Archive 8 - Knowledge (XXG)

Index