205:
force my specific changes on the page, but rather to speed up and clarify the process of discussing what to remove and what to add, so as to avoid the problem
Walkerma mentioned of overdiscussing matters where we have at least a decent (even if not ideal) status quo; I'll gladly make dozens of alterations to the list, if that's what's needed before it can be implemented. I just figured having a solid, obvious version would (1) make things go quicker, and (2) make it more obvious what the differences between the two versions. (For example, the current Core Topics list has many, many more "Start"-level articles than my proposed version does, because I've responded to the earlier arguments Walkerma made about choosing higher-quality pages over lower-quality ones by heavily revising my listing to have a higher number of important, but also very well-written and comprehensive, pages.) As for why it's in the discussion namespace, it's meant to be a temporary page until we can agree on a version to replace the current text at
367:, I can't promise that I will forever (especially after mid-August). I'd feel more comfortable and useful as just some guy who works hard to keep the list up-to-date and comprehensive, than as someone leading the whole project; I tend to be more productive as a second-hand-man, because it gives me enough control to make changes where necessary, but frees me from the responsibilities of running the whole thing so I can spend more time actually working on the list. Also, I don't want my ideas to be given higher priority than other people's, as I'm worried might happen if I was promoted: suggestions should be judged on their merits, not based on who's making them. So: Again, I'm honored, but I don't think it would be a good idea, at least at this point.
363:- Hm. I'm not sure I should. I'm something of a rookie to this page, relative to a lot of you: you guys do have more experience. My main advantage was that I gave a "fresh" perspective to the list: I wasn't around for all the haggling and debating over each individual article, so I could review the list from the perspective of an outsider, which is the perspective most people judging the project will have. The list should explain itself: we shouldn't need to explain its history in-depth in order to justify what articles it includes. But because of my inexperience in working on this project, I don't think I'd make a good "leader" at this point. Additionally, although I have plenty of free time
295:, updated each night. We will need to think about how we handle supplement articles - do we want to use the same template, or a new one, or not bother? I would suggest using one single template to simplify things, but using the "importance" parameter to separate them into Main and Supplement. The bot is a useful way of getting the table automatically updated to keep up with assessment changes as articles get improved, and provides metadata right there on the article talk page.
2101:(the concept) is more important than the theory describing it (even though I accept that without the theory you wouldn't have the concept). In the same way we have "Atom", not "Atomic theory". And I would suggest that it would belong in the supplement, not in the central core - but we would need to discuss that. Statistics is core, because it is a central theme in many subjects outside mathematics, and it is the more usual term in society (see
345:- I'm honored and delighted that you're OK with the list; thank you very much for being understanding! I look forward very much to the nitpicking and discussion, at our leisure: we have plenty of time to fine-tune the list once the big change is done with. What matters in the short term is that we make certain especially significant changes as soon as possible, because the Core Topics list is now starting to be used by many
357:: those religion articles are indeed high-quality, but not really "basic" or general enough for the "top 150" list; the 0.5 CD selection and the Supplemental lists are much better places for them, and prevents the inevitable problem of being accused of bias), we'll not need to rush any more of the overhauls or alterations, as we'll at least have a more consistent and up-to-date listing to start from.
232:, so we have firmer ground to base ourselves on in continuing to make improvements and utilize the Core Topics for various affairs (like WikiProject and CD ratings). What's important is that we be consistent, and I think that the suggested list does a much better job than the one we currently have on the Core Topics page (with its glaring errors, like linking to the dab page
1426:: MA the field where the rules of high-school calculus are proved and generalised, so less important practically but more important theoretically (deeper). Agree most could happily pass through life without knowing about Non-euclidean geometries all though it is fascinating and part of the bedrock of relativity. --
1806:
for a long time. However, my minimal effort - and I suspect that this is a common issue across most of the core topics - is how exactly to approach articles on such broad subjects without biting off not only more than I can chew but more than I can even comprehend biting into! While I've been able to
1251:
or a project for North
America -- I'm sorry, but I think you overestimate us. What you have in mind would be a lot of work, a lot of detail, and probably a continuing effort in a relatively narrow area. That's not something that I at least am interested in. To some degree, it would be the opposite of
774:
On balance, I think I'd prefer that we kept these. None of them are hardcore stubs, mere dictionary definitions. Silence made a good point: we shouldn't relegate true core topics on the basis of quality alone, rather, we should try to improve those articles so they are usable. Another point: Maybe
280:
Regarding a transition from one core list to another, I would suggest moving any ex-Core topics into the supplement as a default, and if we want to debate removing any of these from there we can. I suspect many of them will be quite appropriate there. That will also make things simpler as we change
190:
I agree, this is extremely useful. I don't have time to discuss a lot more right now, but I really like the work you have done. Having an up-to-date list with assessments is extremely valuable to the project, and I appreciate that you have incorporated many of the feedback from our earlier debates.
2087:
In that case, I would think that "Probability theory" should be included too. Come to think about it, it might be even more important than set theory. And I've always considered "statistics" to be a subset of probability theory (based on the normal distribution), so I would think it more important
1365:
is even moreso. It's just not the greatest article. Any of the following I would consider to be less core in it's branch of knowledge: Big Bang, moon, color, fire, brain, sex. Each deals with a bit more detail, and isn't nearly as foundational to as many fields of knowledge. Non-euclidean geometries
553:
The tree is a good exercise in general and a helpful way to present the core topics. A few things: In the tree, the subcategories of the applied science category didn't work too well together. So, I moved the applied subcategories to other categories where they seemed to fit better, including these
2755:
We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you?
1844:
Something I noticed in the online version of version 0.5 was that the fact that not all articles are included is not only a problem just because you can't click on them and look them up. It is compounded by the fact that articles are written assuming that other articles are available to refer to. A
276:
page, we don't have anyone running things here, which is why things have been neglected for a while. I've been a kind of "caretaker" here just to make sure things didn't die, but I think
Silence would bring a lot of fresh ideas and new energy. This is an important project which deserves committed
148:
Numerous errors have also been fixed, like typos, inaccuracies, dab-page-listings, mis-alphabetizations, etc. Furthermore, all the badly out-of-date sections of the page (except, for the sake of expediency, for "Changes from original list", which I will update on request if anyone wants me to) have
1845:
lot of this, such as "see also" links, has been diligently removed, but things still get problematic especially with big articles which covers subtopics which branch out into their own larger articles. This kind of writing also tends to occur in both the best written and the most important topics.
597:
Welcome. Based on your comment, I moved "information" to the
Communication subcat. It does fit there. I think there are some physics theories that include information along with mater-energy as part of theory, which is why i put it there. But, this is not that sense of information that we usually
526:
The table is useful. It doesn't need to be revised weekly to be useful. If there is another article tracking method that is better than the table, fine. Otherwise, if no one else wants to work on the core topics table, I'd be happy work on it with
Silence in a few months. Just can't do it now. If
204:
To answer NCurse's questions: if you disagree with a
Removed entry, say so and I'll re-add it if I agree, or talk it over until we reach a compromise. You can also feel free to make changes yourself, if you prefer; whichever you find more convenient and expedient. My proposal is not an attempt to
601:
After reflection, I moved the communication subcategory from soc science, where I first put it, to humanities. "Communications" is not the name of a specific soc sci discipline - rather, there are a number of media/comm disciplines with similar names to "comm." or that fall under that head, that
1695:
but even on the latter page there are only 6 entries for Music - Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Elvis, Beatles and Verdi. Note that the importance of the topic doesn't relate to the quality of the article - in fact until we started this project many core articles were in very poor shape. In fact it
793:
to see the kind of thing I mean. It used to be a dictionary-type stub - now I think it covers the ground in four screenfuls perfectly well. It may take a couple of years, but I'd like to see us work on these stubs through the COTF until we get these at least to the B-Class level. It's a hard
1807:
get some ideas together by looking at the handful of core FAs, it would be nice if perhaps some of the editors behind these successful articles might be able to write a quick guide as to how to face the daunting task of writing a quality core article. Any advice is very much welcome! Thanks,
1385:
Eh, one more comment. Aren't there some relatively standard trees of knowledge out there that we can use as a base. LOC, other library systems etc. I assume they'd all be different, but if we had a way of averaging their top 100, 200 topics, etc then we could avoid reinventing the wheel. -
379:- Fair enough. You can see all the formerly-listed entries at the bottom of my version's page. Listing them at "Supplemental" would indeed be a good way to give us time to carefully-review the changes later on, though I expect a fair number of the removed entries not to make the cut (like
302:
So then, Silence, thank you for your tenacity, insights and sheer hard work (assessing 150 articles from scratch is many, many hours work, I know!). We should use that work to revive this flagging project, hopefully under your leadership if you're willing to take the helm. Thanks,
1578:
I think color is pretty core, I'd rather not lose it. You could equally well place it under Visual Arts if you want to balance things - or is that just window-dressing? The modern physics description of color tends to be seen as part of a wider meaning, relating to the
1696:
doesn't matter too much if G&S are on these lists even on our next CD releases we can probably include such articles (Version 0.5 is pretty much closed now, but the next version can probably include them). Congratulations on the new FA! Thanks,
760:
is also covered somewhat in other core articles, but I'd be more likely to look it up I think. As for the others, I think they belong in core topics (IMHO) and we can't easily substitute them, so they should stay despite being at the stub/start
213:), but I moved it to here so other people would feel more free to make changes to it. I may move it back to my userspace after we're done discussing and implementing it, since at that point we can simply go back to making changes and updates at
2242:
should be used instead; it includes all {{Core topic}}'s functions and a lot of other useful ones. I have recently orphaned {{Core topic}}, but I wanted to bring it up here first. So, does anyone oppose the deletion? Thanks for your input.
343:"As Silence proposes, change our current Core Topics list to Silence's latest list. I prefer this to our current list, and it seems as if others do too. We can nitpick at the list once it's in place, making incremental changes as needed."
153:
I have added dozens of links to relevant WikiProjects in the convenient, yet previously woefully unused, column allocated to them, allowing users to immediately see, for example, that there is a WikiProject for organized improvements to
123:
I've been working on this list, in various forms, for over a month now. If we're going to try to avoid overdiscussing list details as much as possible so as not to waste time and energy, then I would argue that this list would be a
268:
As
Silence proposes, change our current Core Topics list to Silence's latest list. I prefer this to our current list, and it seems as if others do too. We can nitpick at the list once it's in place, making incremental changes as
1870:- that is, they omit details which are more appropriate in elaborative sections in the main article, and there is not always such a density of citations, because facts are explained and cited in more detail in the main article.
500:
Having a summary makes sense. I'm not sure which tree you mean. Do you mean essentially adding to the
Article Status Summary? That'd be good. I had thought of moving Martin's tree over. But I think it is outdated because of
479:
OK, I hate to see it go but you're quite right, it's a bit much. If I ever get time to work on this list again I'd like to see at least a concise summary list included here - would your "tree" serve that purpose, Maureen?
128:
stronger starting point for us to rely on than the current list is: it's not only greatly-enhanced in terms of coverage, with many of the less-important and lower-quality articles replaced by vastly more-important (bye-bye
579:
Thanks, it looks good overall. I had debated a couple of ways of breaking up "Communication." But "Information" seems out of place under "Physical science". I would never look for it there, but I'm not sure where is best.
292:
74:
2067:
Yes, these would be important to add. Although this list is supposed to be VERY restrictive - it only covers broad topics (no
Shakespeare or Napoleon) - Mathematics doesn't have a huge number of entries. Even in the
277:
people, so I hope that
Silence can spare the time to do this. If he can manage also to oversee the COTF as well that would be great, if not, then I will carry on as "caretaker" there as well, or we could share things.
1145:
1784:
1462:
410:
for the main, 150-article list, not for the Supplementals (hence if we do eventually categorize the Supplementals, they'll probably be in a different set of categories). So, shall I go ahead with the switchover?
85:
97:
65:
61:
57:
53:
49:
45:
41:
37:
2072:
these two don't show, and I think they belong in the main core. It is fairly academic for our project at this point (our next release will be 20,000-30,000 articles), but I would support adding these two.
1597:
Are you open to either trimming the list to get it closer to 100 or making replacements to get what I would see as more balance between science and other major groups? Here is the count for major branches:
557:
Soc Sci Misc (note that race is studied very extensively (perhaps most extensively) in sociology -- but also in other fields - hence, like and along with gender, race is perhaps best in Soc Sci Misc)
377:"Regarding a transition from one core list to another, I would suggest moving any ex-Core topics into the supplement as a default, and if we want to debate removing any of these from there we can."
1989:
When I last reviewed the article for the Core Topics project, it was mainly about gender. We should probably have both; I may add the sexual intercourse article into the Core Supplement. Thanks,
1321:
605:
Btw, I'm going to let this ID go to sleep a longish awhile -- esplained on my user page. But I'll reappear to contribute in bits in ongoing ways here sometime in next few months with another ID.
220:
To answer Walkerma: Thanks! I expect that we'll disagree over a few matters, but am very willing to make changes in response to specific suggestions and explanations (for example, if you think
349:
projects on Knowledge (XXG). That's the only reason to rush: once we've made the most significnt fixes (e.g., replacing the articles on individual religions with more basic articles like
2355:
2748:! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the
1640:
IMHO, there's no problem having 100+ core articles. And science is a fairly important subject and one people frequently look up in an encyclopedia. So I would be against any change.
2009:
It looks weird to see a country article alongside continent articles, were you conscious of this? It really doesn't match the list. There's a separate article for the continent --
93:
89:
2258:
I think it should be OK to delete this. This template dates from the time before the WP1.0 template was written. We should update the few pages that still link to it. Thanks,
2119:
I went ahead and added calculus to the project page (updating the dependent counts), as there is support for it and no opposition. Regarding set theory, what do you think of (
2673:
I just noticed a miscount - there were five science miscellaneous articles, not six. I suppose this means there's an extra slot or two (total: 148). Looking at the old list,
214:
206:
113:
27:
962:
are generally at the same level; they should be together one place or the other. But if we have a 2-1 split on this, I will let it go for now and leave things as they are.
566:
Ps. Communication (and its elements) could fit just as well in Humanities or Social Science categories, like history which can fit in both (and includes aspects of both).
1202:
The big thing here for editors and readers alike is ease of use and logical structures. I've been dealing with WikiProjects, Portals, Templates and Categories (including
2049:
I think calculus and set theory and major omissions from the core topics. Calculus and set theory are definitely "core" to mathematics. Set theory is essentially the
1256:
2386:
I started making a table of articles, but I'm busy right now and don't have the time to finish it. Here's what I've got so far if anyone feels inclined to work on it.
1375:
would probably underlie more such as insurance, finance, disaster planning, etc, but maybe I'm biased on that. Marketing even is more fundamental than advertising. -
1118:
145:!) ones, and has exactly 150 articles, but also has been thoroughly checked-over, with each entry's article reviewed, and most of them updated with new information.
2196:
1734:
2690:
1961:
I've rewritten the entire article with the first aspect in mind, for a couple reasons: it's categorized under biology, and the hatnote for the article had said
1715:
needs "Please help improve this article as we push to 1.0. If you'd like help with this article, you may nominate it for the core topics collaboration." It's a
1535:
has two cleanup tags on it, so I'd hold back on those, though both are close. Electronics does now look like a B to me, though only just. Should I change it?
172:
I just repeat myself: great work! :) The list is really much better. But what if I don't agree with a Removed entry? And why is it in the discussion namespace?
2303:
1455:
Also, about Taxman's point about consulting other lists and avoiding reinventing the wheel -- various lists were consulted when the list was orignally created.
285:
as a Core Topics COTF. Since I am in contact with many of the WikiProjects anyway, I am willing to let those folks know about any changes to their worklists.
81:
17:
466:
The table is long with a lot of information. I agree about moving it to a subpage - including moving the "Removed entries" section along with it as well.
228:
is, that's certainly a change I'd be willing to make), but my list isn't meant to be "perfect" anymore than the current one is: it's merely meant to be a
2020:
1980:
1015:
Many articles seem to work as sets. I joined this project because I really see the value in this way of doing things and learned a lot from working with
402:
I'm ready to recategorize and retemplatify the Core Topics now, per recent changes, if noone objects. The current categories and template placements for
1829:
comes to mind as one that was vastly improved. One other problem I can see is that every article at this level may be unique. Definitely worth a try.
1351:. Our practices is to discuss changes to the list before making them. I would go along with calculus if at least one item is deleted from the sciences.
1129:
320:
FYI, for the sake of clarity, I'd like to elaborate a little on my phone conversation with Martin. Essentially, I'm going along with him and supporting
2369:
2318:
2211:
327:
About details of the changes, I'm going along with Martin. Doesn't mean I agree with Silence. Means I don't have time right now to work on it. Ciao.
1773:. In addition, it appears to have been written by a registered sex offender with clothing fetishes. I am trying to improve, but need major help!!
2309:
I think I would support that. Evolution would be "promoted" from the supplement to the main core, and brain could be "demoted" to the supplement.
2757:
2725:... I will make a post on the talk page there as well. I think we should build a consensus and have the CORE pages match the VA Level 1 articles.
31:
1783:
Thanks - yes, the article does look poor. I think it got on the CD largely because it was a core topic. Could you perhaps nominate it for the
1192:
1114:
1102:
2029:
These lists were first put together in 2004, so the article may have changed in scope since then - the intention was to have the continents.
2165:
191:
Also, your joining the project as a working member is a great step forward. I'll try and check in here again tomorrow with more comments.
2651:
Yes, a script like that would be useful, if anyone reading this can do that. It should use the 1.0 teams 10 top-level categories, though.
2097:
I think that trig is OK for the top 1000, but not for the top 150-200 topics of all knowledge. As for probability theory, I'd argue that
1172:
1088:
1418:
must be absolutely must be in. Every 16-18 year old student in maths studies it and very important in other fields like physics. I'd say
1769:
article is a disaster? It's one of the Top 150, and contains minimal citations, bizarre content, lack of mainstream facts, and lots of
1210:
standpoint for a while. In fact, though I can't prove it directly, I may have been partially responsible for the creation of the Portal
933:(which encompasses not only artistic drawing, but illustration of all kind, including architectural drawings). I wouldn't mind removing
2752:
that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.
2722:
1733:
Greetings. I used a perl script to make a list of articles listed as "core topics" that are also tagged with cleanup messages. It's at
1080:
2088:
than statistics. (The two remaining big ones, IMHO, are trigonometry and information theory, though trig is a pretty small branch.)
1825:. The only problem here is locating "some of the editors behind these successful articles" - there aren't many good broad articles.
1227:
1108:
2294:
I think we should demote "Brain" from Core - it's one organ - and put "Evolution" - a truly core subject to biology - in its place.
1928:
2102:
1770:
1271:
1137:
1092:
602:
would fit in humanities, though some belong in soc. sciences, such as linguistics. This category stuff is often a fuzzy excercise.
756:; Sure, it's very "core", but I personally can't imagine ever wanting to look it up - I would look up something more tangible.
217:
itself. It doesn't really matter where it's placed; if you would prefer a shorter page title, for example, feel free to move it.
159:
101:
1084:
856:. I see these two as parallel. I'd like to see them together. I am open about whether they are in the core or the supplement.
403:
2686:
2351:
2299:
2192:
2017:
1977:
1973:
I'd like to know if (and to what extent) the current article is covering the material envisioned by the core team. Thanks...
1287:
I may be asking in the correct place - I doubt it, but here goes: Is something wrong with The GA-category? I noticed in the
1474:
I'll try to write a bit on biotech after Wikimania is over. Yes, we could lose advertising into the supplement, I think.
991:
I think astronomy is already over-represented. How about using "Solar system" to replace one or more items in the section?
1144:
wikiproject isn't very enthused about WP:1.0 assessments. However, the smaller project, which doesn't even have a listing
272:
I would like to formally ask if Silence would be willing to take over leading this project. As you can see from the main
2161:
1692:
543:
I moved the table and list of removed items to the same subpage, and I added a tree listing all the current core topics.
1097:
1452:
OK, how about this for a package deal -- add calculus and remove advertising? I strongly prefer that the list not grow.
1248:
1133:
1263:
1215:
261:
OK, I spoke with Maurreen on the phone, and she's OK with us making these changes. I'd like to propose the following:
1687:
is in the supplement! If you want to argue a case for these articles being important, you should raise the issue at
2769:
2749:
2734:
2711:
2660:
2646:
2395:
2341:
2281:
2267:
2252:
2177:
2143:
2114:
2092:
2082:
2061:
2038:
2023:
1998:
1983:
1936:
1908:
1899:
1833:
1811:
1791:
1777:
1751:
1741:
1723:
1700:
1669:
1644:
1634:
1591:
1572:
1551:
1539:
1522:
1496:
1478:
1469:
1435:
1402:
1390:
1379:
1355:
1328:
1307:
1278:
1238:
1004:
995:
985:
966:
941:
904:
894:
860:
828:
798:
735:
718:
673:
659:
630:
609:
584:
570:
561:
547:
531:
509:
484:
470:
460:
443:
430:
415:
391:
331:
307:
252:
195:
181:
166:
1863:
1222:(the Project:(topic) namespace is a new namespace to replace Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject (topic)) to go along with
1822:
2682:
2347:
2295:
2188:
2014:
1974:
1866:. In the case of the shorter of these, the sections are more introductory and follow similar style guidelines to
1584:
1075:
I've had a theory for a long time that "topics" have to be handled with plenty of focus and guidance. I see that
556:
Humanities (including Civilization under History rather than Soc Sci Misc where it could also fit) ; Race --: -->
2057:
mathematics - and it is essential in everything from astrophysics to electrical engineering to modern medicine.
1226:(which replaced Knowledge (XXG):Wikiportal (topic)). It would certainly reduce typing and simplify linking. See
1808:
1348:
1880:
Wait until articles are at a good enough quality that as many referenced sub-articles are included as possible
1056:
527:
Silence still wants to work on it then perhaps that is enough effort. And perhaps other folks will pitch in.
1371:
While we're at it I would say advertising is not one of the top fundamental concepts in Business/Economics.
1274:. I had thought about linking at least some of these with templates and more-similar names and other ideas.
1161:
1932:
1924:
1873:
Is there any current strategy for dealing with this sort of issue? The possible approaches I can see are:
1219:
2226:
1719:
promoted FA! I was thinking of making its appearance contigent on whether or not blah=no, or something.--
1398:
I agree that calculus should be in core topics if at all possible. I'm more doubtful about NE geometry.
1211:
2010:
1895:
1419:
1362:
1044:
1214:. (You'ld have to study the deletion logs for deleted WikiProjects). It may even be a good idea to use
815:
I don't feel strongly about them, but I'm trying to tune some things up and I figure it's worth asking.
2391:
2140:
2136:
2089:
2058:
1968:
1431:
1203:
1188:
1180:
1052:
2236:
2069:
1168:
2639:
2334:
1817:
Great idea! I know I tried working on some, and it's really hard. If you think film is hard, try
225:
981:
I think this should be added to core topics, alongside "planet", "star", "galaxy" and "universe."
2765:
2730:
2656:
2365:
2314:
2263:
2207:
2173:
2128:
2110:
2078:
2034:
1994:
1964:
1774:
1707:
Can we tweak this to make the part about improving the article go away when that isn't necessary?
1267:
1223:
1048:
982:
841:
790:
652:
380:
2139:
vs. (not core enough) for a core topic? (I see that Logic is already listed under philosophy.)
497:
Thanks. Sorry, Martin. I think we don't have enough people working on this to support the table.
2707:
1904:
That is why I have never liked the policy of making everything concise, making more articles.
1666:
1255:
At some level, that includes all the articles on countries. I had started a 1.0 subproject on
1149:
210:
117:
1957:
human sexuality, human male/female sex differences, human sexual intercourse, gender identity
1954:
biological sexual reproduction, male/female differences and sex determination in all kingdoms
1950:
is listed as a core topic, but unfortunately can focus on two different classes of things --
1867:
937:
from the list too, though, if people feel it's too specific for the top 150, like Painting. -
361:"I would like to formally ask if Silence would be willing to take over leading this project."
209:, so I didn't want to give it its own Knowledge (XXG) page. It was formerly at my userspace (
2277:
2248:
1891:
1038:
698:
426:
177:
273:
2745:
2532:
2387:
1662:
1587:, though an understanding of color comes from physics (Newton playing with a prism, etc.)
1427:
1372:
853:
845:
655:, which had been deliberately chosen to encompass both nuclear power and nuclear weapons.
1688:
666:
288:
I'd like to see the articles in the supplement assessed, so we can start to use the list.
2696:
2630:
2325:
1160:"international law" as a search term. I found all this out when doing research for the
456:
The table is rarely updated and can be overwhelming. I'd like to move it to a subpage.
2761:
2726:
2652:
2520:
2361:
2310:
2259:
2203:
2169:
2106:
2074:
2030:
1990:
1856:
1830:
1788:
1748:
1697:
1658:
1631:
1588:
1569:
1536:
1519:
1493:
1475:
1466:
1399:
1352:
1325:
1275:
1184:
1076:
1016:
1001:
992:
963:
901:
891:
857:
825:
795:
783:
732:
715:
670:
656:
648:
627:
581:
544:
506:
481:
457:
328:
324:
coordinating this. If Silence has the time and the inclination, thanks, that's great.
304:
282:
192:
2703:
2678:
1905:
1738:
938:
502:
440:
412:
388:
384:
321:
249:
237:
163:
130:
1299:
doesn't show up. Also on the GA listing on one of the main lists for Core Topics
1079:
is getting some attention and as one can see, its "context" is humongous! Though
2431:
2273:
2244:
2098:
1787:? That way you could enlist some help, though it may take a few weeks. Thanks,
1720:
1712:
1641:
1515:
1387:
1376:
1252:
my general focus -- essentially improving the top of the WP "tree of knowledge."
1228:
Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject_Community#Applied_community_development_at_Wikipedia
1020:
1000:
For example, the list has twice as many astronomy entries as chemistry entries.
918:
875:
849:
757:
708:
422:
373:- That's my job. :) If I can do that without running the project, I'll be happy.
233:
173:
1564:
Physics is the only branch with nine articles. I would like to delete at least
1128:
Similarly, the Core Team (you folks) could help along struggling projects like
555:
Soc Sci. I also made these moves (and a few other misc. moves): History --: -->
2120:
1877:
Accept that WP1.0 will not be as informative or verifiable as the live version
1818:
1580:
1122:
2628:
Someone can write a script to automatically tabulate all of the information.
1849:
1132:
by coordining and connecting their efforts to more successfull projects like
2674:
2496:
2455:
2168:
and will receive their prizes, and more contests are planned in the future.
2160:
Folks here may be interested to hear that there was finally some closure on
1548:
1544:
1532:
1511:
1294:
1101:
who know a lot about it and are well qualified to perfect that article. Yet
1024:
959:
926:
887:
753:
1183:, before building their own state or city portal. If and when interest in
75:
Knowledge (XXG) talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Core topics/Tree worksheet
2484:
2443:
1766:
1758:
1423:
1415:
1344:
955:
871:
749:
703:
606:
567:
558:
528:
467:
281:
over, for example with people voting (as someone did tonight) to support
248:). Anyway, look forward to your feedback, as soon as you have the time! -
900:
Sure, looks nice but for refs, a B, I can't understand it going either.
1680:
1463:
Knowledge (XXG):Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Core topics/Core topics COTF
1304:
1235:
934:
930:
883:
155:
1675:
Unfortunately not! At this level - the top 100-150 articles, you get
1117:. (Follow the linkage to see where I'm going with this). I think that
2614:
1826:
1528:
1207:
1157:
728:
688:
221:
789:
to direct the reader to the more detailed articles? Take a look at
1963:"This article is about biological sex. For alternate uses, such as
1148:
might be more inclined to get on board. That's why I nominated the
116:
be replaced entirely or largely with the information at this page:
2602:
2561:
2467:
2132:
1918:
1684:
1676:
1565:
1507:
693:
371:"I think Silence would bring a lot of fresh ideas and new energy."
354:
245:
241:
138:
134:
1547:
has had significant work since August. Perhaps time to reassess.
1361:
Calculus is about as core as you can get, though one might argue
2590:
2549:
2508:
1803:
1322:
Knowledge (XXG):Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Work via Wikiprojects
1320:
Sorry, I can't help you with that. It would be better to ask at
1231:
350:
2053:
of mathematics. And calculus is essentially the foundation of
1270:. I don't fully understand you, but you might be interested in
1191:
should be kept in mind here and members of this crew can start
2573:
2124:
1947:
1683:
and that's it! Even Shakespeare doesn't make it in! I think
1262:
I think you and I might have more overlap with your ideas for
1141:
922:
879:
142:
2202:
It's part of the core supplement, I think that should be OK.
406:
is badly out-of-date. I'm assuming that these categories are
162:), a very valuable resource for a project like Core Topics. -
684:
I’m thinking we could move these stubs to the supplement:
1798:
Request: An MOS or guideline for writing about core topics
1458:
Also, so people know, the list is essentially a work list.
2721:
The Elite Nine here are a bit inconsistent with those at
818:
I do agree that some articles should probably stay short.
1035:
articles are important, too. Just a few exapmles in the
1244:
Hi, CQ. Thanks for joining us. I enjoy your enthusiasm.
665:
Yes, definitely. Nuclear power would be better at the
626:
Thanks. The "information" move is good. See you later.
1747:
Thanks, we can use this to focus our effort. Cheers,
215:
Knowledge (XXG):Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Core topics
207:
Knowledge (XXG):Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Core topics
114:
Knowledge (XXG):Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Core topics
1883:
Actually rewrite certain sections for the 1.0 version
1821:! One common feature I've seen is a lot of use of
1234:. Just my $ 0.02 worth. Sorry for the long post. •
149:been updated, including "Article status summary",
1735:Knowledge (XXG):Core topics - 1,000/with problems
1492:By the way, the original list included calculus.
1303:GA's show up. Could there be a glitch somewhere?
2744:Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the
1852:contains 13 sections which are started with the
421:Just go ahead. We will look after your work. :)
848:has developed from one screen to four. We have
18:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team
1765:Is this the right place to point out that the
1665:are core? The first is FA, the second... not.
1175:is working to focus and guide several of the
1130:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject International law
779:be fairly short articles anyway, with use of
8:
2756:We have collected all of these questions at
821:The COTF doesn't get a lot of participation.
1167:One more point. Many WikiProjects focus on
890:. I don't know why "Painting" was removed.
1840:Dealing with by-products of incompleteness
112:I propose that the current information at
32:Knowledge (XXG):Version_1.0_Editorial_Team
2740:Request for information on WP1.0 web tool
2045:Mathematics: add Calculus and Set Theory?
1531:still has a lot of lists as content, and
1259:, but I got little help and abandoned it.
1193:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject North America
554:moves: Env. -- Life Science; Comm --: -->
2399:
404:Category:Core topics articles by quality
929:(about as broad as "visual arts"), and
2723:Knowledge (XXG):Vital articles/Level/1
1366:I don't think is all that fundamental.
1072:you have well organized WikiProjects.
2187:Shouldn't Evolution be a core topic?
1272:Category: Knowledge (XXG) core topics
1066:better way to handle such complexity
752:, which to some extent is covered in
7:
2164:, which was held one year ago. The
1187:wins it a COTF spot, I believe that
108:Core Topics: Mid-June Update/Upgrade
2760:where you can leave your response.
2702:Might be worth adding to the list.
1518:should be redesignated as B class.
1343:I removed these two from the tree:
852:in the core but apparently removed
398:Core-topic Categories and Templates
160:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Ecology
24:
1711:I ask this because I don't think
1218:as a catylist for bringing about
1011:Sets of articles and wikiprojects
98:Work via WikiProjects discussions
1693:Knowledge (XXG):Core_biographies
1264:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Core
1216:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Core
794:choice -what do others think?
291:Mathbot is currently generating
82:WP1.0 editorial team discussions
1249:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Law
1136:. But from what I've seen from
1134:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Law
137:!) and higher-quality (bye-bye
1834:21:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
1812:06:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
1152:article, which appears at the
1125:in this area and has already.
925:(painting is a type of each),
26:This is the talk page for the
1:
2178:08:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
1937:15:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
1909:21:07, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
1900:20:17, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
1823:Knowledge (XXG):Summary style
1611:Life science and medicine, 19
1289:Community articles by quality
44:(Feb 1st - Mar 12th, 2006) |
2770:04:23, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
2282:10:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
2268:22:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
2253:19:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
2212:22:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
2197:21:42, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
1848:For example, the article on
1802:I've been wanting to tackle
1701:22:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
1670:21:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
1552:10:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
1027:article. I noticed that the
824:Various things will evolve.
224:isn't noteworthy enough but
2712:02:18, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
2405:
2402:
2166:winners have been announced
1921:is missing from the list.
1729:Core articles with problems
1645:12:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
1635:17:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
1592:16:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
1573:16:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
1540:17:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
1523:16:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
1195:to help manage the article
2785:
2691:14:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
2661:05:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
2647:04:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
2416:
2396:01:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
2370:04:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
2356:00:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
2342:17:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
2319:16:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
2304:12:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
1984:14:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
1886:Your alternative idea here
1706:
1497:05:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
1479:03:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
1470:03:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
1461:Anybody want to help with
1436:23:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
1422:is really the daughter of
1403:23:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
1391:22:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
1380:22:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
1356:15:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
1329:03:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
1308:23:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
102:Pushing to 1.0 discussions
2584:
2543:
2478:
2423:
2346:I went ahead and did it.
2272:Thanks, I nominated it. —
2144:14:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
2115:18:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
2093:18:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
2083:17:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
2062:16:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
2039:17:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
1999:17:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
1792:04:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
1785:Core Topics collaboration
1778:20:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
1752:04:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
1742:15:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
1724:21:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
1585:electromagnetic radiation
1279:06:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
1239:02:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
1119:The Places Team at WP:1.0
1005:19:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
996:18:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
986:14:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
967:05:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
942:04:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
917:more specific topic than
905:04:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
895:03:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
861:05:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
829:03:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
799:23:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
736:17:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
719:16:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
674:23:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
660:15:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
631:16:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
610:16:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
585:00:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
571:21:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
562:21:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
548:14:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
532:01:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
510:12:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
485:06:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
471:06:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
461:22:47, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
444:08:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
431:08:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
416:03:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
392:08:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
332:05:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
308:02:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
253:06:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
196:06:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
182:05:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
167:04:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
2735:20:32, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
1850:the September 11 attacks
1349:Non-euclidean geometries
1177:WikiProject (Your state)
1031:articles that appear on
2024:05:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
1602:Culture and society, 15
1506:I am wondering whether
1173:WikiProject U.S. states
1162:international community
1055:articles. The Work via
1098:plenty of people there
748:I could accept losing
2681:seems a good choice.
2222:I'd like to nominate
2011:Australia (continent)
1420:Mathematical analysis
1363:Mathematical analysis
1045:Community development
775:some of these topics
94:FAs first discussions
90:Wiki sort discussions
2232:for deletion. IMHO,
2156:Core Contest winners
2137:discrete mathematics
1969:Sex (disambiguation)
1617:Physical science, 23
1204:Category:Wikipedians
1189:Portal:North America
1053:Structure and agency
870:I'd like to restore
647:I'd like to replace
52:(late March 2006) |
40:(To end Jan 2006) |
2683:Shoemaker's Holiday
2418:Culture and society
2406:Second-level topic
2348:Shoemaker's Holiday
2296:Shoemaker's Holiday
2218:Template:Core topic
2189:Shoemaker's Holiday
1809:Girolamo Savonarola
226:Natural environment
48:(mid-March 2006) |
30:sub-project of the
2129:mathematical logic
1965:sexual intercourse
1761:article a disaster
1620:Social science, 22
1049:Sense of community
842:Chemical substance
791:Chemical substance
653:Nuclear technology
651:with the original
381:mathematical proof
293:this set of output
2625:
2624:
2382:Table of articles
1939:
1927:comment added by
1771:original research
1150:International law
1121:can provide much
1103:The United States
211:User:Silence/Core
118:User:Silence/Core
104:
2776:
2758:this Google form
2645:
2642:
2636:
2403:Top-level topic
2400:
2340:
2337:
2331:
2241:
2235:
2231:
2225:
2162:the Core Contest
1922:
1864:current revision
1862:template in the
1861:
1855:
1179:projects toward
1059:way is, IMO the
913:"Painting" is a
788:
782:
699:Motion (physics)
669:level, I think.
86:Core topics COTW
80:
2784:
2783:
2779:
2778:
2777:
2775:
2774:
2773:
2742:
2719:
2700:
2671:
2640:
2631:
2629:
2533:Popular culture
2384:
2335:
2326:
2324:
2292:
2239:
2233:
2229:
2223:
2220:
2185:
2158:
2047:
2007:
1945:
1916:
1859:
1853:
1842:
1800:
1763:
1731:
1709:
1663:Arthur Sullivan
1655:
1583:of any form of
1562:
1504:
1373:Risk management
1341:
1013:
979:
868:
854:Performing arts
846:Performing arts
786:
780:
682:
645:
454:
429:
400:
180:
110:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
2782:
2780:
2741:
2738:
2718:
2715:
2699:
2697:Periodic table
2694:
2670:
2667:
2666:
2665:
2664:
2663:
2623:
2622:
2617:
2611:
2610:
2605:
2599:
2598:
2593:
2588:
2582:
2581:
2576:
2570:
2569:
2564:
2558:
2557:
2552:
2547:
2541:
2540:
2535:
2529:
2528:
2523:
2517:
2516:
2511:
2505:
2504:
2499:
2493:
2492:
2487:
2482:
2476:
2475:
2470:
2464:
2463:
2458:
2452:
2451:
2446:
2440:
2439:
2434:
2429:
2426:
2422:
2420:
2414:
2413:
2410:
2407:
2404:
2383:
2380:
2379:
2378:
2377:
2376:
2375:
2374:
2373:
2372:
2291:
2288:
2287:
2286:
2285:
2284:
2219:
2216:
2215:
2214:
2184:
2181:
2157:
2154:
2153:
2152:
2151:
2150:
2149:
2148:
2147:
2146:
2046:
2043:
2042:
2041:
2006:
2003:
2002:
2001:
1959:
1958:
1955:
1944:
1941:
1915:
1912:
1890:Any thoughts?
1888:
1887:
1884:
1881:
1878:
1841:
1838:
1837:
1836:
1799:
1796:
1795:
1794:
1762:
1756:
1755:
1754:
1730:
1727:
1708:
1705:
1704:
1703:
1654:
1651:
1649:
1638:
1637:
1628:
1627:
1624:
1623:Technology, 18
1621:
1618:
1615:
1614:Mathematics, 7
1612:
1609:
1608:Humanities, 24
1606:
1603:
1595:
1594:
1561:
1558:
1557:
1556:
1555:
1554:
1503:
1500:
1490:
1489:
1488:
1487:
1486:
1485:
1484:
1483:
1482:
1481:
1459:
1456:
1453:
1443:
1442:
1441:
1440:
1439:
1438:
1408:
1407:
1406:
1405:
1383:
1382:
1368:
1367:
1340:
1337:
1336:
1335:
1334:
1333:
1332:
1331:
1313:
1312:
1311:
1310:
1282:
1281:
1260:
1253:
1245:
1199:its context.
1012:
1009:
1008:
1007:
998:
978:
975:
974:
973:
972:
971:
970:
969:
947:
946:
945:
944:
908:
907:
867:
864:
838:
837:
836:
835:
834:
833:
832:
831:
822:
819:
816:
806:
805:
804:
803:
802:
801:
767:
766:
765:
764:
763:
762:
741:
740:
739:
738:
722:
721:
712:
711:
706:
701:
696:
691:
681:
678:
677:
676:
644:
641:
640:
639:
638:
637:
636:
635:
634:
633:
617:
616:
615:
614:
613:
612:
603:
599:
590:
589:
588:
587:
574:
573:
564:
541:
540:
539:
538:
537:
536:
535:
534:
517:
516:
515:
514:
513:
512:
498:
490:
489:
488:
487:
474:
473:
453:
450:
449:
448:
447:
446:
434:
433:
425:
399:
396:
395:
394:
374:
368:
358:
339:
338:
337:
336:
335:
334:
325:
313:
312:
311:
310:
297:
296:
289:
286:
278:
270:
265:
264:
263:
262:
256:
255:
218:
201:
200:
199:
198:
185:
184:
176:
109:
106:
78:
77:
70:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2781:
2772:
2771:
2767:
2763:
2759:
2753:
2751:
2747:
2739:
2737:
2736:
2732:
2728:
2724:
2716:
2714:
2713:
2709:
2705:
2698:
2695:
2693:
2692:
2688:
2684:
2680:
2676:
2668:
2662:
2658:
2654:
2650:
2649:
2648:
2643:
2637:
2635:
2627:
2626:
2621:
2618:
2616:
2613:
2612:
2609:
2606:
2604:
2601:
2600:
2597:
2594:
2592:
2589:
2587:
2586:Miscellaneous
2583:
2580:
2577:
2575:
2572:
2571:
2568:
2565:
2563:
2560:
2559:
2556:
2553:
2551:
2548:
2546:
2542:
2539:
2536:
2534:
2531:
2530:
2527:
2524:
2522:
2521:Personal life
2519:
2518:
2515:
2512:
2510:
2507:
2506:
2503:
2500:
2498:
2495:
2494:
2491:
2488:
2486:
2483:
2481:
2480:Everyday life
2477:
2474:
2471:
2469:
2466:
2465:
2462:
2459:
2457:
2454:
2453:
2450:
2447:
2445:
2442:
2441:
2438:
2435:
2433:
2430:
2428:
2419:
2415:
2411:
2408:
2401:
2398:
2397:
2393:
2389:
2381:
2371:
2367:
2363:
2359:
2358:
2357:
2353:
2349:
2345:
2344:
2343:
2338:
2332:
2330:
2322:
2321:
2320:
2316:
2312:
2308:
2307:
2306:
2305:
2301:
2297:
2289:
2283:
2279:
2275:
2271:
2270:
2269:
2265:
2261:
2257:
2256:
2255:
2254:
2250:
2246:
2238:
2228:
2217:
2213:
2209:
2205:
2201:
2200:
2199:
2198:
2194:
2190:
2182:
2180:
2179:
2175:
2171:
2167:
2163:
2155:
2145:
2142:
2138:
2134:
2130:
2126:
2122:
2118:
2117:
2116:
2112:
2108:
2104:
2100:
2096:
2095:
2094:
2091:
2086:
2085:
2084:
2080:
2076:
2071:
2066:
2065:
2064:
2063:
2060:
2056:
2052:
2044:
2040:
2036:
2032:
2028:
2027:
2026:
2025:
2022:
2019:
2016:
2012:
2004:
2000:
1996:
1992:
1988:
1987:
1986:
1985:
1982:
1979:
1976:
1972:
1970:
1966:
1956:
1953:
1952:
1951:
1949:
1942:
1940:
1938:
1934:
1930:
1926:
1920:
1913:
1911:
1910:
1907:
1902:
1901:
1897:
1893:
1885:
1882:
1879:
1876:
1875:
1874:
1871:
1869:
1868:lead sections
1865:
1858:
1851:
1846:
1839:
1835:
1832:
1828:
1824:
1820:
1816:
1815:
1814:
1813:
1810:
1805:
1797:
1793:
1790:
1786:
1782:
1781:
1780:
1779:
1776:
1775:NuclearWinner
1772:
1768:
1760:
1757:
1753:
1750:
1746:
1745:
1744:
1743:
1740:
1736:
1728:
1726:
1725:
1722:
1718:
1714:
1702:
1699:
1694:
1690:
1686:
1682:
1678:
1674:
1673:
1672:
1671:
1668:
1664:
1660:
1659:W. S. Gilbert
1657:Do you think
1652:
1650:
1647:
1646:
1643:
1636:
1633:
1630:
1629:
1625:
1622:
1619:
1616:
1613:
1610:
1607:
1604:
1601:
1600:
1599:
1593:
1590:
1586:
1582:
1577:
1576:
1575:
1574:
1571:
1567:
1559:
1553:
1550:
1546:
1543:
1542:
1541:
1538:
1534:
1530:
1527:
1526:
1525:
1524:
1521:
1517:
1513:
1509:
1501:
1499:
1498:
1495:
1480:
1477:
1473:
1472:
1471:
1468:
1464:
1460:
1457:
1454:
1451:
1450:
1449:
1448:
1447:
1446:
1445:
1444:
1437:
1433:
1429:
1425:
1421:
1417:
1414:
1413:
1412:
1411:
1410:
1409:
1404:
1401:
1397:
1396:
1395:
1394:
1393:
1392:
1389:
1381:
1378:
1374:
1370:
1369:
1364:
1360:
1359:
1358:
1357:
1354:
1350:
1346:
1338:
1330:
1327:
1323:
1319:
1318:
1317:
1316:
1315:
1314:
1309:
1306:
1302:
1298:
1297:
1296:
1290:
1286:
1285:
1284:
1283:
1280:
1277:
1273:
1269:
1265:
1261:
1258:
1254:
1250:
1246:
1243:
1242:
1241:
1240:
1237:
1233:
1229:
1225:
1221:
1217:
1213:
1209:
1205:
1200:
1198:
1194:
1190:
1186:
1185:North America
1182:
1181:United States
1178:
1174:
1170:
1165:
1163:
1159:
1155:
1151:
1147:
1143:
1139:
1135:
1131:
1126:
1124:
1120:
1116:
1115:North America
1112:
1111:
1110:
1104:
1100:
1099:
1094:
1090:
1086:
1082:
1078:
1077:North America
1073:
1071:
1070:
1065:
1062:
1058:
1054:
1050:
1046:
1042:
1041:
1040:
1034:
1030:
1026:
1022:
1018:
1017:User:Maurreen
1010:
1006:
1003:
999:
997:
994:
990:
989:
988:
987:
984:
983:Serendipodous
976:
968:
965:
961:
957:
953:
952:
951:
950:
949:
948:
943:
940:
936:
932:
928:
924:
920:
916:
912:
911:
910:
909:
906:
903:
899:
898:
897:
896:
893:
889:
885:
881:
877:
873:
865:
863:
862:
859:
855:
851:
847:
843:
830:
827:
823:
820:
817:
814:
813:
812:
811:
810:
809:
808:
807:
800:
797:
792:
785:
778:
773:
772:
771:
770:
769:
768:
759:
755:
751:
747:
746:
745:
744:
743:
742:
737:
734:
730:
726:
725:
724:
723:
720:
717:
714:
713:
710:
707:
705:
702:
700:
697:
695:
692:
690:
687:
686:
685:
679:
675:
672:
668:
664:
663:
662:
661:
658:
654:
650:
649:Nuclear power
642:
632:
629:
625:
624:
623:
622:
621:
620:
619:
618:
611:
608:
604:
600:
596:
595:
594:
593:
592:
591:
586:
583:
578:
577:
576:
575:
572:
569:
565:
563:
560:
552:
551:
550:
549:
546:
533:
530:
525:
524:
523:
522:
521:
520:
519:
518:
511:
508:
504:
499:
496:
495:
494:
493:
492:
491:
486:
483:
478:
477:
476:
475:
472:
469:
465:
464:
463:
462:
459:
451:
445:
442:
438:
437:
436:
435:
432:
428:
424:
420:
419:
418:
417:
414:
409:
405:
397:
393:
390:
386:
382:
378:
375:
372:
369:
366:
362:
359:
356:
352:
348:
344:
341:
340:
333:
330:
326:
323:
319:
318:
317:
316:
315:
314:
309:
306:
301:
300:
299:
298:
294:
290:
287:
284:
283:Biotechnology
279:
275:
271:
267:
266:
260:
259:
258:
257:
254:
251:
247:
243:
239:
235:
231:
227:
223:
219:
216:
212:
208:
203:
202:
197:
194:
189:
188:
187:
186:
183:
179:
175:
171:
170:
169:
168:
165:
161:
157:
152:
146:
144:
140:
136:
132:
127:
121:
119:
115:
107:
105:
103:
99:
95:
91:
87:
83:
76:
73:
72:
71:
68:
67:
63:
59:
55:
51:
47:
43:
39:
35:
33:
29:
19:
2754:
2743:
2720:
2701:
2679:Trigonometry
2672:
2633:
2619:
2607:
2595:
2585:
2578:
2566:
2554:
2544:
2537:
2525:
2513:
2501:
2489:
2479:
2472:
2460:
2448:
2436:
2425:Business and
2424:
2417:
2385:
2328:
2323:Sounds good
2293:
2221:
2186:
2159:
2054:
2050:
2048:
2008:
1962:
1960:
1946:
1917:
1903:
1889:
1872:
1847:
1843:
1801:
1764:
1732:
1716:
1710:
1667:Adam Cuerden
1656:
1648:
1639:
1596:
1563:
1505:
1491:
1384:
1342:
1300:
1293:
1292:
1291:tables that
1288:
1220:Project:Core
1201:
1196:
1176:
1166:
1153:
1127:
1107:
1106:
1096:
1095:, there are
1083:is only one
1074:
1068:
1067:
1063:
1060:
1057:WikiProjects
1043:context are
1037:
1036:
1033:"core topic"
1032:
1028:
1014:
980:
977:Solar system
954:In my view,
914:
869:
839:
776:
683:
646:
542:
505:'s changes.
455:
407:
401:
385:oceanography
376:
370:
364:
360:
346:
342:
238:oceanography
236:and listing
229:
150:
147:
131:oceanography
125:
122:
111:
79:
69:
36:
25:
2432:Advertising
2099:probability
1929:84.223.5.81
1923:—Preceding
1892:BigBlueFish
1713:Talk:Galaxy
1626:Total – 134
1516:Electronics
1502:Start class
1268:Portal:Core
1224:Portal:Core
1021:User:Sunray
919:Visual arts
876:Visual arts
850:Visual arts
840:Similar to
758:Visual arts
709:Visual arts
439:OK, done. -
240:in lieu of
234:environment
28:CORE TOPICS
2746:WP 1.0 Bot
2717:Elite Nine
2388:Mr. Absurd
2227:Core topic
2141:Kevin Baas
2121:set theory
2090:Kevin Baas
2070:supplement
2059:Kevin Baas
2051:foundation
1819:Humanities
1581:wavelength
1428:Salix alba
1164:article.
1123:leadership
1105:is only a
1089:U.S. state
1081:Louisville
874:. We have
230:lot better
66:/Archive 8
62:/Archive 7
58:/Archive 6
54:/Archive 5
50:/Archive 4
46:/Archive 3
42:/Archive 2
38:/Archive 1
2675:Australia
2497:Education
2456:Economics
2427:economics
2183:Evolution
2015:Madeleine
2005:Australia
1975:Madeleine
1737:. FYI. –
1605:Earth, 16
1545:Continent
1533:continent
1512:Continent
1295:Community
1257:geography
1212:namespace
1156:when you
1039:Community
1025:Community
960:Sculpture
927:Sculpture
888:Sculpture
754:continent
598:think of.
158:article (
2762:Walkerma
2750:web tool
2727:Voyaging
2669:Miscount
2653:Walkerma
2485:Clothing
2444:Business
2409:Article
2362:Walkerma
2360:Thanks!
2311:Walkerma
2260:Walkerma
2204:Walkerma
2170:Walkerma
2107:Walkerma
2075:Walkerma
2031:Walkerma
1991:Walkerma
1925:unsigned
1831:Walkerma
1789:Walkerma
1767:clothing
1759:Clothing
1749:Walkerma
1717:recently
1698:Walkerma
1632:Maurreen
1589:Walkerma
1570:Maurreen
1537:Walkerma
1520:Maurreen
1494:Maurreen
1476:Walkerma
1467:Maurreen
1424:Calculus
1416:Calculus
1400:Walkerma
1353:Maurreen
1345:Calculus
1326:Maurreen
1276:Maurreen
1208:holistic
1093:Kentucky
1002:Maurreen
993:Maurreen
964:Maurreen
956:Painting
902:Walkerma
892:Maurreen
872:Painting
866:Painting
858:Maurreen
826:Maurreen
796:Walkerma
750:landform
733:Maurreen
716:Maurreen
704:Landform
671:Walkerma
657:Maurreen
628:Maurreen
582:Maurreen
545:Maurreen
507:Maurreen
482:Walkerma
458:Maurreen
329:Maurreen
305:Walkerma
244:or even
193:Walkerma
141:, hello
133:, hello
2704:Nergaal
2545:Leisure
2538:Start/B
2290:Biology
2127:) vs. (
1906:Zginder
1739:Quadell
1691:and/or
1681:Theatre
1230:for an
1206:from a
1169:Portals
1154:#5 spot
1109:country
1091:called
1087:in one
1023:on the
939:Silence
935:Drawing
931:Drawing
884:Drawing
643:Nuclear
503:Silence
441:Silence
413:Silence
389:Silence
322:Silence
269:needed.
250:Silence
164:Silence
156:ecology
2615:Humour
2412:Class
2274:Ms2ger
2245:Ms2ger
2135:) vs.
2055:modern
1967:, see
1827:Nature
1721:Rmky87
1642:Cedars
1529:Humour
1388:Taxman
1377:Taxman
1247:About
1158:google
1140:, the
1029:"main"
777:should
761:level.
729:Matter
689:Health
423:NCurse
274:WP:1.0
222:Fungus
174:NCurse
126:vastly
2632:Gary
2620:Start
2608:Start
2603:House
2562:Sport
2526:Start
2468:Money
2327:Gary
2237:WP1.0
2133:logic
1919:Sense
1914:Sense
1689:WP:VA
1685:Opera
1677:Music
1653:Query
1566:Color
1560:Color
1508:Humor
694:Metal
680:Stubs
667:WP:VA
452:Table
355:color
347:other
246:water
242:ocean
139:craft
135:water
16:<
2766:talk
2731:talk
2708:talk
2687:talk
2657:talk
2641:talk
2634:King
2591:Film
2550:Game
2509:Food
2392:talk
2366:talk
2352:talk
2336:talk
2329:King
2315:talk
2300:talk
2278:talk
2264:talk
2249:talk
2208:talk
2193:talk
2174:talk
2131:vs.
2123:vs.
2111:talk
2105:).
2103:this
2079:talk
2035:talk
1995:talk
1933:talk
1896:talk
1857:main
1804:film
1679:and
1661:and
1549:Nurg
1514:and
1432:talk
1347:and
1339:Math
1266:and
1232:idea
1146:here
1138:here
1085:city
1064:best
1061:only
1051:and
1019:and
958:and
921:and
915:much
886:and
784:main
727:And
427:work
408:only
387:). -
383:and
353:and
351:fire
178:work
2677:or
2574:Toy
2421:15
2125:set
1948:Sex
1943:Sex
1197:and
1142:Law
1113:in
923:Art
880:Art
607:Vir
568:Vir
559:Vir
529:Vir
468:Vir
365:now
151:and
143:Sun
84:–
2768:)
2733:)
2710:)
2689:)
2659:)
2394:)
2368:)
2354:)
2317:)
2302:)
2280:)
2266:)
2251:)
2240:}}
2234:{{
2230:}}
2224:{{
2210:)
2195:)
2176:)
2113:)
2081:)
2037:)
2013:.
1997:)
1971:."
1935:)
1898:)
1860:}}
1854:{{
1568:.
1510:,
1465:?
1434:)
1324:.
1305:CQ
1301:No
1236:CQ
1171:.
1069:if
1047:,
882:,
878:,
844:,
787:}}
781:{{
731:.
120:.
100:–
96:–
92:–
88:–
64:|
60:|
56:|
34:.
2764:(
2729:(
2706:(
2685:(
2655:(
2644:)
2638:(
2596:B
2579:B
2567:B
2555:B
2514:B
2502:B
2490:B
2473:B
2461:B
2449:B
2437:B
2390:(
2364:(
2350:(
2339:)
2333:(
2313:(
2298:(
2276:(
2262:(
2247:(
2243:—
2206:(
2191:(
2172:(
2109:(
2077:(
2033:(
2021:✍
2018:✉
1993:(
1981:✍
1978:✉
1931:(
1894:(
1430:(
411:-
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.