4043:
mentioned; the wikilink back to the main article about the company seems sufficient enough is such articles to bring the reader to a place where they can find out more information about the company if they want. The "promotion" part in my opinion has to do with some perceived fairness or lack thereof by
Knowledge towards some candidates at the expense of others. I'm sure there are criteria established regarding who to mention as a candidate in the primary articles, but there are probably also some candidates left out. Even among those who make the "Knowledge cut", there are probably huge disparities among the campaigns in terms of money and other resources, etc., so maybe there are minor candidates whose campaigns don't qualify to have Knowledge articles written about them or which don't have official websites to speak off. All the individual primary articles are being transcluded by template into
1033:. Knowledge takes on two roles here, as a news source and as an archivist. When providing information for a current event, neutrality should trump succinctness. But once the election is over, there should be a greater concern for eliminating clutter. While you could characterize this as US-focused, I would think it is more accurate to characterize this as an issue associated with dominant two-party systems. When there are unusually large obstacles to getting a third party on the ballot, the fact of achieving ballot status is significant and deserves consideration. By the same reasoning, California's 2002 Gubernatorial recall election would not deserve the same treatment, because there were few restrictions on gaining ballot access. I don't know if it matters for this vote, but I see a different situation for the second question (see below)
1145:. Typically, this editing activity is heavily weighted towards speculation. This includes polling and lengthy lists of speculative candidates, in many cases "sourced" solely to a politician's offhand remark to a reporter or publicity-seeking press release with no independent, third-party evidence of candidacy or prospective candidacy. There's also certain editors who actively game these articles so that only candidates who are raising or spending money or other "name" politicians are mentioned, instead of accurately reflecting the breadth of persons campaigning for the office. I have more or less ceased contributing to such articles for these reasons. Having external links which further promote certain individuals adds insult to injury, but is only peripheral to the root problem with this content.
4048:
all such articles on
Knowledge, then that's even more possible exceptions to consider. I think there might be a feeling that because these are Knowledge articles about elections/primaries that Knowledge's kinda has an unwritten obligation to trying to make it as easy as possible for reader's to find out as much as they can about the candidates involved in the races. I think that because it's a US presidential election that these feelings might even be stronger. however, I'm not sure if that should be the goal of the an article such as these, and they shouldn't really be seen as any different from other similar Knowledge articles about non-election related subjects. I think care has to be taken to really look at the encyclopedic value of adding these links to the tables, and not just doing so because
1012:
accept their highest results, then we have to ask which polls are considered reliable, and which aren't, since there are a lot of low-quality polls that get produced, and many outliers over the course of an election. If by the method we choose, a candidate is at the cusp of 5%, then it's possible that week-to-week their numbers will shift from above the threshold to below the threshold. Also, for some races polls treat minor candidates differently than major candidates, with two-tiered questions, in order to get better head-to-head results. Additionally, coverage of a candidate in reliable sources may be disproportionate to their rating in polls. All of these problems make it difficult to rely on polling for a hard rule to determine when to include candidates in the infobox.
1184:. If you go to the election article, you will see that not one bit of this is acknowledged, despite being obviously notable. Instead, the article contains two sentences of perfunctory prose and a mess of results all prettied up in a bunch of tables. Even in the case of current elections, once they conclude, there's a tendency to leave all the speculation in place and add only results, instead of adding prose related to events and occurrences during the campaign season. The encyclopedia is not being improved by editors who remove cleanup tags under the premise that readers don't need to know that content like this is problematic when it looks pretty enough, and that the only thing readers really need be concerned about is the mere existence or non-existence of citations.
994:, though my view is that (1) if a third party received at least 5% in the previous election, then it should be included within the infobox, and (2) if a candidate is polling at least 5%, then they should be included within the infobox, and (3) a case-by-case determination of exceptions where third-party or independent performance might be significant or there exists significant press coverage (in the absence of a previously contested election to compare to or public polling) – a type of standard that would have been appropriate in, say, AK-Sen 2016 or gubernatorial races in Maine. I don't view the exclusion of candidates from the infobox as a NPOV violation – it's a simple standard to prevent excessive listing of minor candidates, especially when there are many who file.
3243:. I have interpreted the category to include legislative elections where one party wins the election (by winning the most number of seats) but another party wins the most number of total popular votes. AmYisroelChai has however taken a more narrow interpretation that the category should only include elections where one candidate wins the number of popular votes but loses the election because the method of determining the winner is different (e.g. electoral college for US president). As a result AmYisroelChai has removed numerous US legislative elections, federal and state, from this category. Oddly they have not removed non-US legislative election. What are your views?--
2842:. It may be obvious that a candidate has won an election much before it has been certified by election authorities, and concesion alone is not enough (it is not that rare in tight races for candidates to concede, then withdraw their concesions until a recount is triggered). On the number of sources, I think that would depend on the expected margin of victory. A candidate winning 60-40 or better is unlikely to require a lot of RS to have their victory confirmed, but for a 50.1-49.9 race I would await until RS are unanimous or near unanimous (possibly, in such very tight races we should wait until a combination of Options 1 and 3 before calling an election for someone).
1776:
very few editors are doing the real work to keep the encyclopedia neutral and factual. Your response appears to have ignored my last point, however. If this sort of thing is happening with this article, and if we're giving so much weight to current elections at the expense of working on content where facts and sources are pretty much finalized, it's a safe bet that this isn't the only case of people coming to
Knowledge and trying to influence an election. Try doing some searches and see how high Knowledge pages rank in various search engines. It should be obvious that those folks figured that out long before they came here.
4654:
the
Internet. We perhaps cover in more detail than many news agencies the full local election results for the major cities outside London, and then many of the local councils beneath Met Borough status. By some measure, there will be borderline cases of notability. What I have always tried to argue is that the results of a democratic election should be somewhat protected or shielded from notability judgements. I can't argue that, say, Wyre Borough Council is less "important" than Liverpool City Council. However I believe that both having their local election results on Knowledge is valid.
679:
numerous seats up for grabs. In cases of single-candidate elections, I would say that all candidates should be included in the infobox and not doing so would be an NPOV violation (Knowledge could be deemed to be reinforcing the idea that there are only a limited number of candidates). If the number of candidates exceeds the capacity of the infobox (currently 9), then the infobox should be left empty and the list of candidates set out somewhere else in the article. In cases of legislative elections for numerous seats, all parties currently holding seats should be included in the infobox.
1525:, for instance, one of the polls showed the Republican candidate Kevin Stitt up 46.6% to Democratic candidate Drew Edmondson's 44.2%. This results in a margin of 2.4% (which is closer to 2% than 3%), but if the numbers are rounded to 47% and 44%, it makes it seem like the margin is actually 3%, which is larger than it actually is in the poll. The same general issue occurred with previous polls as well. After someone reverted me under the premise that "Knowledge rounds polls," I tried to find information in project pages about it but came up empty.
1741:". Davidson is not on the ballot, and if Walker is claiming to be a candidate no longer, that further diminishes any claim that she's a candidate too, as Alaska law is clear that the two are a ticket and a vote cast for one is considered a vote cast for the other. Perhaps more importantly than anything else, if editors are playing fast and loose with the facts in the case of this one article, then how many other times has this sort of thing occurred across the encyclopedia over the years and hasn't been nipped in the bud?
4481:; of course some may deserve more context, but definitely not automatically expect or even allow individual articles. This suggestion is extremely broad and would include elections to positions we don't even have articles on, like county sheriffs and auditors. How do you define "enough coverage"? The default should be general articles, but it varies widely how much content would fit appropriately there (like how many races are covered), what is due weight, impact and competitiveness, and what users want to even work on.
4462:
voted on across a whole nation or top-level province, or any referendum relating to matters of constitutional or international law should be inherently notable, pending independent, reliable coverage, even if not out of the ordinary. I think that if there is enough coverage for an individual article, it should be made, while being summarized in a general article about a class of elections or referendums, which would also cover elections or referendums in the class that do not have enough coverage for their own article.
1720:
the difference between a news site and an information resource. In the case of elections, this is especially pertinent because of NPOV issues, which is something I've attempted to address before on this very page without certainly that I've received a satisfactory answer. In what little time I've had for this sort of thing lately, I've noticed lots of activity come across my watchlist related to the "October surprise" revealed this week related to this election, namely the sudden resignation of
1737:
Combine that with the fact that the election is still over two weeks away, are we unduly influencing the outcome of the election with that sort of thing? It's perfectly appropriate to include such details in prose, but the events of the past week are beginning to overwhelm the article's prose just a little bit IMO. Is giving such prominence to that via the infobox an attempt to assert the notion that people don't actually read articles? Also, Walker's running mate is listed as "Byron
Mallott/
3258:
control of the senate neither does winning more seats, if you look at the 2018 senate election the democrats received more popular votes and they also won more seats, so even if you would want legislative elections to be in this category it would make no sense to add this election to it. As for non US elections I would change those too I started with US elections because that's where I noticed it added but now I will wait to change those until after it is decided here.
2393:"Open election" isn't a term I'm familiar with. For non-blanket primaries, an "open seat" occurs any time the incumbent isn't on the general election ballot and isn't writing a major write-in campaign (e.g. the 2010 Alaska Senate election). For blanket primaries, it's a little trickier. I would say that an open seat occurs any time the incumbent isn't on the ballot for the round of the election held in November, regardless of what round that is.
31:
1141:. That policy also contains statements such as "Knowledge is not a newspaper" and "Knowledge is not an indiscriminate collection of information". The community has shown its true regard for such policy by how much time is spent on editing articles related to current election cycles where the actual election hasn't yet occurred, merely because there's a bunch of content floating across the web today which falls under
4022:): I wikilinked to the "Political campaign" article just to avoid picking a specific campaign to link to in my example. There are links to the campaign's official websites found in each campaign's Knowledge article so it's not like the embedded external links is providing the reader with any information they can't find in the article about the campaign; moreover, embedded links in general do have potential
309:
417:
3336:, listed in this category: the PSC won the most popular votes but not the most seats, yet they went on to form the next government anyway, so here there is an instance where, depending on the concept of "election winner" you seek to use, the election could be either under this category or not. All in all, the term is so broad and generic that the category is more confusing than helpful.
4229:, you will see that there is already a table there where 18 candidates are prominently featured, 4 candidates are merely listed below the table as being notable persons with non-notable candidacies, and the other 201 declared Democratic presidential candidates are not mentioned at all. Whether there are links to the candidates' websites is a completely separate issue from that. --
1051:
infobox just because they are on the ballot. Neutrality is not representing them all equally, it is recognizing the facts that many races only have two serious candidates and reflecting the reality of the election and campaign. Choosing to put no one in the infobox would violate neutrality as it refuses to follow RS coverage of who is actually contesting the election.
4685:. I know that the FACs related to this WikiProject are also on the project page, but the candidacy is more than a month old and has only been looked at by 2 general reviewers, a source reviewer, and an image reviewer. I was just wondering if anyone else would like to chime in as to whether it meets the FACR, any feedback would be much appreciated. Thanks! –
1336:
being about. This has occurred constantly over the years, regardless of whether comparable sources or even any sources exist to verify that this same principle can be applied on the state level. From what I've seen, redistricting of the U.S. House typically does not involve wholesale shifts in geography, apportionment or numbering schemes. In
192:
2780:, please note that only 3 organizations officially call races in the U.S. at the moment, of which 2 are notable – AP was the sole organization which made race calls until the 2016 cycle, with Edison Research (with CNN and others) and Decision Desk HQ making race calls as well. Defer to the AP where possible, as they have traditionally been
2763:'s criteria for "called by reliable sources." However, there is also a need to recognize that calls are sometimes retracted (like CA-21 this cycle) as absentee/late ballots are counted or, in rare cased, may be denied certification (NC-9) at which point consideration should be given to moving them back into the undecided column.
797:, there were 135 ballot-qualified candidates. To pretend all of these candidates have a chance of winning is not something any reliable encyclopedia should do A more rational explanation would be to always include both major parties, and also include any parties or candidates that are polling above 5% in at least one poll
210:, and I'm seeking to add mention of his filing date, policy priorities, and notable endorsements. I'm looking for editors who have experience in editing details about campaigns to review what I've proposed and offer feedback. I invite WikiProject Elections and Referendums members to review the proposed text
4653:
This is an important debate and I hope we can find a way through the many arguments about notability and recording electoral results for future reference. I know - many of us do here - that the local election coverage on
Knowledge for the United Kingdom is perhaps the broadest and deepest anywhere on
4047:
which means that whatever is decided in this RfC needs to be not only in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines, but also consistent across all articles. I'm assuming that the scope of this RfC is only intended to cover articles related to the 2020 US election, but if it's intended to cover
2975:
Hi all. I've spend most of the last few weeks working on cleaning up after the mass moves of election articles, particularly focussing on fixing links in templates and moving categories. I've done all of the templates I can find, but if anyone's aware of any other sets that need fixing, please let me
2013:
The RfC has been closed in favour of the change again. The bot run will hopefully now progress, although as above, the lists I've run off don't cover anything created since 1 October, and possibly some of the articles from mid-late
September. Once the bot run is complete, there will be a few articles
1765:
I don't see any issues with the article as it currently stands, which no longer has
Davidson in the infobox, but she should be mentioned somewhere. It could certainly use more prose in general though, but you're quite overestimating Knowledge's relevance to voters if you think this is influencing the
1736:
to boot. Specifically though, because I have to run out the door soon, just a few questions: the infobox of the election article contains the legend "(campaign suspended)" underneath Walker's name. The fact of the matter is that Walker is still on the ballot and votes cast for him will still count.
1232:
A related concern is what to do with these after redistricting. My recommendation is to leave them alone, rather than redirecting them. That way the
Knowledge articles and the corresponding Wikidata items can serve as targets for wikilinks when writing about politicians who served in these districts.
546:
for a formal closure. This RFC had relatively low participation, and was hindered by its US-specific nature not being clarified until midway through. The following, not-mutually-exclusive, arguments all have a basis in policy: not listing all candidates who are on the ballot in the infobox is an NPOV
4461:
I think that my answer would be that any election for NPOL positions, positions elected by more than 100,000 people, positions elected across a whole province/state, or positions elected across a district to a national or supranational legislature or referendums voted on by more than 100,000 people,
2411:
In other words, an open seat is when the incumbent isn't on the ballot in the final round of the race? What if the final round only has one candidate (not the incumbent), as in MA-7 this year? Is it still an open seat or should that be an exception? I'm driving specifically at whether MA-7 should be
1775:
Maybe because there's been an entire pattern of using that article and related content to influence the election on pretty much a daily basis since the Walker/Mallott ticket fell apart. Looks like there have been sincere attempts to stop it, but once again, our concept of "collaboration" means that
1561:
I personally try to follow the convention by country as consistently as possible/existing practice on those countries' articles... so for France, Austria, and
Germany, numbers as they're reported (with or without 0.5%); for the Netherlands, Iceland, and Malta, to 1 decimal point as reported; for the
1050:
Only if the third-party candidate is consistently polling more than 5% or is otherwise considered a major candidate affecting the state of the race in the media (such as news coverage of the campaign and participation in debates). There is no reason to have a three or a dozen or so candidates in the
892:
clarify whether this discussion is specifically for US elections or more broadly? I think some consistency between countries is good, but I also appreciate that political and electoral systems vary and so may need to be represented differently. (2) On the broader question, we need to be aware of the
4618:
I think gubernatorial elections still merit their own article – and also that state and federal elections shouldn't be included in the same article – but I'd agree with the general view that state elections can largely be consolidated into a smaller number of articles (ideally, in my view – federal
4437:
What outline of topics would you suggest we discuss, and what are the recent AFDs that may be of note? I would think that national and federal state level general elections generally have enough sources to notable, but local and city level elections are not, except for large cities which have their
3488:
I was looking at this article, trying to see when the state last voted Republican. I was really surprised to find that it doesn't say. Because I'm not very familiar with American politics (particularly so in the past), it's really hard to tell which party has won the state. I presume this table has
1719:
I understand perfectly that many Wikipedians are incapable of doing anything on here other than mindlessly parroting whatever the media's pushing today, using such "reliable sources" as a basis to justify whatever POV they're trying to push, and incapable of understanding how and when this breaches
758:
I'd argue it's better to have them ordered by past result. It gives some standing on what the parties are defending. That's an obvious benefit for parliamentary/legislative elections, where the pre-election infobox explains how many seats the parties have prior to the election. For single candidate
4442:
covers several statewide elections which do not need to be covered in their own articles unless there is enough coverage and content for each one. Individual elections for members of a legislature or council should generally be covered in a single article covering all of those held simultaneously,
4042:
issues as well. For example, a external link to a company's official website seems perfectly OK in the external links section of an Knowledge article about said politician, but such a link wouldn't be as necessarily or helpful in other articles where the company is just one of many companies being
3257:
A legislature is not a winner of an election to win the popular vote each individual is, so there can't be a popular vote winner this is especially true in US senate election where only 1/3 of all seats are up for election, so not only does winning more popular votes not mean anything for overall
1779:
Since my watchlist today has been flooded with editors regurgitating headlines and not caring the least about the bigger picture, I had a related concern. Was a consensus ever established on the whole five percent thing with infobox inclusion? As it stands right now, Walker/Mallott only received
1314:
has all of the congressmen who served under this district, wherever the district is based from (From Brooklyn to Manhattan to the Bronx). This is not exactly the same with UK constituencies (districts) where every "City of Westminster" constituency is primarily centered there, unlike US ones where
844:
about this if the candidacy is "notable". Ballot qualification will always result in RSs noting ballot qualification, so that test will be met for everyone who makes the ballot, presumably. After that, people have to form opinions before they answer polls. Some of those people read Knowledge to
2802:
You're right about the election callers, but it's worth noting that 538 (and possibly other outlets) for weeks urged the AP to retract its call of David Valadao's victory, and Valadao eventually lost. My point being that, while the AP should be our outlet of choice, it might be worth taking other
722:
I agree that the infobox should include all parties that are standing candidates unless the limit of 9 is hit, in which case leave it empty. Order the parties based on the order they finished in previously. Some exceptions can be made, for example if the district was previously uncontested or not
597:
regarding the 5% threshold for inclusion in Election infoboxes. (Follow the link provided to find the discussion in the archives). That RFC did not ask two important questions regarding third parties. I will present them in separate RFCs. They are intended to supplement, not change, the prior
3397:
regarding the placement of tables with vote totals for the two major U.S. parties in presidential and gubernatorial elections that have been recently added to the Politics section (or Law and government section) in most of the fifty U.S. state articles. The commenters are suggesting moving these
2690:
I don't think so, because the previous RfC was phrased as a Yes/No on Question 3, and did not discuss/consider 1 and 2 as options. Recent edit warring on the 2018 US election articles suggests this debate may need to be rehashed if only to be re-confirmed so that the consensus is known. Finally,
1335:
until it became necessary to downsize. I seem to recall that they asserted the point Howard the Duck is making. The real problem is that many folks appear content to edit the encyclopedia as if this automatically applies to state legislative districts, which is what this discussion started out
1277:
If an article mentions, or contains a link to "Rutland-3", the reader is not put on alert to when that link was added. If the link is older than the latest redistricting, it's likely the link is wrong. At least in Vermont, it isn't a matter of a few streets around the edges changing; the list of
4493:
In line with Reywas' comments above, perhaps a better route to go down is to try and minimise the number of articles we have covering sub-national elections – I think we have far too many articles on individual state/local elections that could be merged into a single article. For example, is it
1011:
Unlike results, polling is uncertain and highly variable over time. If some polls give a candidate less than 5%, and some give them more, how do try to determine an average? That is complex calculation that relies on separating polls by their quality and how recently they were taken. If we just
908:
and fairly listing all candidates, then I would suggest that is the function of the article contents, not the infobox. We need more focus on article prose for election articles and less discussion of infoboxes! There may be times when we should go for a minimal infobox or no infobox and let the
678:
However, I would say this RfC has a distinct American POV as it appears to assume there are only two main candidates/parties to start with. It's also unclear whether this is referring to single-position elections (e.g. a presidency or single seat in a legislature) or legislative elections with
3274:
I don't think it necessarily makes sense in a body that is not elected at once such as the US Senate because winning is based on the three most recent elections rather than just one, but a state legislative body that is fully elected simultaneously would qualify. I notice that several parties
2357:
a general election)? For example, if an incumbent runs and loses in a primary, or withdraws after a primary, and there is no incumbent in the general election, is that an "open" election or an "open" seat?) What if the final round has no opponent (as in the case of MA-7 in the recent US House
866:
As admitted above, there is a strong US bias in this question. In most democracies "third party candidates who make the ballot" is a meaningless concept. Either they're nominated candidates and thus on the ballot paper or they're not candidates at all - there's none of this "standing but not
2438:, but a Democratic hold, not a pickup. Unless I'm misunderstanding your question, I think you're talking about two related, but different things. The seat is open because there's no incumbent on the ballot, but the pickup or loss goes to the change in control from one election to the next.
897:): it shouldn't be trying to be a complete description. Election articles already end up with overly large infoboxes, which is against editing guidelines. If listing lots of candidates or parties (as is certainly sometimes appropriate), we should be looking at more compact infobox designs (
1401:
The current setup though is that wherever the district is centered at, that's the focus of the article, whether or not that the district has been there since it started. This would mean that prior history of district if it was centered elsewhere is at best, just glossed over. For example,
2091:
I'm surprised it was passed (I read the discussion and it didn't look at all like a consensus), but I will comply with your request. Please keep me (and others) in the loop as the bot progresses. I've been working on (and creating) many articles on early elections to the U.S. House of
1960:
Just a heads up that this change was passed and a bot run to move all the articles (35,226) is imminent. I believe I may have missed articles created between mid-September and 1 October when I was creating the list of moves, so worth keeping an eye out if anyone created any during this
2695:
For example, right now, the AP has not called CA-21, but LATimes and Wash. Examiner have. Should our articles say in Knowledge's voice that Cox has won this race? What should we put in the infobox? Editors on the relevant articles disagree, and community input is requested. Thank you!
917:
if RS say that X and Y are the main candidates in an election and give less attention to candidates W and Z. Admittedly, sometimes this is unclear so the rule-of-thumb used on UK election articles works well (list candidates based on results at previous election and whoever got :
169:. In this instance just showing "wins" is the most accurate. In multi-member wards, the tendency here is to use the "average" method. So against Labour's 'top' candidate work out the percentage share of all of Labour's candidates, and do that for all the others. Hope this helps.
2162:), still abiding to the old convention as the RfC was still open. Since I did this way after 1 October, I would guess these would require a manual move. I guess I can keep a watch on Spanish-related election articles to check whether any relevant issue or clean up need arises.
4598:... I don't know how that gets worked into a "notability guideline" for elections, but it should be pointed out that elections that don't merit their own articles should instead be handled as a 'section' in a "bundled" article that covers several elections together at once. --
3866:
This is something I would strongly support. I attempted to initiate a dialogue on this issue about a year ago with little luck. As someone who's made hundreds of US election result maps, I believe legend/map color code standardization is the right direction moving forward.
547:
violation; listing them all is an NPOV violation, as reliable sources treat different candidates differently; listing all candidates on the ballot is impractical, because of length issues; and meeting a 5% threshold in pre-election polling is a reasonable standard to meet.
3984:
In articles about elections, where data about candidates is shown in tabular form, should a link to each candidate's official campaign website be allowed in the table? An example of such a table (which formerly had such links, but they have been removed) can be found at
3332:. It is not entirely clear what the concept of "election winner" is intended to mean; does it refer to the party/candidate receiving the most seats regardless of the popular vote, or to the party/candidate who goes on to form the new government? As an example, take the
3780:, while the other, which I will call 'dark', is used for the gubernatorial result map in that same article. Now by itself this is slightly unaesthetic, but it becomes a true problem if a single legend is used for several maps that follow different color schemes, as in
203:, I've submitted a request to update his article with information about his 2018 campaign for the Democratic nomination for Maryland's 6th district. Editors here might be familiar with Trone as he set a record in 2016 for the most expensive self-funded House campaign.
2900:
Result: An article should state that a candidate has won an election when all major, reliable sources agree that the election is over (it is "called"), or when the second place candidate concedes and there is no compelling reason to believe the election is not over
4422:, and others claiming something in between. I think that this would be best resolved by adopting a specific notability guideline. I plan to collect comments and ideas here for no less than seven days, after which I will draft and propose a guideline in an RFC.
2579:
Some editors expressed support for requiring that more than one source call the election. There is no consensus owing to the lack of discussion by a number of the RfC participants on this, so there is no prejudice against opening a new RfC to discuss this
1187:
Anyway, having said all that, the lack of regard given to your statement "And ultimately, this is a consensus-based project, not a statute-driven one" shows what some people really think about another statement found in WP:NOT, namely "Knowledge is not a
4476:
I am vehemently against the idea of "inherently notable". There's certainly no reason to set a 100,000 person (or any size) threshold. Districts to the California and Texas Senates are even bigger than congressional districts but we nicely cover them in
4585:
What it suggests is that articles on some of those individual elections are inappropriate, as Number 57 suggests, and would better be handled "bundled together" into a single article on, say, Minnesota's 2018 elections for sub-governor – something like
4570:
is the almost complete lack of prose. While I am thankful to editors for adding all those tables of data, too many election articles are replete with infoboxes, lists, tables and graphics, but don't actually function as encyclopaedia prose articles.
1340:, where I live, the latter two were typical in each decennial redistricting until the 1998 constitutional amendments fixed in place 40 House districts and 20 Senate districts, each with a single member. As for the former, I am registered to vote in
2520:
I would call MA-7 an open seat, but the way the article is currently organized is also perfectly reasonable. Just as long as Pressley is in no way implied to be the incumbent, this seems to be more a matter of presentation than of factual accuracy.
1063:
How can you say one party is more serious than the other? This is kind of judgmental in terms of how much media attention someone gets or financial backing. How could one construe eligibility on the basis of conventional irrational past behaviour?
875:
had twelve successfully nominated candidates. It's also incredibly easy to register as a party here - all you need is a single friend to meet the minimum number of different people holding key posts, a quick constitution and a registration fee.
128:
These factors leave me stumped as to how (if at all) to record gains and losses, percentages and majorities. I'm hoping editors here have experience of this happening elsewhere. I suggest that the page should be clear, correct and consistent.
1360:
lost his bid for another term following redistricting, it was the first time in the state's history that no members of the legislature came from Ketchikan or vicinity. We've had editors try and claim that Johansen was succeeded in office by
2738:, for the most part. My standard would be when either a)all major, reliable sources (e.g. AP, NYTimes, 538, Cook Political Report, LATimes, etc.) agree that the election is over, or b)when the second place candidate concedes and there is no
1546:
I personally put the polls as is. If the source rounds it to the nearest whole number, tenths or hundredths, I put that. If it's beyond hundredths, which I haven't seen, that's when I'll consider rounding. AFAIK there's no rule about this.
2116:
As redirects won't be converted by the bot, it's probably better to start any articles you were going to work on at the new titles and then change the redirect, otherwise there'll have to be some extra cleaning up done at some point.
4682:
551:, the question asked in the RFC is a very specific one: in the context of the US, with two dominant parties, can third-party candidates be included in the infobox before an election? This question makes reference neither to whether
4728:. This means the two infoboxes can be combined into one for general election articles, allowing us to have the presidential candidates at the top and the parties contesting the legislative election at the bottom. See an example at
913:, my conclusion from that is that it does not have to list every candidate (although the article proper will) and it is acceptable for the infobox to reflect reliable sources in focusing on the main candidates. We do not violate
1378:. If that wasn't obvious enough, the two places have long been separate and distinct constituencies. For example, fishing politics revolve around commercial fishing in Ketchikan and sport or subsistence fishing in these parts.
3119:
3006:
792:
This would result in election inboxes with a half dozen or more candidates. Aside from being useless information, this would also make reading the article on mobile more difficult. In extreme cases this could be worse - in
4438:
own "Mayor of" articles/lists. An example would be that if the politicians are in positions that pass NPOL, their elections may worth including. However this would not mean each election needs its own article. For example
1365:
merely because they represented a district with the same number (and claiming that this sort of thing is "useful", but that's a whole other matter). I've previously pointed out that this is ludicrous. Isaacson lives in
3138:
Thanks! Unfortunately I think you may have only done the House of Representatives ones; the Senate redirects are still at their original titles. If there's any chance you could do those too, that would be great! Cheers,
510:, I need neutral editors who are not coming from Pakistan to maintain NPOV as if we left this content to the mercy of editors only coming from Pakistan then this content will either be completely censored or coatracked.
3288:
I'd delete the category and start again, to be frank. You've got an overly broad term that's always going to produce confusion. If you want a category, it needs a name that more clearly defines what it should be about.
3358:
This category itself has no value. Perhaps a List Article could instead be generated which could have its terms fully explained to the reader? Categorization ought not be used for a political or even debatable goal.
2919:. If we need to be more precise, I would say when at least two independent RS call the election. This avoids short-term errors in the rush to scoop (for sources) and the rush to update the article (for Wikipedians). —
2859:
as per above. The text can be clear when there are certified results versus when an election has been "called". We should be aware that "called" is a term specific to US elections. It's not a term that's used in,
2092:
Representatives, but will pause in creating any more. Where there are current redirects, however, I may continue replacing them with stubs or substantial articles since they've already been created. Is that OK,
1293:
3038:
867:
appearing on the ballot paper" and often the concept of party is formally alien to the process. In many countries it's extremely easy to get on the ballot paper - to take the highest hurdle here in the UK for
839:
Oppose this approach because we could be contributing to low poll numbers by not treating all ballot-qualified candidates the same. That's a violation of our neutrality policy. We agree we need to at least
4417:
Reviewing past deletion and talk page discussions, there seems to be conflict over when elections are notable with some claiming that they are "inherently notable", others claiming that the must fulfill
2662:
594:
97:
89:
84:
72:
67:
59:
1172:
was released at the time (and reissued decades later), the centerpiece of which was a track featuring excerpts from a campaign press conference with musical backing by such highly notable musicians as
3489:
been created in sympathy with similar tables for all of the US states, so I'm very reluctant to tweak it myself, and even more so because I find wikimarkup in tables really frustratingly difficult.
1986:
1935:
1521:
Is there any reason that polling numbers tend to be rounded, even when a digit after the decimal is given? I would think that adding imprecision that wasn't originally there would be a bad thing. On
951:
RE 1, yes it is a US focused question. I have updated the preesntation of the question at the top of this post. Thanks to you and others who called me out on my unconscious US centrism in this RFC.
2864:, UK elections, where the situation doesn't arise (all ballots are counted on the night and the first numbers you get are the certified results). Readers from outside the US may need explanation.
3303:
I'd support this approach. It might be appropriate as a list where different angles on the "not won by the popular vote winner" can be separated, but as a category I don't think it really works.
1118:. We have some questions of fact (how common is it to add links to candidates to some kinds of election-related articles?) and some questions of judgment (should we?). All views are welcome.
4003:
1252:
article covering all the iterations of the district. Constituencies are regularly redrawn in the UK, but we don't have separate articles on them each time the boundaries change – for example,
114:. All the results are in but this UK local election has several unusual factors that make it difficult to complete the election boxes, both for individual wards and for the overall results.
4034:.The arguments in favor of the links seem to mainly be that they provide more convenience, but I'm not sure if this is the case or if it's enough of a case for an exception to made made to
147:
I suggest you record them as party WIN, rather than GAIN. That's the most objective way to go about it without doing lots of notional seat calculations and straying into original research.
723:
contested by a major party. In that case, try to find another recent election that can give some idea on the relative prominence of the parties. Otherwise, just order them alphabetically.
431:
1218:
3370:
3030:
1496:) include Bretibart/Gravis polls, which are commissioned by Breitbart and conducted by Gravis Marketing. Although Gravis seems to be a reliable and reputable polling organization,
801:
who received at least 5% of the vote in the last election. Getting 5% in a poll is a very, very low threshold to meet and any candidate that is notable should be able to do this.
2457:
385:
regarding how to order the candidates for 2018 election based on previous party performance or previous individual candidate performance in case of changing party affiliation.
3594:
before any further moves are made. With respect to the party affiliations, color coding seems like a fine solution, but this too should be applied uniformly across the series.
47:
17:
2456:
Oops, I meant to say "an open seat held." Struck out and fixed. One of the reasons I raise this RfC is to answer the question whether MA-7 (and other districts) should be on
477:
1310:
The individual U.S. House of Representatives districts' articles are based in the number, even if there had been multiple redistrictings through the centuries. For example,
1580:, as most pollsters and pundits will report polls through a press release to the nearest whole percent. While the crosstabs of the poll, will show a more exact percentage.
3482:
2547:
1651:
2574:
option 3: an article should state that a candidate has won an election when the election is called by reliable sources (All sources? Most sources? A particular source?)
4555:
4499:
3189:
3034:
507:
4010:-based reasons not to allow this type of thing. The table in question had bascially a wikilink to a Knowledge article about a campaign and an embedded external link (
1493:
1693:
1466:
602:
question... I don't know anything about elections elsewhere, maybe this is relevant to some, maybe not. Apologies for not making that explicit when I first posted.
3684:
On the subject of consistency, it'd be marvellous if all the articles could reflect California's shiny new colour scheme to help all the non-Americans out there. --
3652:
2232:
1226:
1985:
Following some post-RfC objections, the RfC has been reopened for further discussions, including using a bot to move the articles if it is closed in favour again:
2069:(also just to emphasise – please don't move any articles created pre-October 2018 until the bot run has been done, otherwise it could interfere with it). Cheers,
3549:. I don't know if there'll be opposition because of 4 dozen other articles that are formatted differently, but for this Limey the new format is hugely better. --
4490:
I think 'inherently notable' is applicable for national elections and referendums. However, below that it would be extremely difficult to set a kind of cut-off.
2540:
2263:
The bot has just been approved, so the run is likely to happen soon. You've probably seen that people started moving certain articles in the meantime. Cheers,
1656:
1643:
4777:
now has a main heading for "general election" and sub-headings for the presidential and legisaltive election. It also allows slightly unusual elections like
4306:
on whether a line should be added to results tables noting the electoral threshold. If passed in favour, it may mean this spreads to other articles. Pinging
4226:
4222:
4206:
No links in tables. Links to websites would benefit incumbents over primary opponents who were not "notable," providing free advertising and violating NPOV.
3986:
3590:
I have reverted the page move, as there are 51 of these articles, so they should be moved uniformly, or not at all. I think this should be discussed through
3276:
3776:
There appear to be two color schemes in use for U.S. election result maps. One, which I will call 'light', is used for the Senate and House result maps in
2484:
1341:
1148:
Contrast all this with the vast number of articles on past elections where facts are known and sources are known, yet the articles are nothing more than a
4658:
makes a good point, and a difficult one to work around with regards to UK local election articles: how many of them lack prose. Something to think about.
1621:
I'm not seeing universal agreement on this issue, nor does there seem to be any Knowledge policy requiring rounding when the source has higher precision.
4698:
4559:
4503:
1846:, seems like a rather unencyclopaedic thing for an article to have. Can someone please confirm my hunch that this information should be deleted? Thanks!
1458:
2416:
held by the Democrats. (Also, sorry I think I was confusing in my phrasing, I meant "open election" as just another term for "open seat." I struck it.)
1803:
Yes, I believe the 5% rules applies and Walker should no longer be in the infobox. Why don't you tag the other editors to discuss it on that talk page?
1403:
3695:
3560:
3533:
3503:
1225:
used to suggest the date range in the example be written 2012—22, but now it recommends 2012—2022. Do we want to echo this new recommendation on the
118:
There have been boundary changes and a reorganisation, with the number of wards rising from 40 to 69 but the number of seats falling from 120 to 101.
4563:
4507:
4044:
3393:
794:
657:
because it gives the appearance we're taking the sides of the major party players and shuttling third party players off into foolish obscurity with
4595:
4175:. We should maintain links to campaign websites in external link sections of appropriate articles, but not have them in a table in the main text.
1311:
1161:
341:
228:
4619:
for 1) Senate and 2) all House districts within a state, as well as state for 1) gubernatorial, 2) row offices and all statewide elections (like
909:
article content speak for itself. Many articles for forthcoming elections are quite short and an infobox is unnecessary. (4) As the infobox is a
4303:
1489:
111:
3840:
Yes, that's what both schemes do; it's just a matter of deciding which shades of that color to use in order to distinguish seats that a party
2803:
reliable sources (including sources that don't "officially" call races) into account, especially in the weeks immediately after the election.
4722:
4591:
4567:
4551:
4511:
4495:
4478:
4387:
3753:
1677:
1522:
901:
3807:
It might be useful to standardize on a single color scheme, so that a single caption/legend could be used on all U.S. election result maps.
2183:
Yes, if done after 1 October it won't be listed in the bot run. One thing we'll need to sort out after the moves is links on templates like
4694:
4158:
3884:
I discovered a neat trick for dealing with images used in infoboxes that are too wide and lead to distortion (e.g. two of the three images
3240:
3229:
1908:
1253:
1115:
636:
the election. I have seen some commenters argue for extending the 5% threshold to polling data, while others assert it is a violation of
4773:
Another slight tweak means that the infobox can be embedded in itself, allowing the infobox to have multiple headers. So the infobox of
4386:
Yes, as long as the section heading is "Preliminary results" and the table includes a note of what percentage the count is at. See e.g.
3279:
seems quite silly to include because only a dozen states even had primaries and national convention delegates did not follow from that.
2881:
Let's not rehash lukewarm argument. This is by far the most appropriate policy for an encyclopedia. Remember, we are not a news ticker.
1712:
1766:
outcome. Is there a reason you're whining about this here instead of discussing it on that article's talk page with the other editors?
2159:
1927:
1169:
928:
759:
elections (i.e. presidential, by-elections, etc.) this is a little less important, but you might as well keep the policy consistent.
351:
4151:
With that logic there shouldn't be any links on Knowledge at all… If you really want to find their website, go to a search engine.
3725:
2742:
reason to believe that the election is not over yet. To be clear, I'm saying that the election is over when either standard is met.
1931:
1725:
598:
result. The questions arose at the talk page for the 2018 Special election for PA congressional district 18. UPDATE - This is a
4797:
4767:
4752:
4667:
4636:
4613:
4580:
4534:
4485:
4471:
4447:
4431:
4406:
4380:
4361:
4334:
4278:
4259:
4236:
4215:
4200:
4184:
4166:
4146:
4134:
4109:
4065:
3996:
3933:
3918:
3857:
3831:
3816:
3766:
3738:
3699:
3679:
3670:
3646:
3622:
3609:
3585:
3564:
3537:
3517:
3507:
3475:
3449:
3419:
3381:
3363:
3345:
3319:
3298:
3283:
3267:
3251:
3208:
3176:
3155:
3126:
3102:
3077:
3061:
3013:
2992:
2949:
2923:
2911:
2890:
2873:
2851:
2826:
2812:
2793:
2772:
2751:
2730:
2705:
2681:
2652:
2559:
2530:
2507:
2469:
2447:
2425:
2402:
2386:
2367:
2328:
2300:
2279:
2251:
2221:
2209:
2171:
2142:
2133:
2104:
2085:
2005:
1980:
1954:
1916:
1874:
1855:
1821:
1807:
1798:
1770:
1759:
1705:
1682:
1636:
1609:
1589:
1571:
1556:
1540:
1511:
1478:
1447:
1415:
1396:
1324:
1305:
1287:
1272:
1242:
1217:
In articles describing election districts it is common to include the range of years the district existed, or exists (for example
1206:
1127:
1095:
1073:
1055:
1042:
1021:
1003:
978:
960:
940:
880:
854:
828:
814:
784:
780:
per the reasoning above. Include all ballot-qualified candidates in the infobox prior to the election to maintain a neutral POV.--
768:
753:
732:
713:
695:
670:
576:
529:
496:
462:
404:
371:
296:
282:
261:
178:
156:
141:
4774:
4729:
3899:
3374:
3244:
1331:
640:
to exclude any names that make the ballot. I may have overlooked other perspectives from the prior discussions in this susmmary.
1435:
4792:
4747:
4529:
4401:
4329:
3913:
3614:
Why revert just because there are others? If we like the change, then we'll move them all. Let's discuss before reversion. See
3470:
3444:
3314:
3203:
3150:
3056:
2987:
2676:
2323:
2274:
2246:
2204:
2128:
2080:
2000:
1975:
1949:
1898:
1793:
1754:
1391:
1267:
1201:
1083:
748:
690:
491:
2158:
I recently moved the "next election" articles for various Spanish regional elections to " regional election, 2019" (including
4371:
Hi. Should partial and unofficial count should be placed in articles while the official canvassing is in progress? Thanks. --
3456:
3430:
3333:
2555:
4587:
3406:, and I'm betting that editors here might have opinions about what is best, and where this data should belong long term.--
588:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
4778:
4678:
4291:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
3978:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
3025:
Nothing seems to be happening on the bot front, but I've compiled a list of what I think is all the outstanding redirects
2964:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
2603:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
1896:. The page size doesn't justify a separate article and all the other countries have not their own article for this topic.
1105:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
872:
473:
437:
4732:. I've been wanting to do something like this for ages as I think it's got quite wide ranging potential for use. Pinging
3045:
has been kind enough to do some move batches in the last couple of weeks, so there is a chance they may be able to help.
737:
I think alphabetical order would be better in all cases, otherwise we may be subtly reinforcing the order of candidates.
4604:
3801:
3797:
3793:
3789:
3785:
3781:
3777:
3576:
704:
As the RFC creator, Number 57 is quite correct that I was unconsciously thinking only about US politics. My apologies.
445:
4267:, largely per Redrose64 above. I think including them runs contrary to the spirit both of NOTPROMO and NOTDIRECTORY.
4052:. The campaign articles should be where the details about the campaigns (like their official websites) are found per
4590:
or something. That is usually how we deal with articles for state legislative elections in the United States – e.g.
4515:
845:
form those opinions. If we're treating third party blokes as silly dreamers, naturally many readers will as well.
611:
Before the election takes place, may third party candidates who make the ballot be included in an election infobox?
2187:
1987:
Knowledge talk:Naming conventions (government and legislation)#Proposed change to election/referendum naming format
1461:
proposing changes to the criteria for automatic inclusion of elections and changes of heads of state/government in
956:
850:
709:
666:
38:
4712:
4443:
regardless of individual coverage. Historic elections could go together in, say, a "Mayoral elections in " page.
4439:
3827:
3749:
3721:
3399:
2551:
1885:
1673:
1552:
1411:
1320:
1017:
523:
398:
4781:
to have the separate votes for the three-member presidency split out into separate lines with headings. Cheers,
871:
a candidate needs ten signatures from each of the 32 boroughs plus the City of London and a deposit of £10,000.
4763:
4690:
4233:
4225:, where none of the candidates are incumbents (with regard to the office they are now seeking). If you look at
4162:
3993:
3898:, and specify the desired height and width, resulting in the image being cropped in-situ. The final outcome is
1629:
1602:
1533:
355:
3026:
1926:
I've started an RfC on changing the election/referendum naming format to move the year to the front (so e.g.
1780:
about two percent of the vote. Looks like there's edit warring going on as I write this to this very effect.
4620:
3892:
3756:, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, Warm Regards,
3728:, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, Warm Regards,
3263:
2898:
Please let me know if there is any objection to this being snowclosed and hatted with the following result:
1870:
1851:
808:
3902:(note that I replaced the one on the left, but the other two have been resized using the template. Cheers,
1594:
Knowledge isn't a pundit, though, so we shouldn't be in the business of altering the original information.
4632:
4467:
4427:
4143:
4130:
3676:
3619:
3514:
3360:
3123:
3074:
3010:
2789:
2296:
2218:
2139:
2101:
1567:
1157:
1123:
999:
367:
337:
292:
257:
224:
1438:. If anyone is willing to help/contribute to the article, any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks
4273:
3929:
3411:
3172:
3098:
1585:
1443:
966:
952:
889:
877:
846:
824:
764:
728:
705:
662:
572:
152:
3955:
not to have a link to each candidate's official campaign website in tables in articles about elections.
1504:, which would exclude Breitbart polls unless they have been picked up by a more reliable publication. –
1728:
that he's ending his campaign. Not only do I see the same NPOV issues continue unabated, but lots of
4576:
4180:
4154:
3823:
3403:
3378:
3294:
3248:
2869:
1839:
1817:
1663:
1548:
1407:
1316:
1013:
974:
936:
565:
clear consensus that third-party candidates in the US may be included in infoboxes before an election
511:
386:
359:
137:
1434:
Hi everyone, I just started a draft to create a page for the New York State senate 2018 elections @
563:
for such inclusion. Therefore, the only conclusion that can be drawn from this RFC is that there is
4787:
4759:
4742:
4733:
4686:
4663:
4524:
4514:
as separate articles? Personally I think it would be vastly preferable to have them all covered at
4396:
4324:
4255:
4230:
4142:
because why should they be there? If you really want to find their website, go to their article. —
4105:
4061:
3990:
3908:
3853:
3812:
3465:
3439:
3309:
3198:
3145:
3051:
2982:
2886:
2671:
2318:
2269:
2241:
2199:
2123:
2075:
1995:
1970:
1944:
1787:
1748:
1622:
1595:
1526:
1508:
1474:
1385:
1262:
1195:
743:
685:
486:
458:
382:
174:
362:. Should gray still be used for the "Other" label to distinguish it from the "Independent" label?
234:
I have not received any replies to my requests for help, so I'm pinging an active project member.
4357:
4349:
4211:
4074:
4039:
4015:
3958:
3952:
3872:
3631:. I don't necessarily agree with the move. There is more to these articles than merely the list.
3259:
3236:
2945:
2907:
2822:
2701:
2648:
2583:
2465:
2421:
2363:
2056:
1866:
1847:
1375:
1367:
1149:
1087:
803:
4049:
1812:
I would also support the 5% rule's applicability here. If Walker has less, remove from infobox.
1492:
is leaning toward deprecating Breitbart as a source. A number of our election-related articles (
1370:. The difference between Ketchikan and North Pole is roughly the same as the distance between
1294:
wikidata:Wikidata talk:WikiProject every politician/Political data model#Handling redistricting
1249:
4628:
4463:
4423:
4376:
4221:
I'm afraid that I don't understand that rationale. This discussion came up first in regard to
4126:
3764:
3736:
3689:
3570:
My $ 0.02: outside of needing a proper written-prose lede, the new format looks good to me. --
3554:
3546:
3527:
3497:
3088:
3020:
2808:
2785:
2747:
2726:
2526:
2398:
2382:
2307:
2292:
2258:
2111:
2064:
1889:
1701:
1577:
1563:
1119:
1038:
995:
894:
363:
333:
288:
268:
253:
220:
165:. With such significant changes, trying to show gains/losses or comparisons could cross into
4608:
4269:
4246:
in the body of the article; serves no good encyclopedic purpose and breaks with established
4035:
3962:
3925:
3665:
3641:
3604:
3580:
3407:
3183:
3168:
3133:
3113:
3094:
3042:
2839:
2587:
2048:
2018:
1738:
1581:
1439:
1371:
1349:
1301:
1283:
1278:
towns in Rutland-3 2002—2012 is completely different than the towns in Rutland-3 2012—2022.
1238:
1091:
820:
760:
724:
568:
328:
322:
244:
212:
162:
148:
3987:
2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries#Declared candidates and exploratory committees
124:
In the two-member wards, voters could vote twice for different candidates (if they wished).
4655:
4572:
4419:
4176:
4027:
3325:
3290:
2865:
2768:
2548:
Template talk:United Kingdom in the European Union#RfC: Removal of the second vote section
2503:
2493:
2489:
2443:
2228:
2028:
1893:
1842:, you'll see a table with phone numbers and addresses - which, even if it doesn't violate
1813:
1733:
1079:
1069:
970:
932:
868:
278:
133:
4704:
Combined Infobox election and Infobox legislative election for general election articles
2936:("multiple" meaning "at least two" but not necessary "all")? It seems consensus is that
4782:
4737:
4659:
4544:
4519:
4391:
4319:
4251:
4122:
4118:
4098:
4094:
4090:
4086:
4082:
4078:
4057:
4023:
3948:
3903:
3849:
3808:
3460:
3434:
3329:
3304:
3193:
3162:
3140:
3109:
3084:
3068:
3046:
3000:
2977:
2882:
2666:
2313:
2286:
2264:
2236:
2194:
2153:
2118:
2095:
2070:
2044:
2032:
2024:
1990:
1965:
1939:
1781:
1742:
1505:
1470:
1379:
1257:
1189:
1181:
1177:
1030:
914:
905:
738:
680:
654:
637:
481:
451:
170:
1692:
A discussion that may be of interest to participants of this project has been started
1348:. Throughout statehood until about six years ago, District 1 was located in southern
4540:
4482:
4444:
4353:
4345:
4313:
4207:
4089:. Then there is the distinct likelihood of bias coupled with unverifiable claims, so
3868:
3628:
3492:
Is there a good reason not to indicate which party won the state in each election? --
3280:
3073:
I see what you mean. Do I need to do something to get the great bot-masters on it? —
2941:
2903:
2818:
2697:
2644:
2461:
2417:
2377:
an open election & open seat, if no incumbent in on the general election ballot.
2359:
2052:
1862:
1843:
1804:
1767:
1721:
1562:
U.S., rounded to the nearest percent, as most poll aggregators report their results.
1497:
1462:
1362:
1357:
1222:
1165:
1153:
1138:
1084:
Knowledge:Village pump (policy)#Candidates in Infoboxes on upcoming election articles
1052:
2291:
will anything of the sort also be run on the election navigation templates as well?
2235:. I'll notify the project as soon as a confirmed start time/date is agreed. Cheers,
2017:
In the meantime, any new articles should probably be created at the new titles (see
4372:
4309:
4247:
4193:
4053:
4031:
4011:
4007:
3940:
Request for comment on links to official campaign sites in articles about elections
3757:
3729:
3685:
3615:
3591:
3550:
3523:
3493:
3337:
2843:
2804:
2760:
2743:
2722:
2546:
There is an RfC regarding the removal of the second vote section. Comments welcome
2522:
2394:
2378:
2178:
2163:
2060:
2036:
1729:
1697:
1173:
1142:
1034:
893:
consequences of any decisions. An infobox is meant to be a summary of the article (
543:
166:
2478:
Oh, in that situation, I think yes, you would include MA-7 on that page like this:
567:. The circumstances under which this should occur are left to future discussions.
208:
currently included in his biographical article about his 2018 campaign are minimal
4599:
3656:
3632:
3595:
3571:
2718:
2040:
1662:
Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. --
1297:
1279:
1234:
1134:
781:
658:
317:
249:
207:
200:
46:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
4014:) to the campaign's official website side by side, so the markup looked like (
4004:
Talk:2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries#Where'd the website links go?
3627:
I reverted because there are others, and they should be discussed as a group.
2764:
2499:
2439:
1065:
274:
237:
919:
5%), although I think exceptions should be made if reliable sources or polls
4093:
applies; and once the election is over, the site may vanish pretty soon, so
3369:
In light of the above comments I have nominated the categories for deletion
2665:
from just under year ago, which ended with a strong consensus for option 3?
2624:
by the other candidates? (All other candidates? The second-place candidate?)
1964:
There will also need to be a lot of link fixing on templates etc... Cheers,
1353:
1345:
3120:
Category:United States House of Representatives elections in Massachusetts
3007:
Category:United States House of Representatives elections in Massachusetts
1659:
and 11 related pages, all of which fall within the scope of this project.
1406:
gives a very brief history of the district. This can certainly be better.
252:. Might you be willing to take a look and update the article accordingly?
4197:
4056:, not the more general articles about the primaries and the election. --
2920:
620:- Yes or No or (invent a new one then explain in the discussion section)
2349:
an "open seat" if an incumbent runs in an early round of the election (
185:
Request for help updating an article about a politician's 2018 campaign
121:
37 of the wards have one member, and 32 wards have two members elected.
2631:
by reliable sources? (All sources? Most sources? A particular source?)
1168:" was written in response to his campaign announcement. Furthermore,
3880:
Neat trick for dealing with election infobox images that are too wide
3754:
Talk:2011 Welsh devolution referendum#Requested move 10 February 2019
1337:
4681:
is currently a featured article candidate and its candidacy page is
2609:
When should an article state that a candidate has won an election?
1465:(subject only to article quality requirements being met), of which
1457:
In case anybody here is interested, there are currently 4 items at
3039:
Category:United States House of Representatives elections by state
653:
Before an election omitting names that make a ballot violates our
3792:. Also, several map captions use the wrong color scheme, e.g. in
4674:
FAC for 1927 Chicago mayoral election isn't receiving much input
4352:. No reply was forthcoming. Responses and opinions are invited.
3726:
Talk:Municipal district (Ireland)#Requested move 9 February 2019
4736:
as it might be useful for the Costa Rican article set. Cheers,
480:. Input is welcome as it may prejudice other similar articles.
4298:
Adding a line to results tables noting the electoral threshold
1152:
violation and formatting puffery. As an example, the article
420:
25:
4413:
Potential Notability Guidelines for Elections and Referendums
2021:), so a heads up for regular election article creators like
4318:
in particular, given your work on election results tables.
3005:
Are the redirects being moved? See, e.g., the contents of
2231:
doing the work; there is currently a discussion on its use
472:
There is a discussion on the state sub-articles for on the
354:
is the map and table color for independents in the US, but
273:
I support the changes and have added them to the article.
4388:
2019 Maldivian parliamentary election#Preliminary results
4019:
2817:
AP has said they won't call CA-21 until it is certified.
347:
Color for "Other" party ballot label in the United States
4350:
Talk:Snap_election#Early_elections_versus_snap_elections
3822:
Use whatever is in the political party color templates?
1256:
covers all the various-sized constituencies since 1295.
3885:
3675:
That's fine. You make a good point about consistency. —
2637:
Some combination of the above (whichever happens first)
3655:, which of necessity has material beyond a mere list.
3513:
Interesting points. I'll make some edits to it now. —
3031:
Category:United States presidential elections by state
2353:
a primary), but no incumbent runs in the final round (
1137:. What tripped my radar was the repeated mentions of
332:, if any projects members are willing to take a look.
3387:
RfC about U.S. State and Presidential election tables
3241:
Category:Elections not won by the popular vote winner
3230:
Category:Elections not won by the popular vote winner
2312:
No – I am planning on fixing those manually. Cheers,
1500:
requires that we represent viewpoints that have been
1133:
Having read that discussion, I find it to be another
1116:
Knowledge:External links/Noticeboard#Elections, again
316:
I've proposed two very quick additional requests for
4344:
Two years ago, I tried to start a discussion on the
2784:
sole organization making such calls until recently.
1922:
Proposed change to election/referendum naming format
1219:
Rutland-3 Vermont Representative District, 2012–2022
535:
RFC - Infoboxes and Third Parties BEFORE an election
18:
Knowledge talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums
2217:
Where/how can I check the bot's progress, please? —
4627:), eliminating articles for row offices entirely.
4032:a style which has been deprecated by the community
3483:United States presidential elections in California
1834:Addresses and phone numbers in an election article
1029:But only before an election, based on maintaining
410:Choice of infobox on articles about constituencies
377:Candidates order for upcoming election in Pakistan
2341:RfC: Definition of "open election" or "open seat"
110:Hello. I would appreciate help or direction with
4556:2018 Minnesota House of Representatives election
4500:2018 Minnesota House of Representatives election
3651:Just to expand on my thinking a bit, see, e.g.,
3394:request for comment at WikiProject United States
3190:Category:United States Senate elections by state
3035:Category:United States Senate elections by state
923:are all talking about a new party or candidate (
4458:* What elections should get their own articles?
3945:
3653:United States presidential elections in Georgia
2693:All sources? Most sources? A particular source?
2570:
4452:I think that we need to address two questions:
3455:There is now a final !vote on this discussion
542:I am closing this in response to a request at
2541:Template:United Kingdom in the European Union
1652:Talk:United Kingdom general election, 1832–33
8:
4223:2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries
4192:– No reason to make an exception to general
3277:1912 Republican Party presidential primaries
1315:the district numbers move around the state.
381:The project members opinion is requested at
4006:, but I think there are some fairly strong
506:Project members participation is requested
4560:2018 Minnesota Secretary of State election
4504:2018 Minnesota Secretary of State election
4152:
3772:Color schemes of U.S. election result maps
2934:...when multiple reliable sources agree...
2640:None of the above; something else entirely
2565:RfC: When has a candidate won an election?
1649:There is a move discussion in progress on
1453:Proposed changes to ITNR Election criteria
1436:Draft:New York State Senate election, 2018
3167:Sure! Got a link to the parent category?
1344:, a district comprising central and west
426:Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.
4564:2018 Minnesota Attorney General election
4508:2018 Minnesota Attorney General election
4045:2020 United States presidential election
3188:Yes – they are in the sub-categories of
1657:United Kingdom general election, 1832–33
1644:United Kingdom general election, 1832–33
4596:2016 California State Assembly election
4038:, etc. I think there are also possible
1724:followed by the sudden announcement by
595:excellently-formatted and discussed RFC
4550:On a tangential note, my concern with
3748:Greetings! I have recently relisted a
3720:Greetings! I have recently relisted a
216:and update the article appropriately.
112:Birmingham City Council election, 2018
106:Birmingham City Council election, 2018
44:Do not edit the contents of this page.
4592:2016 California State Senate election
4588:2018 Minnesota state office elections
4568:2018 Minnesota State Auditor election
4552:2018 Minnesota gubernatorial election
4512:2018 Minnesota State Auditor election
4496:2018 Minnesota gubernatorial election
4479:2018 California State Senate election
1523:Oklahoma gubernatorial election, 2018
904:). (3) If people are concerned about
902:Template:Infobox legislative election
7:
4673:
4539:I am sympathetic to the comments by
3972:The following discussion is closed.
2597:The following discussion is closed.
1865:, so no further action is required.
1688:Infoboxes in Australian by-elections
1430:New York State Senate election, 2018
1254:Ipswich (UK Parliament constituency)
1110:External links for election articles
628:- The prior RFC applied to election
584:The following discussion is closed.
3924:This is really helpful, thank you.
2019:WP:NC-GAL#Elections and referendums
1713:Alaska gubernatorial election, 2018
1213:Election district naming convention
1082:. There is a related discussion at
383:Talk:NA-1 (Chitral)#Candidate order
4340:Early elections and snap elections
3239:and myself regarding the scope of
2160:Andalusian regional election, 2018
1928:French presidential election, 2017
929:French presidential election, 2017
502:Discussion participation requested
434:concerning the relative merits of
360:"Other" party label in some states
24:
4623:), and 3) state legislatures for
4287:The discussion above is closed.
3429:This practice is being discussed
2960:The discussion above is closed.
2492:defeated in primary. Seat won by
1932:2017 French presidential election
1861:This issue has been addressed by
1840:Iowa_elections,_2018#Governorship
1078:Unarchived to request closure at
795:California's 2002 recall election
432:this discussion and follow-up RfC
4775:2019 Guatemalan general election
4730:2019 Guatemalan general election
4026:which is one of the reasons why
3275:primaries are in this category;
1332:The Almanac of American Politics
1101:The discussion above is closed.
468:Indian general election by state
415:
307:
190:
29:
3947:There is a clear consensus per
3425:Bolding of winners in infoboxes
2938:no single source is dispositive
2590:) 05:28, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
2572:There is a clear consensus for
2227:It looks like it's going to be
1329:I used to have a collection of
632:but did not ask about the time
4516:2018 Minnesota state elections
4367:Partial and unofficial results
3334:2003 Catalan regional election
1610:05:08, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
1590:04:18, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
1572:01:02, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
1557:00:14, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
1541:19:48, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
1512:15:29, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
1479:00:21, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
1448:03:56, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
1248:I would suggest just having a
1:
4779:2018 Bosnian general election
4679:1927 Chicago mayoral election
4455:* What elections are notable?
4302:Editors may be interested in
3767:17:54, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
3739:15:32, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
3209:11:18, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
3177:11:13, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
3156:11:10, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
3127:03:17, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
3103:03:08, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
3078:02:42, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
3062:22:03, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
3014:21:28, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
2993:15:49, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
2891:17:45, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
2874:17:09, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
2852:16:50, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
2827:07:03, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
2813:04:01, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
2794:03:26, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
2773:02:58, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
2752:02:13, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
2731:01:23, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
2706:00:42, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
2682:00:12, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
2653:00:00, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
2560:11:35, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
2531:04:12, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
2508:03:23, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
2470:03:12, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
2448:03:02, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
2426:02:26, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
2403:02:19, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
2387:01:25, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
2368:00:08, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
2329:21:55, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
2301:21:44, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
2280:21:09, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
2252:16:48, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
2222:16:37, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
2210:15:01, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
2172:14:18, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
2143:12:57, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
2134:12:54, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
2105:12:50, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
2086:12:21, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
1955:20:43, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
1917:10:54, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
1875:10:08, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
1856:02:57, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
1502:published by reliable sources
474:Indian general election, 2019
184:
4723:Infobox legislative election
3802:2012 United States elections
3798:2010 United States elections
3794:1998 United States elections
3790:2004 United States elections
3786:2006 United States elections
3782:2008 United States elections
3778:2014 United States elections
3700:17:30, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
3680:20:41, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
3671:18:50, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
3647:18:48, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
3623:17:38, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
3610:17:06, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
3586:16:12, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
3565:15:15, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
3538:14:51, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
3518:14:35, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
3508:11:57, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
3476:16:48, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
3450:19:45, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
3433:; input is welcome. Cheers,
3420:21:24, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
3398:tables to subarticles, like
3382:16:23, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
3235:A dispute has arise between
3029:(basically any redirects in
2950:14:59, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
2924:14:19, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
2912:02:54, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
2661:Isn't this just a rehash of
2576:for United States elections.
2458:this list of open seats held
2006:15:14, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
1981:21:10, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
1822:11:50, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
1808:02:36, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
1799:01:47, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
1771:07:35, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
1760:06:10, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
1706:09:12, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
1683:13:28, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
1469:currently seems most active.
3364:13:17, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
3346:10:58, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
3320:10:49, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
3299:10:10, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
3284:23:50, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
3268:22:14, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
3252:21:59, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
1637:20:28, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
1517:Rounding of polling numbers
1416:03:22, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
1397:21:04, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
1325:14:32, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
1306:14:13, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
1292:See also the discussion at
1288:13:54, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
1273:13:39, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
1243:12:24, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
1207:22:22, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
1128:15:59, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
1096:06:43, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
577:09:44, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
4813:
4758:Yes, indeed. Thank you. --
4335:17:18, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
4279:04:37, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
4002:I've posted about this at
3965:) 05:29, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
3934:16:30, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
3919:11:56, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
3858:02:29, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
3832:00:50, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
3817:00:32, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
3118:Wow, nice. I just checked
1881:Merging NOTA India to NOTA
1156:mentions his campaign for
1056:23:25, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
1043:17:06, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
1022:17:25, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
1004:13:11, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
979:17:09, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
961:09:59, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
941:09:54, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
881:16:42, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
855:10:10, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
829:16:56, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
815:16:29, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
785:15:08, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
769:15:50, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
754:13:57, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
733:13:40, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
714:13:21, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
696:13:17, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
671:12:55, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
413:
305:
242:I've proposed 4 sentences
188:
4440:2012 Washington elections
4362:05:54, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
4260:04:31, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
4237:15:16, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
4216:13:11, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
4201:15:12, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
4185:09:17, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
4167:04:37, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
4147:22:28, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
4135:12:09, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
4110:08:44, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
4066:06:43, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
3997:05:15, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
3750:requested move discussion
3744:Requested move discussion
3722:requested move discussion
3716:Requested move discussion
3400:Politics of Massachusetts
3122:and it's done. Thanks! —
2691:there is the question of
1886:None of the above (India)
819:I support this approach.
530:17:58, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
497:11:09, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
372:18:10, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
287:Thank you for your help.
4798:19:41, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
4768:23:23, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
4753:20:02, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
4699:01:05, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
4668:10:29, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
4637:13:16, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
4614:13:07, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
4581:09:49, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
4535:09:27, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
4486:07:54, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
4472:23:13, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
4448:22:27, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
4432:22:02, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
4407:11:12, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
4381:10:26, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
4289:Please do not modify it.
3975:Please do not modify it.
3844:from seats that a party
2962:Please do not modify it.
2600:Please do not modify it.
2412:considered an open seat
1934:). All comments welcome
1103:Please do not modify it.
1074:11:44, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
586:Please do not modify it.
559:be included, nor to the
463:07:15, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
405:19:00, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
342:19:54, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
297:15:08, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
283:22:25, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
262:19:27, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
229:21:17, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
179:17:19, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
157:15:52, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
142:15:14, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
4621:2019 Kentucky elections
2617:by election authorities
1352:and mostly centered on
965:Thanks for clarifying,
555:third party candidates
3967:
2592:
1838:If you take a look at
1484:Breitbart/Gravis polls
1158:governor of California
864:Oppose global approach
593:In 2017, there was an
4718:to allow it to embed
2627:When the election is
2620:When the election is
2613:When the election is
1715:raises some questions
645:Survey and discussion
42:of past discussions.
4494:really worth having
4077:, but also consider
3404:Politics of Virginia
3093:Should be done now!
2552:The Vintage Feminist
1888:should be merged to
927:as with Marcron and
438:infobox constituency
4050:WP:AADP#It's useful
4028:embedding citations
4708:I've just tweaked
4173:No links in tables
4095:WP:ELNO#unreliable
4091:WP:ELNO#misleading
4073:Mainly because of
3237:User:AmYisroelChai
2971:Post-moves cleanup
2759:and agreeing with
2347:"open election" or
1789:Talk to me, Billy
1750:Talk to me, Billy
1576:I also agree with
1387:Talk to me, Billy
1376:Rockford, Illinois
1197:Talk to me, Billy
587:
446:infobox settlement
356:gray is still used
4612:
4169:
4157:comment added by
4079:WP:ELNO#promotion
4030:into articles is
4024:link rot problems
4012:WP:EL#cite_note-7
3698:
3584:
3563:
3536:
3506:
3417:
2188:Spanish elections
1906:
1890:None of the above
1681:
1642:Move discussion:
1227:main project page
1162:the 1970 election
873:The last election
585:
103:
102:
54:
53:
48:current talk page
4804:
4795:
4790:
4785:
4750:
4745:
4740:
4727:
4721:
4717:
4713:Infobox election
4711:
4602:
4532:
4527:
4522:
4404:
4399:
4394:
4332:
4327:
4322:
4317:
4277:
4101:
3977:
3916:
3911:
3906:
3897:
3891:
3762:
3734:
3693:
3663:
3639:
3602:
3574:
3558:
3531:
3501:
3473:
3468:
3463:
3447:
3442:
3437:
3415:
3391:There's an open
3343:
3342:
3324:Agree with both
3317:
3312:
3307:
3206:
3201:
3196:
3187:
3166:
3153:
3148:
3143:
3137:
3117:
3092:
3072:
3059:
3054:
3049:
3024:
3004:
2990:
2985:
2980:
2932:How about this:
2849:
2848:
2679:
2674:
2669:
2634:When I say it is
2602:
2487:
2326:
2321:
2316:
2311:
2290:
2277:
2272:
2267:
2262:
2249:
2244:
2239:
2207:
2202:
2197:
2192:
2186:
2182:
2169:
2168:
2157:
2131:
2126:
2121:
2115:
2099:
2083:
2078:
2073:
2068:
2003:
1998:
1993:
1978:
1973:
1968:
1952:
1947:
1942:
1904:
1796:
1790:
1784:
1757:
1751:
1745:
1739:Valerie Davidson
1672:
1669:
1666:
1633:
1627:
1606:
1600:
1537:
1531:
1394:
1388:
1382:
1372:Denver, Colorado
1350:Southeast Alaska
1270:
1265:
1260:
1204:
1198:
1192:
967:NewsAndEventsGuy
953:NewsAndEventsGuy
890:NewsAndEventsGuy
878:Timrollpickering
847:NewsAndEventsGuy
751:
746:
741:
706:NewsAndEventsGuy
693:
688:
683:
663:NewsAndEventsGuy
626:Prior discussion
494:
489:
484:
454:
449:
441:
427:
419:
418:
311:
310:
272:
241:
194:
193:
163:User:Maswimelleu
81:
56:
55:
33:
32:
26:
4812:
4811:
4807:
4806:
4805:
4803:
4802:
4801:
4793:
4788:
4783:
4748:
4743:
4738:
4725:
4719:
4715:
4709:
4706:
4676:
4666:
4530:
4525:
4520:
4415:
4402:
4397:
4392:
4369:
4342:
4330:
4325:
4320:
4307:
4304:this discussion
4300:
4295:
4268:
4099:
4083:WP:ELNO#adverts
3973:
3968:
3942:
3914:
3909:
3904:
3895:
3889:
3888:). You can use
3882:
3824:Howard the Duck
3774:
3758:
3746:
3730:
3718:
3657:
3633:
3596:
3486:
3471:
3466:
3461:
3445:
3440:
3435:
3427:
3414:
3389:
3340:
3338:
3315:
3310:
3305:
3233:
3204:
3199:
3194:
3181:
3160:
3151:
3146:
3141:
3131:
3107:
3082:
3066:
3057:
3052:
3047:
3018:
2998:
2988:
2983:
2978:
2973:
2968:
2889:
2846:
2844:
2677:
2672:
2667:
2598:
2593:
2567:
2544:
2494:Ayanna Pressley
2490:Michael Capuano
2485:Massachusetts 7
2483:
2343:
2324:
2319:
2314:
2305:
2284:
2275:
2270:
2265:
2256:
2247:
2242:
2237:
2229:User:TheSandBot
2205:
2200:
2195:
2190:
2184:
2176:
2166:
2164:
2151:
2129:
2124:
2119:
2109:
2093:
2081:
2076:
2071:
2022:
2014:left to move.
2001:
1996:
1991:
1976:
1971:
1966:
1950:
1945:
1940:
1924:
1883:
1836:
1794:
1788:
1782:
1755:
1749:
1743:
1717:
1690:
1667:
1664:
1647:
1631:
1623:
1604:
1596:
1549:Howard the Duck
1535:
1527:
1519:
1486:
1455:
1432:
1408:Howard the Duck
1392:
1386:
1380:
1317:Howard the Duck
1268:
1263:
1258:
1215:
1202:
1196:
1190:
1112:
1107:
1106:
1014:Red Rock Canyon
869:Mayor of London
749:
744:
739:
691:
686:
681:
647:
590:
581:
580:
579:
537:
504:
492:
487:
482:
470:
452:
443:
435:
428:
425:
423:
416:
412:
379:
349:
314:
313:
308:
266:
235:
197:
196:
191:
187:
177:
108:
77:
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
4810:
4808:
4771:
4770:
4760:Dereck Camacho
4734:Dereck Camacho
4705:
4702:
4687:John M Wolfson
4675:
4672:
4671:
4670:
4662:
4651:
4650:
4649:
4648:
4647:
4646:
4645:
4644:
4643:
4642:
4641:
4640:
4639:
4548:
4491:
4459:
4456:
4453:
4414:
4411:
4410:
4409:
4368:
4365:
4341:
4338:
4299:
4296:
4294:
4293:
4283:
4282:
4281:
4262:
4241:
4240:
4239:
4231:Metropolitan90
4203:
4187:
4170:
4159:47.186.208.139
4149:
4137:
4112:
4068:
3991:Metropolitan90
3982:
3981:
3980:
3944:
3943:
3941:
3938:
3937:
3936:
3893:CSS image crop
3881:
3878:
3877:
3876:
3869:Peter M. Grund
3863:
3862:
3861:
3860:
3835:
3834:
3773:
3770:
3745:
3742:
3717:
3714:
3713:
3712:
3711:
3710:
3709:
3708:
3707:
3706:
3705:
3704:
3703:
3702:
3696:old fashioned!
3649:
3561:old fashioned!
3543:
3542:
3541:
3540:
3534:old fashioned!
3522:Oooh thanks --
3504:old fashioned!
3485:
3480:
3479:
3478:
3426:
3423:
3412:
3388:
3385:
3367:
3366:
3355:
3354:
3353:
3352:
3351:
3350:
3349:
3348:
3271:
3270:
3232:
3227:
3226:
3225:
3224:
3223:
3222:
3221:
3220:
3219:
3218:
3217:
3216:
3215:
3214:
3213:
3212:
3211:
2976:know. Cheers,
2972:
2969:
2967:
2966:
2956:
2955:
2954:
2953:
2952:
2927:
2926:
2914:
2893:
2885:
2876:
2854:
2832:
2831:
2830:
2829:
2815:
2797:
2796:
2775:
2754:
2733:
2711:
2710:
2709:
2708:
2685:
2684:
2642:
2641:
2638:
2635:
2632:
2625:
2618:
2607:
2606:
2605:
2569:
2568:
2566:
2563:
2543:
2537:
2536:
2535:
2534:
2533:
2517:
2516:
2515:
2514:
2513:
2512:
2511:
2510:
2497:
2480:
2479:
2473:
2472:
2451:
2450:
2429:
2428:
2406:
2405:
2390:
2389:
2342:
2339:
2338:
2337:
2336:
2335:
2334:
2333:
2332:
2331:
2215:
2214:
2213:
2212:
2149:
2148:
2147:
2146:
2145:
2011:
2010:
2009:
2008:
1962:
1923:
1920:
1882:
1879:
1878:
1877:
1835:
1832:
1831:
1830:
1829:
1828:
1827:
1826:
1825:
1824:
1795:Transmissions
1777:
1756:Transmissions
1716:
1709:
1689:
1686:
1655:which affects
1646:
1640:
1625:Master of Time
1619:
1618:
1617:
1616:
1615:
1614:
1613:
1612:
1598:Master of Time
1529:Master of Time
1518:
1515:
1485:
1482:
1454:
1451:
1431:
1428:
1427:
1426:
1425:
1424:
1423:
1422:
1421:
1420:
1419:
1418:
1393:Transmissions
1290:
1214:
1211:
1210:
1209:
1203:Transmissions
1185:
1182:John Sebastian
1178:Stephen Stills
1146:
1111:
1108:
1100:
1099:
1098:
1076:
1058:
1045:
1024:
1006:
988:
987:
986:
985:
984:
983:
982:
981:
944:
943:
883:
860:
859:
858:
857:
834:
833:
832:
831:
787:
775:
774:
773:
772:
771:
719:
718:
717:
716:
699:
698:
673:
646:
643:
642:
641:
622:
621:
614:
613:
606:
604:
603:
591:
582:
541:
540:
539:
538:
536:
533:
503:
500:
469:
466:
414:
411:
408:
378:
375:
348:
345:
306:
304:
303:
302:
301:
300:
299:
189:
186:
183:
182:
181:
173:
159:
126:
125:
122:
119:
107:
104:
101:
100:
95:
92:
87:
82:
75:
70:
65:
62:
52:
51:
34:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
4809:
4800:
4799:
4796:
4791:
4786:
4780:
4776:
4769:
4765:
4761:
4757:
4756:
4755:
4754:
4751:
4746:
4741:
4735:
4731:
4724:
4714:
4703:
4701:
4700:
4696:
4692:
4688:
4684:
4680:
4669:
4665:
4661:
4657:
4652:
4638:
4634:
4630:
4626:
4625:both chambers
4622:
4617:
4616:
4615:
4610:
4606:
4601:
4597:
4593:
4589:
4584:
4583:
4582:
4578:
4574:
4569:
4565:
4561:
4557:
4553:
4549:
4546:
4542:
4538:
4537:
4536:
4533:
4528:
4523:
4517:
4513:
4509:
4505:
4501:
4497:
4492:
4489:
4488:
4487:
4484:
4480:
4475:
4474:
4473:
4469:
4465:
4460:
4457:
4454:
4451:
4450:
4449:
4446:
4441:
4436:
4435:
4434:
4433:
4429:
4425:
4421:
4412:
4408:
4405:
4400:
4395:
4389:
4385:
4384:
4383:
4382:
4378:
4374:
4366:
4364:
4363:
4359:
4355:
4351:
4347:
4346:Snap election
4339:
4337:
4336:
4333:
4328:
4323:
4315:
4311:
4305:
4297:
4292:
4290:
4285:
4284:
4280:
4275:
4271:
4266:
4263:
4261:
4257:
4253:
4249:
4245:
4242:
4238:
4235:
4232:
4228:
4224:
4220:
4219:
4218:
4217:
4213:
4209:
4204:
4202:
4199:
4195:
4191:
4188:
4186:
4182:
4178:
4174:
4171:
4168:
4164:
4160:
4156:
4150:
4148:
4145:
4141:
4138:
4136:
4132:
4128:
4124:
4120:
4116:
4113:
4111:
4107:
4103:
4096:
4092:
4088:
4084:
4080:
4076:
4072:
4069:
4067:
4063:
4059:
4055:
4051:
4046:
4041:
4037:
4033:
4029:
4025:
4021:
4017:
4013:
4009:
4005:
4001:
4000:
3999:
3998:
3995:
3992:
3988:
3979:
3976:
3970:
3969:
3966:
3964:
3960:
3956:
3954:
3950:
3939:
3935:
3931:
3927:
3923:
3922:
3921:
3920:
3917:
3912:
3907:
3901:
3894:
3887:
3879:
3874:
3870:
3865:
3864:
3859:
3855:
3851:
3847:
3843:
3839:
3838:
3837:
3836:
3833:
3829:
3825:
3821:
3820:
3819:
3818:
3814:
3810:
3805:
3803:
3799:
3795:
3791:
3787:
3783:
3779:
3771:
3769:
3768:
3765:
3763:
3761:
3755:
3751:
3743:
3741:
3740:
3737:
3735:
3733:
3727:
3723:
3715:
3701:
3697:
3691:
3687:
3683:
3682:
3681:
3678:
3674:
3673:
3672:
3669:
3668:
3664:
3662:
3661:
3654:
3650:
3648:
3645:
3644:
3640:
3638:
3637:
3630:
3626:
3625:
3624:
3621:
3617:
3613:
3612:
3611:
3608:
3607:
3603:
3601:
3600:
3593:
3589:
3588:
3587:
3582:
3578:
3573:
3569:
3568:
3567:
3566:
3562:
3556:
3552:
3548:
3539:
3535:
3529:
3525:
3521:
3520:
3519:
3516:
3512:
3511:
3510:
3509:
3505:
3499:
3495:
3490:
3484:
3481:
3477:
3474:
3469:
3464:
3458:
3454:
3453:
3452:
3451:
3448:
3443:
3438:
3432:
3424:
3422:
3421:
3418:
3409:
3405:
3401:
3396:
3395:
3386:
3384:
3383:
3380:
3376:
3372:
3365:
3362:
3357:
3356:
3347:
3344:
3335:
3331:
3327:
3323:
3322:
3321:
3318:
3313:
3308:
3302:
3301:
3300:
3296:
3292:
3287:
3286:
3285:
3282:
3278:
3273:
3272:
3269:
3265:
3261:
3256:
3255:
3254:
3253:
3250:
3246:
3242:
3238:
3231:
3228:
3210:
3207:
3202:
3197:
3191:
3185:
3180:
3179:
3178:
3174:
3170:
3164:
3159:
3158:
3157:
3154:
3149:
3144:
3135:
3130:
3129:
3128:
3125:
3121:
3115:
3111:
3106:
3105:
3104:
3100:
3096:
3090:
3086:
3081:
3080:
3079:
3076:
3070:
3065:
3064:
3063:
3060:
3055:
3050:
3044:
3040:
3036:
3032:
3028:
3022:
3017:
3016:
3015:
3012:
3008:
3002:
2997:
2996:
2995:
2994:
2991:
2986:
2981:
2970:
2965:
2963:
2958:
2957:
2951:
2947:
2943:
2939:
2935:
2931:
2930:
2929:
2928:
2925:
2922:
2918:
2915:
2913:
2909:
2905:
2902:
2897:
2896:Snowclose OK?
2894:
2892:
2888:
2884:
2880:
2877:
2875:
2871:
2867:
2863:
2858:
2855:
2853:
2850:
2841:
2837:
2834:
2833:
2828:
2824:
2820:
2816:
2814:
2810:
2806:
2801:
2800:
2799:
2798:
2795:
2791:
2787:
2783:
2779:
2776:
2774:
2770:
2766:
2762:
2758:
2755:
2753:
2749:
2745:
2741:
2737:
2734:
2732:
2728:
2724:
2720:
2716:
2713:
2712:
2707:
2703:
2699:
2694:
2689:
2688:
2687:
2686:
2683:
2680:
2675:
2670:
2664:
2660:
2657:
2656:
2655:
2654:
2650:
2646:
2639:
2636:
2633:
2630:
2626:
2623:
2619:
2616:
2612:
2611:
2610:
2604:
2601:
2595:
2594:
2591:
2589:
2585:
2581:
2577:
2575:
2564:
2562:
2561:
2557:
2553:
2549:
2542:
2538:
2532:
2528:
2524:
2519:
2518:
2509:
2505:
2501:
2498:
2495:
2491:
2486:
2482:
2481:
2477:
2476:
2475:
2474:
2471:
2467:
2463:
2459:
2455:
2454:
2453:
2452:
2449:
2445:
2441:
2437:
2433:
2432:
2431:
2430:
2427:
2423:
2419:
2415:
2410:
2409:
2408:
2407:
2404:
2400:
2396:
2392:
2391:
2388:
2384:
2380:
2376:
2372:
2371:
2370:
2369:
2365:
2361:
2356:
2352:
2348:
2340:
2330:
2327:
2322:
2317:
2309:
2304:
2303:
2302:
2298:
2294:
2288:
2283:
2282:
2281:
2278:
2273:
2268:
2260:
2255:
2254:
2253:
2250:
2245:
2240:
2234:
2230:
2226:
2225:
2224:
2223:
2220:
2211:
2208:
2203:
2198:
2189:
2180:
2175:
2174:
2173:
2170:
2161:
2155:
2150:
2144:
2141:
2137:
2136:
2135:
2132:
2127:
2122:
2113:
2108:
2107:
2106:
2103:
2097:
2090:
2089:
2088:
2087:
2084:
2079:
2074:
2066:
2062:
2058:
2057:Nightstallion
2054:
2050:
2046:
2042:
2038:
2034:
2030:
2026:
2020:
2015:
2007:
2004:
1999:
1994:
1988:
1984:
1983:
1982:
1979:
1974:
1969:
1963:
1959:
1958:
1957:
1956:
1953:
1948:
1943:
1937:
1933:
1929:
1921:
1919:
1918:
1915:
1914:
1913:
1912:
1907:
1902:
1901:
1895:
1891:
1887:
1880:
1876:
1872:
1868:
1867:Airbornemihir
1864:
1860:
1859:
1858:
1857:
1853:
1849:
1848:Airbornemihir
1845:
1841:
1833:
1823:
1819:
1815:
1811:
1810:
1809:
1806:
1802:
1801:
1800:
1797:
1791:
1785:
1778:
1774:
1773:
1772:
1769:
1764:
1763:
1762:
1761:
1758:
1752:
1746:
1740:
1735:
1731:
1727:
1723:
1722:Byron Mallott
1714:
1710:
1708:
1707:
1703:
1699:
1695:
1687:
1685:
1684:
1679:
1675:
1671:
1660:
1658:
1654:
1653:
1645:
1641:
1639:
1638:
1635:
1628:
1626:
1611:
1608:
1601:
1599:
1593:
1592:
1591:
1587:
1583:
1579:
1575:
1574:
1573:
1569:
1565:
1560:
1559:
1558:
1554:
1550:
1545:
1544:
1543:
1542:
1539:
1532:
1530:
1524:
1516:
1514:
1513:
1510:
1507:
1503:
1499:
1495:
1491:
1483:
1481:
1480:
1476:
1472:
1468:
1464:
1460:
1452:
1450:
1449:
1445:
1441:
1437:
1429:
1417:
1413:
1409:
1405:
1400:
1399:
1398:
1395:
1389:
1383:
1377:
1373:
1369:
1364:
1363:Doug Isaacson
1359:
1358:Kyle Johansen
1355:
1351:
1347:
1343:
1339:
1334:
1333:
1328:
1327:
1326:
1322:
1318:
1313:
1309:
1308:
1307:
1303:
1299:
1295:
1291:
1289:
1285:
1281:
1276:
1275:
1274:
1271:
1266:
1261:
1255:
1251:
1247:
1246:
1245:
1244:
1240:
1236:
1230:
1228:
1224:
1223:MOS:DATERANGE
1220:
1212:
1208:
1205:
1199:
1193:
1188:bureaucracy".
1186:
1183:
1179:
1175:
1171:
1167:
1166:Come Together
1163:
1159:
1155:
1154:Timothy Leary
1151:
1147:
1144:
1140:
1136:
1132:
1131:
1130:
1129:
1125:
1121:
1117:
1109:
1104:
1097:
1093:
1089:
1085:
1081:
1077:
1075:
1071:
1067:
1062:
1059:
1057:
1054:
1049:
1046:
1044:
1040:
1036:
1032:
1028:
1025:
1023:
1019:
1015:
1010:
1007:
1005:
1001:
997:
993:
990:
989:
980:
976:
972:
968:
964:
963:
962:
958:
954:
950:
949:
948:
947:
946:
945:
942:
938:
934:
930:
926:
922:
916:
912:
907:
903:
900:
896:
891:
887:
884:
882:
879:
874:
870:
865:
862:
861:
856:
852:
848:
843:
838:
837:
836:
835:
830:
826:
822:
818:
817:
816:
813:
812:
811:
807:
806:
800:
796:
791:
788:
786:
783:
779:
776:
770:
766:
762:
757:
756:
755:
752:
747:
742:
736:
735:
734:
730:
726:
721:
720:
715:
711:
707:
703:
702:
701:
700:
697:
694:
689:
684:
677:
674:
672:
668:
664:
660:
656:
652:
649:
648:
644:
639:
635:
631:
627:
624:
623:
619:
616:
615:
612:
609:
608:
607:
601:
596:
589:
578:
574:
570:
566:
562:
558:
554:
550:
545:
534:
532:
531:
527:
526:
521:
520:
517:
514:
509:
501:
499:
498:
495:
490:
485:
479:
476:taking place
475:
467:
465:
464:
460:
456:
447:
439:
433:
422:
409:
407:
406:
402:
401:
396:
395:
392:
389:
384:
376:
374:
373:
369:
365:
361:
357:
353:
346:
344:
343:
339:
335:
331:
330:
325:
324:
319:
298:
294:
290:
286:
285:
284:
280:
276:
270:
265:
264:
263:
259:
255:
251:
247:
246:
239:
233:
232:
231:
230:
226:
222:
217:
215:
214:
209:
204:
202:
199:On behalf of
180:
176:
172:
168:
164:
161:I agree with
160:
158:
154:
150:
146:
145:
144:
143:
139:
135:
132:Thank you. --
130:
123:
120:
117:
116:
115:
113:
105:
99:
96:
93:
91:
88:
86:
83:
80:
76:
74:
71:
69:
66:
63:
61:
58:
57:
49:
45:
41:
40:
35:
28:
27:
19:
4772:
4707:
4677:
4624:
4464:StudiesWorld
4424:StudiesWorld
4416:
4370:
4348:article, see
4343:
4301:
4288:
4286:
4264:
4243:
4227:that article
4205:
4189:
4172:
4153:— Preceding
4144:GoldRingChip
4139:
4123:WP:ELNO#EL11
4114:
4087:WP:ELNO#blog
4070:
3983:
3974:
3971:
3957:
3946:
3883:
3845:
3841:
3806:
3775:
3759:
3747:
3731:
3719:
3677:GoldRingChip
3666:
3659:
3658:
3642:
3635:
3634:
3620:GoldRingChip
3605:
3598:
3597:
3547:GoldRingChip
3545:Looks good,
3544:
3515:GoldRingChip
3491:
3487:
3428:
3392:
3390:
3368:
3361:GoldRingChip
3234:
3124:GoldRingChip
3089:GoldRingChip
3075:GoldRingChip
3021:GoldRingChip
3011:GoldRingChip
2974:
2961:
2959:
2937:
2933:
2916:
2899:
2895:
2878:
2861:
2856:
2835:
2781:
2777:
2756:
2739:
2735:
2714:
2692:
2658:
2643:
2628:
2621:
2614:
2608:
2599:
2596:
2582:
2578:
2573:
2571:
2545:
2435:
2413:
2374:
2358:elections)?
2354:
2350:
2346:
2344:
2259:GoldRingChip
2219:GoldRingChip
2216:
2140:GoldRingChip
2112:GoldRingChip
2102:GoldRingChip
2065:GoldRingChip
2016:
2012:
1925:
1910:
1909:
1903:
1899:
1897:
1884:
1837:
1718:
1691:
1661:
1650:
1648:
1624:
1620:
1597:
1528:
1520:
1501:
1487:
1456:
1433:
1330:
1231:
1216:
1174:Jimi Hendrix
1120:WhatamIdoing
1113:
1102:
1060:
1047:
1026:
1008:
991:
924:
920:
910:
898:
885:
863:
841:
809:
804:
802:
798:
789:
777:
675:
650:
633:
629:
625:
617:
610:
599:
592:
583:
564:
560:
556:
552:
548:
524:
518:
515:
512:
505:
471:
429:
399:
393:
390:
387:
380:
364:Kart2401real
350:
334:Inkian Jason
327:
321:
315:
289:Inkian Jason
269:Inkian Jason
254:Inkian Jason
250:this section
243:
221:Inkian Jason
218:
211:
206:The details
205:
198:
131:
127:
109:
78:
43:
37:
4119:WP:ELNO#EL4
4097:as well. --
4075:WP:NOTPROMO
4040:WP:LINKFARM
3953:WP:NOTPROMO
3926:Maswimelleu
3260:עם ישראל חי
3184:Jon Kolbert
3169:Jon Kolbert
3134:Jon Kolbert
3114:Jon Kolbert
3095:Jon Kolbert
3043:Jon Kolbert
2663:this debate
2373:IMHO, it's
2049:Bedivere.cs
1726:Bill Walker
1711:A check of
1582:VietPride10
1463:In The News
1440:VietPride10
1150:WP:NOTSTATS
1135:red herring
1114:Please see
821:Anywikiuser
761:Anywikiuser
725:Anywikiuser
659:Don Quixote
600:USA-focused
430:Please see
320:'s article
318:David Trone
219:Thank you.
201:David Trone
149:Maswimelleu
36:This is an
4656:Bondegezou
4573:Bondegezou
4196:policy. —
4177:Bondegezou
3375:Obi2canibe
3326:Bondegezou
3291:Bondegezou
3245:Obi2canibe
3192:. Thanks!
2866:Bondegezou
2740:compelling
2193:. Cheers,
2138:Ugh, ok. —
2029:Obi2canibe
1938:. Cheers,
1905:with them
1814:Bondegezou
1783:RadioKAOS
1744:RadioKAOS
1488:A current
1381:RadioKAOS
1368:North Pole
1342:District 1
1191:RadioKAOS
1009:It depends
992:It depends
971:Bondegezou
933:Bondegezou
895:WP:INFOBOX
312:Unresolved
248:to add to
134:Wavehunter
98:Archive 20
90:Archive 16
85:Archive 15
79:Archive 14
73:Archive 13
68:Archive 12
60:Archive 10
4629:Mélencron
4545:Number 57
4270:Vanamonde
4252:DannyS712
4127:Mélencron
4058:Marchjuly
4036:WP:ELLIST
3850:AxelBoldt
3809:AxelBoldt
3330:Number 57
3163:Number 57
3110:Number 57
3085:Number 57
3069:Number 57
3001:Number 57
2840:WP:VERIFY
2786:Mélencron
2615:certified
2436:open seat
2414:picked up
2345:Is it an
2308:Mélencron
2293:Mélencron
2287:Number 57
2154:Number 57
2096:Number 57
2045:Asqueladd
2033:Stalin990
2025:Kiwichris
1578:Mélencron
1564:Mélencron
1506:dlthewave
1471:Tlhslobus
1459:ITNR Talk
1354:Ketchikan
1346:Fairbanks
1250:Rutland-3
1164:and how "
996:Mélencron
810:Nidhiki05
605:Question
569:Vanamonde
561:threshold
4695:contribs
4605:contribs
4541:Reywas92
4483:Reywas92
4445:Reywas92
4420:WP:EVENT
4354:KarlFrei
4265:No links
4244:No links
4208:Activist
4155:unsigned
4140:No links
4071:No links
4016:Campaign
3577:contribs
3281:Reywas92
2942:Levivich
2917:Option 3
2904:Levivich
2879:Option 3
2857:Option 3
2836:Option 3
2819:Levivich
2778:Option 3
2757:Option 3
2736:Option 3
2715:Option 3
2698:Levivich
2645:Levivich
2622:conceded
2580:further.
2462:Levivich
2434:It's an
2418:Levivich
2360:Levivich
2053:Mr Savva
1930:becomes
1911:hundreds
1900:Flooded
1894:WP:SPLIT
1863:Beetstra
1805:Reywas92
1768:Reywas92
1734:WP:SYNTH
1678:contribs
1467:this one
1356:. When
1170:an album
1080:WP:ANRFC
1053:Reywas92
888:(1) Can
358:for the
195:Resolved
4660:doktorb
4373:Hiwilms
4310:Impru20
4020:Website
3949:WP:ELNO
3760:ZI Jony
3732:ZI Jony
3694:Become
3686:Dweller
3559:Become
3551:Dweller
3532:Become
3524:Dweller
3502:Become
3494:Dweller
3408:Patrick
2883:doktorb
2805:Orser67
2761:Orser67
2744:Orser67
2723:GoodDay
2659:Comment
2523:Orser67
2395:Orser67
2379:GoodDay
2179:Impru20
2063:, and
2061:Impru20
2037:Koala15
1961:period.
1698:Frickeg
1494:example
1035:altjira
1031:WP:NPOV
915:WP:NPOV
911:summary
906:WP:NPOV
655:WP:NPOV
638:WP:NPOV
630:results
618:Options
549:However
171:doktorb
39:archive
4784:Number
4739:Number
4600:IJBall
4521:Number
4393:Number
4321:Number
4248:policy
4234:(talk)
4190:Remove
4115:Remove
4102:rose64
3994:(talk)
3959:Cunard
3905:Number
3842:gained
3660:bd2412
3636:bd2412
3629:WP:BRD
3599:bd2412
3572:IJBall
3462:Number
3436:Number
3306:Number
3195:Number
3142:Number
3048:Number
2979:Number
2765:Carter
2668:Number
2629:called
2584:Cunard
2500:Carter
2440:Carter
2315:Number
2266:Number
2238:Number
2196:Number
2120:Number
2072:Number
2041:Juxlos
1992:Number
1967:Number
1941:Number
1844:WP:BLP
1674:(talk)
1668:Haired
1498:WP:DUE
1338:Alaska
1298:Jc3s5h
1280:Jc3s5h
1259:Number
1235:Jc3s5h
1139:WP:NOT
1088:Cunard
740:Number
682:Number
634:before
483:Number
455:rose64
352:Yellow
4664:words
4314:Aréat
4194:WP:EL
4054:WP:SS
4008:WP:EL
3616:WP:BB
3592:WP:RM
3379:talk)
3339:Impru
3249:talk)
2887:words
2845:Impru
2721:. --
2165:Impru
1730:WP:OR
1665:Brown
1404:CA-42
1312:NY-15
1143:WP:RS
1066:Dael4
842:think
544:WP:AN
525:☎ 911
400:☎ 911
275:MB298
238:MB298
175:words
167:WP:OR
16:<
4764:talk
4691:talk
4683:here
4633:talk
4609:talk
4594:and
4577:talk
4566:and
4543:and
4510:and
4468:talk
4428:talk
4377:talk
4358:talk
4312:and
4274:Talk
4256:talk
4250:. --
4212:talk
4181:talk
4163:talk
4131:talk
4121:and
4117:per
4106:talk
4104:🌹 (
4085:and
4062:talk
3989:. --
3963:talk
3951:and
3930:talk
3900:this
3886:here
3873:talk
3854:talk
3846:kept
3828:talk
3813:talk
3800:and
3788:and
3690:talk
3581:talk
3555:talk
3528:talk
3498:talk
3457:here
3431:here
3371:here
3328:and
3295:talk
3264:talk
3173:talk
3112:and
3099:talk
3087:and
3037:and
3027:here
2946:talk
2908:talk
2901:yet.
2870:talk
2862:e.g.
2838:per
2823:talk
2809:talk
2790:talk
2769:talk
2748:talk
2727:talk
2719:WP:V
2717:per
2702:talk
2649:talk
2588:talk
2556:talk
2550:. --
2539:RfC
2527:talk
2504:talk
2466:talk
2444:talk
2422:talk
2399:talk
2383:talk
2375:both
2364:talk
2355:e.g.
2351:e.g.
2297:talk
2233:here
1936:here
1892:per
1871:talk
1852:talk
1818:talk
1702:talk
1694:here
1670:Girl
1632:talk
1605:talk
1586:talk
1568:talk
1553:talk
1536:talk
1475:talk
1444:talk
1412:talk
1374:and
1321:talk
1302:talk
1284:talk
1239:talk
1180:and
1124:talk
1092:talk
1070:talk
1039:talk
1018:talk
1000:talk
975:talk
957:talk
937:talk
925:e.g.
921:etc.
899:e.g.
851:talk
825:talk
765:talk
729:talk
710:talk
667:talk
573:talk
557:must
508:here
478:here
459:talk
457:🌹 (
450:. --
442:and
368:talk
338:talk
329:here
326:and
323:here
293:talk
279:talk
258:talk
245:here
225:talk
213:here
153:talk
138:talk
4198:JFG
4100:Red
3752:at
3724:at
3402:or
3373:.--
3041:).
3009:. —
2940:.
2921:JFG
2782:the
2100:? —
1732:or
1676:• (
1490:RfC
1221:).
1160:in
1061:Yes
1027:Yes
931:).
918:-->
805:Toa
778:Yes
676:Yes
651:Yes
553:all
516:eri
453:Red
421:FYI
391:eri
4766:)
4726:}}
4720:{{
4716:}}
4710:{{
4697:)
4693:•
4635:)
4607:•
4579:)
4562:,
4558:,
4554:,
4518:.
4506:,
4502:,
4498:,
4470:)
4430:)
4390:.
4379:)
4360:)
4258:)
4214:)
4183:)
4165:)
4133:)
4125:.
4108:)
4081:;
4064:)
4018:•
3932:)
3896:}}
3890:{{
3856:)
3848:.
3830:)
3815:)
3804:.
3796:,
3784:,
3692:)
3579:•
3557:)
3530:)
3500:)
3459:.
3410:,
3341:20
3297:)
3266:)
3175:)
3101:)
3033:,
2948:)
2910:)
2872:)
2847:20
2825:)
2811:)
2792:)
2771:)
2750:)
2729:)
2704:)
2651:)
2558:)
2529:)
2506:)
2488::
2468:)
2460:.
2446:)
2424:)
2401:)
2385:)
2366:)
2299:)
2191:}}
2185:{{
2167:20
2059:,
2055:,
2051:,
2047:,
2043:,
2039:,
2035:,
2031:,
2027:,
1989:.
1873:)
1854:)
1820:)
1704:)
1696:.
1588:)
1570:)
1555:)
1477:)
1446:)
1414:)
1323:)
1304:)
1296:.
1286:)
1241:)
1229:?
1176:,
1126:)
1094:)
1086:.
1072:)
1048:No
1041:)
1020:)
1002:)
977:)
969:.
959:)
939:)
886:No
853:)
827:)
799:or
790:No
782:TM
767:)
731:)
712:)
669:)
661:.
575:)
528:|
522:|
519:ff
513:Sh
461:)
448:}}
444:{{
440:}}
436:{{
424:–
403:|
397:|
394:ff
388:Sh
370:)
340:)
295:)
281:)
260:)
227:)
155:)
140:)
94:→
64:←
4794:7
4789:5
4762:(
4749:7
4744:5
4689:(
4631:(
4611:)
4603:(
4575:(
4547:.
4531:7
4526:5
4466:(
4426:(
4403:7
4398:5
4375:(
4356:(
4331:7
4326:5
4316::
4308:@
4276:)
4272:(
4254:(
4210:(
4179:(
4161:(
4129:(
4060:(
3961:(
3928:(
3915:7
3910:5
3875:)
3871:(
3852:(
3826:(
3811:(
3688:(
3667:T
3643:T
3618:—
3606:T
3583:)
3575:(
3553:(
3526:(
3496:(
3472:7
3467:5
3446:7
3441:5
3416:Ѻ
3413:o
3377:(
3359:—
3316:7
3311:5
3293:(
3262:(
3247:(
3205:7
3200:5
3186::
3182:@
3171:(
3165::
3161:@
3152:7
3147:5
3136::
3132:@
3116::
3108:@
3097:(
3091::
3083:@
3071::
3067:@
3058:7
3053:5
3023::
3019:@
3003::
2999:@
2989:7
2984:5
2944:(
2906:(
2868:(
2821:(
2807:(
2788:(
2767:(
2746:(
2725:(
2700:(
2678:7
2673:5
2647:(
2586:(
2554:(
2525:(
2502:(
2496:.
2464:(
2442:(
2420:(
2397:(
2381:(
2362:(
2325:7
2320:5
2310::
2306:@
2295:(
2289::
2285:@
2276:7
2271:5
2261::
2257:@
2248:7
2243:5
2206:7
2201:5
2181::
2177:@
2156::
2152:@
2130:7
2125:5
2114::
2110:@
2098::
2094:@
2082:7
2077:5
2067::
2023:@
2002:7
1997:5
1977:7
1972:5
1951:7
1946:5
1869:(
1850:(
1816:(
1792:/
1786:/
1753:/
1747:/
1700:(
1680:)
1634:)
1630:(
1607:)
1603:(
1584:(
1566:(
1551:(
1538:)
1534:(
1509:☎
1473:(
1442:(
1410:(
1390:/
1384:/
1319:(
1300:(
1282:(
1269:7
1264:5
1237:(
1200:/
1194:/
1122:(
1090:(
1068:(
1037:(
1016:(
998:(
973:(
955:(
935:(
849:(
823:(
763:(
750:7
745:5
727:(
708:(
692:7
687:5
665:(
571:(
493:7
488:5
366:(
336:(
291:(
277:(
271::
267:@
256:(
240::
236:@
223:(
151:(
136:(
50:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.