84:
525:. There are several problems in the current title. One is that the disambiguator appears to be a redundant alternative title rather than a type classification or context clarifier. Another is the question mark indicating a lack of confidence about whether the painting's title should be "Self Portrait" or not (or whether the painting fits into the self-portraiture category or not). We shouldn't be using question marks this way. The use of title case and the lack of a hyphen in "Self Portrait" also seem questionable. See also the previous discussion of the title from 2011–2017 on the article talk page. —
386:
1410:
title for the painting (and several that prefix the term with "so-called" or "presumed" or "alleged" or "supposed" or "likely" or "thought to be a", and others that have the term in seemingly off-topic phrases like "What seems to be yet another self-portrait of the artist ..." and "Van Eyck's vocation for self-portrait" and "the man behind Van Eyck's self-portrait in the reflection in the armor of ..." and "a self-portrait of the artist mentioned in inventories of the
British Royal ..."). —
603:. Note also that there is no clear evidence that the painting is a self-portrait – that is just the impression that some people have gotten by looking at the painting and trying to interpret the ambiguous text painted on its frame. As far as I know, there are no other paintings that used Van Eyck as the subject, no preserved descriptions of what he looked like, and no writings by those who knew him who said that he was the subject or even that he had painted any portrait of himself. —
74:
53:
22:
176:
158:
186:
1171:"probably a self portrait" is a phrase in lowercase that does not include a question mark. That would be an improvement over the current "Self Portrait?" (with uppercase and a question mark). Mentioning van Eyck or the headpiece might be a further improvement, since there are probably at least ten thousand portraits of men that are probably self-portraits. —
482:
1088:
There's not disambiguating adequately and disambiguating so poorly that it's laughable! Be honest, if you saw a title like "Portrait of a Man (Self
Portrait?)", would you think "oh yes, that must be the Van Eyck self-portrait"? But if you saw "Portrait of a Man in a Red Turban" you might, if you knew
1073:
Thousands of our paintings titles don't disambiguate adequately - the disambiguation rules don't allow them to. That applies just as much to the proposed titles. We wouldn't be allowed to add "van Eyck" or "National
Gallery" in the absence of other titles of the same form, despite there being two van
1012:
Great, let's just make up a title for one of the best-known paintings in
Western art! If you could be bothered to count the "countless publications and other presentations", you would find that pretty much all the high-quality ones are over 50 years old. "Turban" just doesn't work in 2024, though no
1156:
p. 382 call it "A Man in a Red Turban, Probably a self-portrait". Note all these books are on my bookcases and I'm not finding viewable pages online, plus Ceoil gave
Campbell's title above. It's important to keep the "probably a self portrait" aspect of this for lots of reasons. Suggestions on how
677:
also includes (Self
Portrait?), though he does mention a turban but not the color. Will try to check other sources & add relevant page numbers when possible, but as JB mentions, there isn't a common name. What does seem to be common is that scholars believe it's a self portrait but it's an old
295:
I agree that dropping the question mark after the title is a better choice, also the brackets, which just make this title informal. We can think about putting those in the introduction in the article. The name that
National Gallery gives to the artwork also have a perspective thinking of attracting
647:
Sorry about the spelling error. I don't think any of the suggested article titles are "made-up titles" – as far as I know, they come from sources (except for parenthesized disambiguation terms, which are just context or category type descriptions that
Knowledge typically does not feel obliged to
1409:
I don't understand what relevance there is to the number of hits for "self-portrait" somewhere near "van Eyck". Is that an article title suggestion? A look at the first couple of pages of those search results do not reveal any (with or without a hyphen in "self-portrait") that use that term as a
265:
There are several "Portrait of a Man (Van Eyck)"s (including one hanging right next to this), but only one generally thought to be a self-portrait. This is also exactly what the label in the gallery says, so I don't know where the distinction between a "formal painting title" and a catalogue one
701:
Regarding the comment that "these are not titles", the word "title" in this discussion refers primarily to the title of a
Knowledge article, not the concept of a title of a painting. Although these would often be the same, a Knowledge article may, for example, contain a disambiguation term in
1426:
No, of course it isn't "an article title suggestion"; was that a serious thought? I'm trying to avoid OR. What the search shows is that art historians mentioning the painting are far more likely to use "self-portrait" somehow, rather than "turban", for the reasons already discussed.
827:" in a comment below. It's true that I didn't put the effort into identifying specific sources, but I don't think there's any real question about whether 'turban' is found in sources – it clearly is. If preferred, however, a title that doesn't use 'turban' could be something like
1448:- hardly distinguishing. We are looking for how the painting has been titled. The search provided is not distinguishing this panting from others by Van Eyck. The number of hits in this search is not distinguishing "self-portrait" as a title v its general use in discussion.
868:
797:
Which "external sources"? The article doesn't give any for "turban", except for Smart
History in EL, and you haven't given any, which you really need to do to support a move proposal. Also please give the VA project a notice of the proposal.
1109:'s big catalogue of 1998 uses it). I'm sure I'm not the only one. In fact "our titles are meant to disambiguate different things" is barely true at all; the rules explicitly don't allow useful disambiguation, with the results you see at eg
939:
Good point. I think his headcover was generally referred to as a "turban" up to about WW2, and costume history becoming more developed, since when "chaperon" has gradually taken over. I don't think "turban" is at all acceptable in 2024.
782:
The word 'turban' is coming from external sources, not from our own OR; no one is saying it's actually a turban. Unfortunately, we have not found sources calling it "Portrait of a Man in a Red Chaperon with the Dangly Bits Folded In".
620:
For the moment, the National Gallery still uses this, and we should follow them. Where do these made-up titles come from? We should not be inventing titles. Along with others, they may well be used in various sources, but there is no
1013:
doubt low-grade websites will go on using it for years to come, especially if Knowledge encouyrages them to persist in this cultural appropriation (which actually does get some Asian people rather cross, rightly or wrongly).
1486:
is a self portrait, scholars are interested in the reflections, beyond the fact that he even used those kinds of reflections (which hadn't been seen before), because they are interested in knowing what van Eyck looked like.
280:
Fair point, though I suggest we consider any alternatives (such as just dropping the question mark) as the question-mark is a headache for links from other websites and invariably ends up as a hex code to avoid URL errors.
1616:
522:
1032:
1543:
The text in parenthesis not a Knowledge disambiguation, but a part of the painting's official name and what the painting is currently known as. Changing the name to something else will just cause confusion.
682:
or the Arnolfini portrait. Yes, of course he painted men wearing chaperons - that was the fashion of his period. Note that technically these are not titles but identifiers for scholars, collectors, etc.
1612:
828:
518:
1608:
1575:
would emphatically not be a good way to go. No article titles for artworks are disambiguated that way, and it wouldn't disambiguate this painting from the four other works currently in
1370:
1358:
1027:
I'm also very uncomfortable with the proposed lets "make up on the fly" a knowingly inaccurate title, because a fastidious we don't like the "?" in the official title. To my mind,
998:." It's hard to see the Gallery's funny parenthetical as part of a title, even if it's their catalog entry, and it's particularly jarring in the context of WP naming conventions.
247:
746:. The current title is utterly meaningless. The National Gallery's title is merely a label on a painting. Our titles are meant to be a little more informative than that. --
1558:(edit conflict) This is not a capitalisation issue at all, and therefore not for WT:MOSCAPS, because whatever is the best title for this article the parenthetical phrase
1366:
884:
1362:
359:
rather than this painting. I'm a bit surprised not to find more, since Van Eyck produced visually interesting work and the copyright rights are long expired. —
1391:
The google search rather proves the opposite - your search in fact got just 22 results, not all using it as a title (and some I think about other paintings), but
1350:
1346:
678:
painting and because there are no other images of Jan van Eyck there's no way of knowing - hence the question mark. Personally am opposed to confusing with the
1369:) indicate it is variously named/described as: a portrait of a man in/with a turban by van Eyck (1433) and that it is probably a self-portrait. Alfred Acres
1342:
368:
329:
1474:
portrait that might be a self portrait. The google scholar searches pull up the various other glimpses of the artist, i,e the reflection in the armour in
1579:(all of them male portraits at the time of writing). Whereas with that phrase as part of the painting's title, it could be argued that this work is the
1354:
1241:!!! Gee, thanks ever so much! No, it's your nom, you should do it. You seem to have plenty of "time and energy" for a stream of long responses here.
514:
305:
768:
at all! It's a chaperon, with the dangly bits folded in, presumably to stop getting paint on them (a pice of evidence to support "self-portrait").
1130:
290:
275:
140:
1652:
534:
130:
1496:
426:
1392:
1386:
1180:
729:
711:
692:
422:
1227:
That was a shortage of time and energy, not restraint. Feel free to notify some projects (in a neutral tone); I think it's a good idea. —
1166:
1647:
1576:
1553:
1531:
612:
1068:
755:
1457:
1404:
1007:
425:
within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the
1436:
1419:
1272:
1250:
1236:
1222:
1185:"at least ten thousand portraits of men that are probably self-portraits"? Did you just make that up? Its hard to take you seriously.
840:
807:
792:
657:
638:
552:
1628:
1602:
1122:
1098:
1083:
1059:
disambiguating anything? It could be applied to umpteen paintings. It's completely meaningless in the context of an article title. --
934:
777:
1662:
1657:
1475:
1256:
1208:
1194:
893:
582:
1022:
1337:
name for this article, we should be guided by how it is named/described in sources (plural) in balance with the naming criteria at
1055:. What some contributors here seem to be forgetting is that our titles are meant to disambiguate different things. How on earth is
949:
1043:
971:
259:
430:
1568:
given to the painting, as indicated by the title case and italics. Treating it as Knowledge disambiguation and rendering it as
1511:
1260:
208:
1089:
something about art, at least have a clue what was being referred to. We're here to help our users, not to bamboozle them. --
1110:
296:
viewer. Following that "official" name is not a bad idea but it indeed makes this article weird, at least at the first sight.
1541:
717:
474:
1113:, where only those titles exactly matching another are allowed to add the artist or location. Annoying, but there you are.
250:. The current title with a question-mark is based on the NG catalogue qualification rather than the formal painting title.
1585:
1463:
1320:
1056:
492:
393:
374:
315:
743:
478:
199:
163:
106:
513:(reverting to the title before an undiscussed move in 2007 suggesting a right to naming deriving from ownership) or
629:
is something else. Almost all RS think it is probably a self-portrait; dobn't let's get into OR tangles on that.
434:
1515:
1395:. And unlike men in red chaperons, there has only ever been one painting claimed to be a van Eyck self-portrait.
1106:
1028:
325:
702:
parentheses that is not intended to be considered part of the title of the work discussed in the article. —
83:
461:
1105:
Actually, that doesn't work for me, because I'm used to what has now been the NG's title for over 25 years (
958:. However, that was +170 years ago, and think we should keep the NG title (which Campbell also uses)....ie
497:
402:
97:
58:
33:
1255:
I just looked into it and I think I have fulfilled your suggestion. I found the RM was already listed in
888:
349:
1470:
the title (the parentheses don't indicate a disambiguation but rather are part of the title) and is the
1133:, the issue is that it's unknown whether or not it's a self portrait. That's why the National Gallery,
509:
669:
per Johnbod. We should follow the sources, i.e National Gallery. Of the sources I have easily at hand
418:
321:
320:
I remember seeing this painting used as an album cover back in the 1990s. Anyone else remember it?
1667:
1540:. The National Gallery webpage for this painting lists it as "Portrait of a Man (Self Portrait?)".
207:
on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
105:
on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
1492:
1453:
1382:
1162:
725:
688:
449:
397:
241:
21:
1580:
1519:
356:
336:
1149:
p. 36 all use the parenthesis with the question mark, i.e. (self portrait?). In her monologue
1624:
1549:
1527:
1415:
1301:
1268:
1232:
1204:
1176:
1034:
and he, like most other art historians in the last 30 years, uses the current article title.
836:
788:
707:
653:
608:
530:
503:
364:
39:
1330:
1142:
1094:
1064:
751:
674:
622:
301:
8:
983:
566:
1488:
1479:
1449:
1378:
1325:. While the current title may be the label the NG uses, there is a distinction between
1158:
1003:
814:
721:
684:
626:
438:
191:
597:, although not a red one), which has a Knowledge article devoted to it that is called
1432:
1400:
1246:
1218:
1153:
1118:
1079:
1018:
945:
803:
773:
634:
548:
271:
1263:, following the pattern used for two other RM notifications that I found there. —
560:: Note that although, as far as I know, this is the only painting commonly known as
1620:
1598:
1545:
1523:
1411:
1264:
1228:
1200:
1172:
930:
860:
832:
820:
784:
703:
649:
604:
573:, and Van Eyck painted another portrait of a man in a somewhat similar looking red
526:
360:
344:
679:
599:
1375:
countless publications and other presentations have called it Man in a Red Turban
1306:
1190:
1090:
1060:
1039:
967:
747:
297:
286:
255:
1134:
718:
the title assigned by the institution that's held the work for almost 200 years
670:
1641:
1074:
Eyck portraits of men in red "turbans", never mind plenty by other painters.
999:
908:
89:
1462:
You all maybe need to spend some time reading the sources. The page titled
1428:
1396:
1338:
1242:
1214:
1199:
I believe I have refrained from personal attacks in this conversation. —
1114:
1075:
1014:
941:
899:
Portrait of a Man in a Red Chaperon (presumed to depict Giovanni Arnolfini)
799:
769:
630:
544:
267:
1213:
You've also refrained (third time of asking) from notifying the projects.
1594:
926:
204:
1186:
1035:
963:
954:
Campbell p. 212 says it was sold at Christies in 1851 under the title
282:
251:
73:
52:
994:, and countless publications and other presentations have called it
765:
175:
157:
102:
1446:"What seems to be yet another self-portrait of the artist ..."
1129:
In addition to what Johnbod and Ceoil have said, particularly
185:
586:. He also painted another painting sometimes called simply
1482:. Because we don't have a definitive answer as to whether
990:
which says "The National Gallery in London catalogs it as
335:
I found some mention of an association with Van Eyck for
823:) that says the painting is "traditionally known as the
413:
203:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
181:
101:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
79:
1617:
Portrait of a Man (Van Eyck possible self-portrait)
523:
Portrait of a Man (Van Eyck possible self-portrait)
1619:(with hyphenation, without a question mark). —
1257:Knowledge:WikiProject Visual arts#Requested moves
625:. Please alert the VA project. It's "chaperon" -
1639:
1611:. I believe the nearest suggestions have been
905:Portrait of a man (from the Arnolfini family?)
819:I note that Ham II also referenced a source (
1577:Category:Works believed to be self-portraits
1522:have been notified of this discussion. —
19:
1613:Portrait of a Man (possible self-portrait)
921:would arguably need disambiguation, e.g.,
829:Portrait of a Man (1433 van Eyck painting)
519:Portrait of a Man (possible self-portrait)
392:It has been proposed in this section that
1476:Virgin and Child with Canon van der Paele
1393:"self-portrait""van Eyck" gets over 4,000
894:Portrait of Giovanni di Nicolao Arnolfini
583:Portrait of Giovanni di Nicolao Arnolfini
355:(1995). But those seem to be referencing
1478:and the reflection in the mirror in the
764:The pitfalls of OR: it isn't a frigging
590:(in which the subject is also wearing a
1653:Low-importance London-related articles
1640:
1341:. Various searches of Google scholar (
1261:Knowledge talk:WikiProject Visual arts
1031:is the overarching living expert here,
1111:Category:Paintings of the Virgin Mary
873:the signed and dated portrait of the
1607:No one has suggested renaming it to
380:
197:This article is within the scope of
95:This article is within the scope of
15:
1648:Start-Class London-related articles
956:Head of the Artist, in a Red Turban
246:I propose this article is moved to
38:It is of interest to the following
13:
1609:Portrait of a Man (self portrait?)
1586:Portrait of a Man (Self Portrait?)
1464:Portrait of a Man (Self Portrait?)
1321:Portrait of a Man (Self Portrait?)
1057:Portrait of a Man (Self Portrait?)
992:Portrait of a Man (Self-Portrait?)
673:includes the (Self Portrait?) and
493:Portrait of a Man (Self Portrait?)
394:Portrait of a Man (Self Portrait?)
14:
1679:
744:Portrait of a Man in a Red Turban
562:Portrait of a Man in a Red Turban
498:Portrait of a Man in a Red Turban
417:will list this discussion on the
403:Portrait of a Man in a Red Turban
217:Knowledge:WikiProject Visual arts
1663:WikiProject Visual arts articles
1658:Start-Class visual arts articles
384:
375:Requested move 23 September 2024
220:Template:WikiProject Visual arts
184:
174:
156:
82:
72:
51:
20:
648:find verbatim in sources). —
135:This article has been rated as
1629:20:55, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
1603:17:36, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
1554:17:32, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
1532:16:38, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
1497:23:03, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
1458:22:16, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
1437:03:21, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
1420:20:37, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
1405:03:36, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
1387:23:30, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
1273:15:45, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
1251:14:52, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
1237:05:38, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
1223:03:27, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
1209:20:39, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
1195:04:15, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
1181:21:57, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
1167:15:31, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
1123:01:24, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
1099:14:04, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
1084:11:34, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
1069:10:03, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
1044:21:35, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
1023:15:15, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
1008:04:00, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
972:19:56, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
950:14:53, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
935:12:35, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
841:16:02, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
808:15:21, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
793:15:13, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
778:12:02, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
756:11:51, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
730:12:59, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
712:17:36, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
693:02:09, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
658:23:26, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
639:23:13, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
613:21:39, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
553:21:00, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
543:. The current title is silly.
535:20:11, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
369:22:40, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
1:
1583:for the specific formulation
1317:(whether questioned or not).
510:Portrait of a Man in a Turban
211:and see a list of open tasks.
109:and see a list of open tasks.
1589:. Dictionaries usually give
1259:. I added a notification at
877:(traditionally known as the
429:). Please base arguments on
291:14:30, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
276:14:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
260:14:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
248:Portrait of a Man (Van Eyck)
115:Knowledge:WikiProject London
7:
988:Jan van Eyck within His Art
986:or some such, per the book
889:Staatliche Museen zu Berlin
306:00:40, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
118:Template:WikiProject London
10:
1684:
1520:WT:MOSCAPS discussion list
564:, the turban is in fact a
316:Appearances In Pop Culture
141:project's importance scale
913:So an article title with
330:01:27, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
169:
134:
67:
46:
1323:disambiguating anything?
1305:. Firstly, I agree with
1512:WikiProject Visual arts
891:calls the work we call
871:on van Eyck refers to "
200:WikiProject Visual arts
121:London-related articles
887:on the website of the
881:, 1433; London, N.G.).
433:, and keep discussion
357:the Arnolfini portrait
342:(Ray Manzarek, 1983),
28:This article is rated
875:Man in a Red Chaperon
1143:Till-Holger Borchert
675:Till-Holger Borchert
462:requested move/dated
450:subst:requested move
431:article title policy
427:closing instructions
421:current discussions
322:The Sanity Inspector
223:visual arts articles
1466:, which in my view
1333:. In selecting the
1302:Man in a Red Turban
1151:Hubert and Jan Eyck
996:Man in a Red Turban
984:Man in a Red Turban
879:Man in a Red Turban
825:Man in a Red Turban
504:Man in a Red Turban
348:(Oasis, 1994), and
1593:a hyphen, though.
1480:Arnolfini Portrait
1311:portraits of a man
923:(van Eyck, London)
192:Visual arts portal
98:WikiProject London
34:content assessment
1571:Portrait of a Man
1534:
1309:. There are many
1154:Elisabeth Dhanens
818:
588:Portrait of a Man
580:that is known as
490:
489:
485:
468:
398:renamed and moved
353:(Green Day album)
239:
238:
235:
234:
231:
230:
151:
150:
147:
146:
1675:
1573:(self portrait?)
1566:within the title
1561:(Self Portrait?)
1516:WikiProject Arts
1509:
1319:How on earth is
1304:
912:
909:online catalogue
866:
821:Grove Art Online
812:
512:
506:
500:
470:
465:
453:
444:
416:
405:
388:
387:
381:
345:Definitely Maybe
225:
224:
221:
218:
215:
194:
189:
188:
178:
171:
170:
160:
153:
152:
123:
122:
119:
116:
113:
92:
87:
86:
76:
69:
68:
63:
55:
48:
47:
31:
25:
24:
16:
1683:
1682:
1678:
1677:
1676:
1674:
1673:
1672:
1668:Requested moves
1638:
1637:
1581:WP:PRIMARYTOPIC
1300:
902:
864:
515:Man in a Turban
508:
502:
496:
486:
459:
447:
419:requested moves
412:
401:
385:
377:
318:
244:
242:Proposed rename
222:
219:
216:
213:
212:
190:
183:
120:
117:
114:
111:
110:
88:
81:
61:
32:on Knowledge's
29:
12:
11:
5:
1681:
1671:
1670:
1665:
1660:
1655:
1650:
1636:
1635:
1634:
1633:
1632:
1631:
1556:
1506:
1505:
1504:
1503:
1502:
1501:
1500:
1499:
1443:
1442:
1441:
1440:
1439:
1315:self portraits
1295:
1294:
1293:
1292:
1291:
1290:
1289:
1288:
1287:
1286:
1285:
1284:
1283:
1282:
1281:
1280:
1279:
1278:
1277:
1276:
1275:
1135:Craig Harbison
1127:
1126:
1125:
1107:Lorne Campbell
1050:
1049:
1048:
1047:
1046:
1029:Lorne Campbell
978:
977:
976:
975:
974:
852:
851:
850:
849:
848:
847:
846:
845:
844:
843:
759:
758:
737:
736:
735:
734:
733:
732:
696:
695:
671:Craig Harbison
663:
662:
661:
660:
642:
641:
615:
555:
517:, or at least
488:
487:
469:
443:
409:
408:
389:
376:
373:
372:
371:
338:Carmina Burana
317:
314:
313:
312:
311:
310:
309:
308:
243:
240:
237:
236:
233:
232:
229:
228:
226:
209:the discussion
196:
195:
179:
167:
166:
161:
149:
148:
145:
144:
137:Low-importance
133:
127:
126:
124:
107:the discussion
94:
93:
77:
65:
64:
62:Low‑importance
56:
44:
43:
37:
26:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1680:
1669:
1666:
1664:
1661:
1659:
1656:
1654:
1651:
1649:
1646:
1645:
1643:
1630:
1626:
1622:
1618:
1614:
1610:
1606:
1605:
1604:
1600:
1596:
1592:
1591:self-portrait
1588:
1587:
1582:
1578:
1574:
1572:
1567:
1563:
1562:
1557:
1555:
1551:
1547:
1542:
1539:
1536:
1535:
1533:
1529:
1525:
1521:
1517:
1513:
1508:
1507:
1498:
1494:
1490:
1485:
1481:
1477:
1473:
1469:
1465:
1461:
1460:
1459:
1455:
1451:
1450:Cinderella157
1447:
1444:
1438:
1434:
1430:
1425:
1424:
1423:
1422:
1421:
1417:
1413:
1408:
1407:
1406:
1402:
1398:
1394:
1390:
1389:
1388:
1384:
1380:
1379:Cinderella157
1376:
1372:
1368:
1364:
1360:
1356:
1352:
1348:
1344:
1340:
1336:
1332:
1331:WP:COMMONNAME
1328:
1327:official name
1324:
1322:
1316:
1312:
1308:
1303:
1299:
1296:
1274:
1270:
1266:
1262:
1258:
1254:
1253:
1252:
1248:
1244:
1240:
1239:
1238:
1234:
1230:
1226:
1225:
1224:
1220:
1216:
1212:
1211:
1210:
1206:
1202:
1198:
1197:
1196:
1192:
1188:
1184:
1183:
1182:
1178:
1174:
1170:
1169:
1168:
1164:
1160:
1155:
1152:
1148:
1144:
1140:
1136:
1132:
1128:
1124:
1120:
1116:
1112:
1108:
1104:
1103:
1102:
1101:
1100:
1096:
1092:
1087:
1086:
1085:
1081:
1077:
1072:
1071:
1070:
1066:
1062:
1058:
1054:
1051:
1045:
1041:
1037:
1033:
1030:
1026:
1025:
1024:
1020:
1016:
1011:
1010:
1009:
1005:
1001:
997:
993:
989:
985:
982:
979:
973:
969:
965:
961:
957:
953:
952:
951:
947:
943:
938:
937:
936:
932:
928:
924:
920:
916:
910:
906:
900:
896:
895:
890:
886:
883:" Meanwhile,
882:
880:
876:
870:
863:
862:
857:
854:
853:
842:
838:
834:
830:
826:
822:
816:
815:edit conflict
811:
810:
809:
805:
801:
796:
795:
794:
790:
786:
781:
780:
779:
775:
771:
767:
763:
762:
761:
760:
757:
753:
749:
745:
742:
739:
738:
731:
727:
723:
720:is the best.
719:
716:Which is why
715:
714:
713:
709:
705:
700:
699:
698:
697:
694:
690:
686:
681:
680:Léal Souvenir
676:
672:
668:
665:
664:
659:
655:
651:
646:
645:
644:
643:
640:
636:
632:
628:
624:
623:WP:COMMONNAME
619:
616:
614:
610:
606:
602:
601:
600:Léal Souvenir
596:
594:
589:
585:
584:
579:
577:
572:
571:
569:
563:
559:
556:
554:
550:
546:
542:
539:
538:
537:
536:
532:
528:
524:
520:
516:
511:
505:
499:
494:
484:
480:
476:
473:
467:
463:
457:
451:
442:
440:
436:
432:
428:
424:
420:
415:
407:
404:
399:
395:
390:
383:
382:
379:
370:
366:
362:
358:
354:
352:
347:
346:
341:
339:
334:
333:
332:
331:
327:
323:
307:
303:
299:
294:
293:
292:
288:
284:
279:
278:
277:
273:
269:
264:
263:
262:
261:
257:
253:
249:
227:
210:
206:
202:
201:
193:
187:
182:
180:
177:
173:
172:
168:
165:
162:
159:
155:
154:
142:
138:
132:
129:
128:
125:
108:
104:
100:
99:
91:
90:London portal
85:
80:
78:
75:
71:
70:
66:
60:
57:
54:
50:
49:
45:
41:
35:
27:
23:
18:
17:
1590:
1584:
1570:
1569:
1565:
1560:
1559:
1537:
1483:
1471:
1467:
1445:
1374:
1334:
1326:
1318:
1314:
1310:
1297:
1157:to do that?
1150:
1146:
1139:Jan Van Eyck
1138:
1052:
995:
991:
987:
980:
959:
955:
922:
918:
915:Red Chaperon
914:
904:
898:
892:
878:
874:
872:
859:
855:
824:
740:
666:
617:
598:
592:
591:
587:
581:
575:
574:
567:
565:
561:
557:
540:
491:
471:
455:
445:
410:
391:
378:
350:
343:
337:
319:
266:comes from.
245:
198:
136:
96:
40:WikiProjects
1621:BarrelProof
1546:GranCavallo
1524:BarrelProof
1412:BarrelProof
1265:BarrelProof
1229:BarrelProof
1201:BarrelProof
1173:BarrelProof
907:" on their
903:(But it's "
833:BarrelProof
785:BarrelProof
704:BarrelProof
650:BarrelProof
605:BarrelProof
527:BarrelProof
483:direct move
475:current log
446:Please use
361:BarrelProof
214:Visual arts
205:visual arts
164:Visual arts
30:Start-class
1642:Categories
1518:, and the
1373:observes:
1307:Necrothesp
1141:, p. 314,
1091:Necrothesp
1061:Necrothesp
885:an article
748:Necrothesp
479:target log
298:HillmanHan
1313:and many
627:chaperone
593:chaperone
576:chaperone
568:chaperone
466:directly.
351:Insomniac
1489:Victoria
1159:Victoria
1147:Van Eyck
1000:Dicklyon
722:Victoria
685:Victoria
595:chaperon
578:chaperon
570:chaperon
435:succinct
1429:Johnbod
1397:Johnbod
1298:Support
1243:Johnbod
1215:Johnbod
1145:in his
1137:in his
1115:Johnbod
1076:Johnbod
1053:Comment
1015:Johnbod
981:Support
942:Johnbod
869:article
856:Comment
800:Johnbod
770:Johnbod
741:Support
631:Johnbod
558:Comment
545:Zacwill
541:Support
423:subpage
340:(album)
268:Johnbod
139:on the
1595:Ham II
1538:Oppose
1510:Note:
960:Oppose
927:Ham II
919:Turban
831:. —
766:turban
667:Oppose
618:Oppose
472:Links:
112:London
103:London
59:London
36:scale.
1339:WP:AT
1187:Ceoil
1036:Ceoil
964:Ceoil
861:Grove
501:– or
454:. Do
439:civil
1625:talk
1615:and
1599:talk
1550:talk
1528:talk
1484:this
1472:only
1454:talk
1433:talk
1416:talk
1401:talk
1383:talk
1371:here
1335:best
1329:and
1269:talk
1247:talk
1233:talk
1219:talk
1205:talk
1191:talk
1177:talk
1131:this
1119:talk
1095:talk
1080:talk
1065:talk
1040:talk
1019:talk
1004:talk
968:talk
946:talk
931:talk
837:talk
804:talk
789:talk
783:—
774:talk
752:talk
708:talk
654:talk
635:talk
609:talk
549:talk
531:talk
458:use
437:and
365:talk
326:talk
302:talk
287:talk
272:talk
256:talk
1564:is
901:".
521:or
507:or
456:not
414:bot
400:to
396:be
131:Low
1644::
1627:)
1601:)
1552:)
1530:)
1514:,
1495:)
1493:tk
1468:is
1456:)
1435:)
1418:)
1403:)
1385:)
1377:.
1365:,
1361:,
1357:,
1353:,
1349:,
1345:,
1271:)
1249:)
1235:)
1221:)
1207:)
1193:)
1179:)
1165:)
1163:tk
1121:)
1097:)
1082:)
1067:)
1042:)
1021:)
1006:)
970:)
962:.
948:)
933:)
925:.
911:.)
867:s
858::
839:)
806:)
791:)
776:)
754:)
728:)
726:tk
710:)
691:)
689:tk
656:)
637:)
611:)
551:)
533:)
495:→
481:•
477:•
464:}}
460:{{
452:}}
448:{{
441:.
411:A
367:)
328:)
304:)
289:)
283:Fæ
274:)
258:)
252:Fæ
1623:(
1597:(
1548:(
1526:(
1491:(
1452:(
1431:(
1414:(
1399:(
1381:(
1367:7
1363:6
1359:5
1355:4
1351:3
1347:2
1343:1
1267:(
1245:(
1231:(
1217:(
1203:(
1189:(
1175:(
1161:(
1117:(
1093:(
1078:(
1063:(
1038:(
1017:(
1002:(
966:(
944:(
929:(
917:/
897:"
865:'
835:(
817:)
813:(
802:(
787:(
772:(
750:(
724:(
706:(
687:(
652:(
633:(
607:(
547:(
529:(
406:.
363:(
324:(
300:(
285:(
270:(
254:(
143:.
42::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
