201:
can't really judge the value of some of his critique. He gives some specific points which I'll go ahead and deal with, such as the point that
Adomnan and Aldfrith were definitely friends. The point about the material on the background being choppy I'm not sure what to do with, though; and as for the background being too extensive -- well, we can cut it, but I don't have a clear idea that he thinks that would make the article better. I'll work on what points I can, but please let me know if you would prefer this withdrawn. (I wouldn't be at all offended or disappointed at a failed FAC -- I'd rather it were an article you and I both feel deserves FA status.)
1772:
703:
articles without missing something buy not approaching from a particular direction. If the template finds that thee category doesn't exist, and therefore doesn't add it, then the editor (who will be used to the template applying all apropriate categories) won't see a redlink and is unlikely to spot that anything is wrong ... so the article won't be accessible through the years-in-Ireland categories. That's an unhelpful and un-necessary step backwards, after a lot of hard work sorting out the inconsistencies in these categories.
787:: everything we do with categories is opposed to the idea of creating all this stuff to contain on average one article per category. The exceptions that OCAT mentions seems to be, well, exceptions. An albums-by-artist tree is going to include some single-member cats, but that's unavoidable. Here we have a tree where most cats have or will have just one member. If we had tags, then ... but we don't. Creating categories to suit a feature of a template is the tail wagging the dog. And if
1745:
1739:
31:
1049:
222:. I've just finished a large round of edits to it, and as I am really NOT an Anglo-Saxon scholar, I'd appreciate another set of eyes checking it over. I'm going to drop a note on Mike Christie's page too. Feel free to rip it to shreds, I admit to being new to the whole early Anglo-Saxon stuff and very well may have committed a million major blunders in my editing. Thanks!
1385:, where I also noted it looked more like delete than merge. The keep supporters disagreed and still do. They don't think a large number of one-article categories (often with a single line of content in that article) is a problem, so they don't see a need to fix anything now. And several of them think the one-article categories are already better than having no category.
2244:. All 4 year articles link directly to the other article. For all 4, the other article links to the "global" year article but that could easily be changed to the Irish year article. If both articles in a category link directly to eachother then there is even less need for the category. The year articles in the 12th century contain a couple of content lines on average.
587:, and I am very concerned that the zealous pursuit in this case of the underpopulation principle has been applied without the common sense of carefully considering the wider effects on the ease with which readers can navigate through articles — particularly since many of the deletionists completely ignored that aspect of things, and ONIH misunderstood the issue.
71:, and there's one point I wonder if you could help on. She's asked for an additional sentence of two on the golden age, in the paragraph in the Reign section. I think this is reasonable but I don't really have any sources that focus on this aspect of Northumbrian history. Do you have something you could use to add a little more detail? Thanks.
378:
and Eddius's life of
Wilfrid. I assume some version of Irish annals should be mentioned too? I don't think this is really all that Deacon wants; I think he wants to drive the whole article from specific references to the primary sources, but I don't think that's the right approach for a tertiary source like Knowledge.
1072:
Ah, I see I am not the first to complain to you about your closing of this CfD closure. No matter how you read it, there was definitely no consensus on this CfD, so deciding to close as I merge seems like a bad decision to me. As you well know, if there is no consensus then the status quo stays, so a
1004:
where she wrote: "... according to Angus-of-the-Terrible-Decision he is reviewing matters. I asked what we were supposed to do in the meantime? No reply - so I reckon we carry on as before till matters are rectified. OK?". If you think it's OK to continue creating lots of these one-article categories
571:
reads: "Categories are mainly used to browse through similar articles. Make decisions about the structure of categories and subcategories that make it easy for users to browse through similar articles" ... and that's the guiding principle in the structure of this series of articles and categories: to
377:
Deacon has asked for more specific discussion of the sources. I think a paragraph on sources could be added to the end of the background section. If you can simply list the sources you think should be mentioned, I can create the paragraph. The ones I know of that should be mentioned are Bede, ASC,
369:
The note about
Eadfrith having "Irish sympathies"; I couldn't find that in the Blair pages you cited so I cut it. I assume it refers to Eadfrith having sympathy with the Celtic Church's position on various matters, but without a source I couldn't clarify it for qp10qp, so I felt it was safest to cut
734:
probably is going to be a Bad Idea, but I have plenty of others. In pre-modern times by-year × by-country categories can never be adequately populated, so that some technical solution is necessary to avoid the resulting over-categorisation. There's no deadline to implement a solution - if it takes a
447:
says he was there c. 684. The surmise that he was there in 685 also is based on Simeon of Durham's claim that
Ecgfrith was buried on Iona. It's a bizarre thing to make up, or so it seems to me, but Fraser thinks (thought?) that it may be a misunderstanding on Simeon's part, Inchcolm (Columba's other
167:
OK, I've done a bit less than half of them, but I'm afraid the rest are likely to need your knowledge. I will fix the map when I see what it is that qp wants; I can certainly add
Austerfield but it sounds like he was looking for something else--perhaps a more detailed map of the Irish territories.
96:
I just addressed a minor issue raised by
Awadewit at FAC. I think the only remaining question she has is about the Golden Age; she was curious if there is any scholarly speculation as to why the Golden Age started in Aldfrith's reign. Is there anything to say in that direction? I think that's the
885:
It's normal for the closer to execute the actions related to the decision. Angus has made a brave decision which will give him a lot of work. He doesn't have to take input from the Irish history editors into account, and I don't think he should be criticized for offering to discuss with them before
333:
and let me know if you see any problems? I've represented Dál Riata twice, in northeastern
Ireland and in Scotland, without attempting to link them -- I am not clear how closely they should be linked at this date. If you think it would be beneficial to draw an outline connecting the two, I can do
200:
about the maps; hope you can help there. The Deacon's note is a little discouraging; do you think I pushed this to FAC too quickly? If you think so, I'd rather withdraw it until it's in a shape you feel is worth taking to FAC. The work I did on the article was more about form than content, and I
1127:
indeed, and it also says that "administrators can disregard opinions and comments if they feel that there is strong evidence that they were not made in good faith". Could it possibly be that some posts were ignored as bad faith edits? I really wonder where the rough consensus was. I don't see even
868:
to be effectively asking "for time" when about the only major defence of the deletionists was that looking for time to populate the list wasn't a valid defence! If a template can merge years to decades up to 500AD and leave things as they are after that I'd accept a compromise. Otherwise no. Note
135:
with a request for advice. It's not just
Northumbria; check his contribs and you'll see he's reverted several other changes to the map. If you can suggest the right next step I can just drop a note telling Lara I don't need the advice any more. Seems like reverting is just going to get into an
606:
It means that a single-article category, which in the case of most other categories would be a dead-end, is with all the year-in-Ireland categories a navigation aid to the other categories. That's a very different situation to the conventional one where the only way out is by using the browser's
391:
One last thing -- and if you only have time to answer one question, this is the one I'd be most interested in hearing from you on: qp10qp left a long note about where
Aldfrith was when Ecgfrith died, and what the relevant sources are. I don't know what the sources are myself so if you happen to
180:
Just saw the Deacon's note; I'd like your take on some of his points. Some I can deal with, such as removing "appears" from the comment about
Adomnan and Aldfrith being friends. Others are harder -- I think he's right that there's a lot of background, but I'm not clear what he thinks the right
751:
Fair enough on holding of, but in that case the closure should not have been as "merge" but as "no consensus". I have never before seen a CfD closed in a provisional way like this, and it's very unsatisfactory for the closing admin to position himself or herself as the arbitrator of a possible
702:
articles were a mishmash of inconsistent and incomplete categorisation, which made it very dificult to navigate around them. The benefit of having the categories applied by the template is that it ensures consistency, which is essential to allow the reader to navigate around the categories and
909:
and immediately get links to all 4 relevant articles (having a combined total of 6 lines of content), without having to wade through a number of one-article categories in search of content. It could be problematic if there is a period where it shifts back and forth whether a year has its own
863:
the active editors was totally ignored in favour of the rather limp "arguments" made by some trainspotting deletionists. What do we do with the articles we are creating every day to fill the series while you take a month to fiddle with the template? Do I stop all work? And it is a wee bit
1677:
Despite the overwhelming consensus that there is nothing wrong with this source or in using it on Knowledge (indeed editors expressed their astonishment that such an issue became an RfC), the two editors, whose behaviour caused me to issue with the RfC, continue to issue questions on its
2164:
These categories are wasting the time of readers. I think they should be covered by the CFD and DRV where delete supporters argued that creating mostly one-article categories for years before 1100 is overcategorization. That should hold whatever the categories are
673:
category a direct link to all the subcats, including the by-year categories. Both of those heavily-used templates run in trouble in the by-year categories are deleted, by providing links to categories which will (according to your Cfd closure) be deleted.
1714:
which I've now added to the article. At page 19, Lettice Curtis says '(Pauline) ... died ... giving birth to TWIN sons' - perhaps one died at birth ? Had not heard this fact before - may be you can confirm and use? Curtis is usually very reliable.
153:
Sorry, got busy at work and at home and had no time for FAC. I'm heading over there now and will get started on qp10qp's notes. At first glance I think there were a couple I'm going to have to ask you for help on, but I'll deal with whatever I can.
532:
I think that your closure was mistaken on on a number of grounds, which I will set out below in a moment, but first I want to ask you to please hold off any deletion of categories or modification of templates until I have finished my comments below.
2014:
the category is never going to have much in it, so it looks to me like we've got the exact same one article categories with no potential for growth under a different name. Do they really need to go to CFD, it's system gaming in my opinion. Thanks.
1362:
if there are enough articles to maintain it. What's wrong with the delete, or merge if you will, until the productive editors write the proper articles? Because let's be honest here, "Wait and see" could be one day, it could be one year, it
2259:
You will need a new CfD. But why not; the last one was wonderfully supportive of the productive editors. It is heartening (if rather astonishing) the number of non-contributing and non-Irish editors taking a passionate interest in this work.
387:
Qp10qp indicated he thinks the discussion of the conflict with Wilfrid could be expanded somewhat, so I will probably have a crack at that. Qp is now supporting, so I would assume this will get promoted to FA, but I want to fix these issues
1690:
I have tried to deal with these two editors rationally, but no matter what I seem to say to them, they return with more queries and comments. Can anything be done in this case? Can someone please try explaining the situation to them at the
752:
solution which may take ages to reach. I'm sure that your intentions were good, but it's a bit of a subversion of the consensus process for you to create a situation in which you have effectively appointed yourself as a one-man arbitrator.
312:
Can we use this as is in Aldfrith, or do I need to do a reduced version with less detail, do you think? I wasn't sure; but I figured you could probably use this map for other Irish articles so I went ahead and did the whole thing anyway.
1885:
with no prior discussion and a cursory and quite irrelevant comment on the edit. There is a case for a move as the 'ù' is annoying to type, but this isn't the solution. I don't think I can move it back. Could you help for advise? Thanks.
1654:
as a source on Knowledge for many Ireland-related articles. I attempted to do the same, but met with the opposition of two editors who seem adamant that this subscription-based service may not be used. I'd appreciate your insight at
1479:. My version meets all the requirements of Knowledge. It includes reliable third-party citations and proper formatting and NPOV. Since there are now a number of Knowledge articles that link to it, I feel that it should be remade.
1164:. See the second paragraph which doesn't require an estimation of bad faith. Personally, I didn't get any bad faith suspicions in the CfD. I cannot speak for Angus but he didn't mention anything related to bad faith in the close.
755:
Please can you revise the closure as "no consensus", and then we can all get down to discussing whether and how a solution can be agreed? (I have a few ideas, but I don't want to try discussing them in this strange situation).
917:
about old years in Ireland, so readers wouldn't have to go through dozens of articles to find information which would fit well in a list of events sorted by year. I was considering such a merge proposal before seeing the CfD.
1929:
When blocking me the other day, Slackr also removed my rollback powers, while noting that they could be restored when appropriate. I'd like them back, please. You can go over my contributions if you like and see whether
910:
category, but if no year before a certain limit has its own category and templates are designed to act depending on which side of the limit they are used on, then the system should work fine and make it easier for readers.
2103:
So we've replaced one set of categories with little or no potential for growth with a "different" set of categories with little or no potential for growth, that contain the exact same article as before. It's madness!
613:
On those grounds alone, the debate should not have been closed as "merge", when a headcount showed a keep or no consensus outcome. The "it's underpopulated" argument is only a guideline, not an immutable policy like
1199:
Actually I don't misunderstand the issue, and nor do I need to resort to blatant falsehoods. It was claimed merging the year categories into the decade categories would break a template. This is not true. Look at
797:
ing categories and manual merges can take months, then updating templates can too. Far from wanting a veto over how this is fixed, I'd just as soon leave it to you or anyone else to fix it. Just so long as it is
922:
has 35 articles. The combined total of information in these, excluding navigation and sources, is around 50 lines. Merging them to a single list would still leave good room for expansion within the same list).
373:
Dunbar as a royal centre: qp10qp asked for clarification and I can't find anything citable in Blair so I presume it's from Higham. I will cut this shortly; if you can give me something from Higham I'll re-add
1488:
I have only a secondary relationship with the RAB creator. This is being done as a courtesy to him--we feel that he deserves a decent representation on Knowledge. Your assistance would be greatly appreciated.
919:
1339:. Correct? Merge because there are a bunch of one-article categories, don't merge because at some point, people may write more articles that fit. Is that about it? (template problems notwithstanding)
334:
that, though from what I've read it's not clear exactly what the boundaries are at this date. Anyway, let me know if you see anything you'd like me to fix. I will reply to qp10qp on the FAC page.
1142:
Beat me to it Ww! I was holding the powder dry - but, yes, it appears some arguments must have been dismissed on the grounds of bad faith and I think we need to get Angus out in the open to state
837:? We must be up to a couple of thousand words now, but still no ideas on what will fill these categories. "Categories help users navigate through Knowledge". And when they don't help, what then?
1781:
which ended 68/0/0. I'm amazed and humbled by the result, and the warm and supportive comments that went with it. I've put the pic of Tiger here because although I know not everyone appreciates
1367:
be never. How long are we expected to "wait and see"? Why not fix the immediate problem that we have, which is a bunch of one-article categories, and if/when others are written, recreate the
937:
You are merely repeating your minority position here. It is getting tedious - only so much baloney I can tolerate. The debate is finished. The ref made a disastrously poor call. Now we have a
869:
that some deletionist made an issue of the 660's having only one year with one incident; it took me less than an hour to fill the whole set merely from looking at a handful of Wiki-articles.
688:
639:
607:
back-button. If we go back to the principle of seeking to "easy for users to browse through similar articles", it's clear that unlike other underpopulated these categories do just that.
1533:
Hi. Sorry about that. There was no edit summary attached with the removal and I naturally assumed that it was vandalism. I should have been more careful. Thanks for letting me know.
1674:
1326:
1656:
1382:
526:
980:?". Angus indicated he would wait. I suggest you also wait with creating more of these categories (I see you created 24 yesterday and just made 4 more within the last 5 minutes.
2194:
and nothing else, so three new year categories were created for an article that was already in a small global year category before the whole thing started. There is no article
813:, but any definition of consensus is going to include more than just the opinions of the handful of people who express a view. Among the other things I rummaged through were
64:
2198:. Maybe this is preparing an argument that old years in Europe is part of a general system that should be kept. That is apparently what Sarah777 thinks and calls brilliant.
1470:
1212:. No template would need editing for these categories to be merged, because the template doesn't link to those categories in the first place. Why is it even relevant that
834:
2151:
2121:
2171:
who said strong keep in the CFD and made these Europe categories has also created tiny categories for years in other European countries since the CFD close, for example
1498:
1355:
1336:
1298:
906:
902:
894:
2183:
1368:
1359:
1343:
1332:
1294:
1221:
1213:
890:
600:
365:
Angus, I know you're busy, but I just wanted to mention a couple of edits I plan to make or have made so that you can jump in with an extra source if you have time.
2187:
2091:
2081:
2071:
1476:
1161:
1102:
830:
396:
So: if you have time to answer the question or two above, that's great; if not, no worries. Anything left unresolved I'll move to the talk page for future work.
1426:
384:
Deacon wants a coherent discussion of Aldfrith's ties to Iona in one place in the article. I am not sure what he means by this but will think about it some more.
2209:
2191:
2172:
2061:
2051:
2041:
2007:
131:
Angus, I know you're an admin and I figured you'd be watching, but since you're involved in the discussions I thought I'd ask another admin. I left a note at
84:
Sounds like the right source! No hurry, I think, but if it's going to take you more than about a week, let me know and I'll dig something out of the library.
1280:
844:
770:
742:
560:
1639:
932:
507:
487:
459:
357:
341:
188:
175:
116:
104:
91:
1401:
Yes, so the only outstanding issue - unless someone plans to open a request at DRV - is what to do with the template. I'm waiting for BHG's view on that.
1375:
878:
280:
1241:
1014:
622:
1828:
for ripping off his thankspam without so much as a by-your-leave. To all who contributed - especially the eventually withdrawn (but very interesting)
1462:
1408:
955:
And Angus, as an Admin I asked you to please tell me how I can immediately challenge this decision. The information would be appreciated; the issue of
381:
I think the historical background could be cut a little, and will do so unless you object. Deacon and Awadewit both commented that it was rather long.
1137:
1118:
905:, and the article also has a navigation box with a link to that category. Readers looking for information about Ireland around 506 can go straight to
2269:
1394:
1318:
1173:
1032:
991:
950:
109:
OK, I'll post a note to FAC saying there's nothing evident, and we'll see if Awadewit is willing to change to support pending you finding something.
2032:
2195:
1155:
1096:
981:
724:
547:
968:
423:
Maybe easier if I do this as there are all the non-English sources to consider. Actually, the Deacon wants to reduce reliance on primary sources.
244:
1778:
1259:. Please stop giving examples of category YY14, YY15, YY16 etcetera etcetera which "only have blah blah blah items". It is becoming difficult to
1224:
isn't a dead end? You click on the category expecting to find access to more information, and you've got less access to information than before!
78:
1251:
there is only a single article in the category. I'm getting bored listening to the same argument over and over, the validity of which depends
735:
month, that's what it takes - and I'm not going to do so until I have agreed the mechanics with you, Sarah, and anyone else that's interested.
2225:
1082:
814:
330:
309:. Can you proofread it and let me know if you see errors? Any other changes (font, placement, typos, accent marks, etc.) just let me know.
2038:
Well the thing is they were all created yesterday. So for example we've got the following one-article categories (there's plenty more too):
1965:
1617:
1854:
1542:
306:
1785:, to me it illustrates the possibility of taking things seriously with a light heart. I will try to do so, and remain open to the being
1523:
1073:
merge should not be the decision. I am highly surprised at this closure, so much so that I think you need to revert it as a bad close.
2253:
1996:
1436:
1309:
with a link to the new article. That seems a much better navigational system to me than a large number of 1- or 2-article categories.
1105:. Angus made a judgment call based on strength of argument. Given the continued opposition, it sounds likely this will be reviewed at
476:, see the note the Deacon left on my talk page; I will try to implement something along those lines later this week, if I get time.
1425:
No, not the categories. There's a problem with doing stuff like ] ]. It doesn't work with the automatic date formatting stuff - see
730:
My sandbox version had no purpose beyond testing that I understood how the test worked. Re. the technical point, I agree: a simple
589:
One crucial point in all of this is that categories, even if they contain only one article, are not simply dead-ends; the template
274:
259:
if there's anything from that book you need. A book I don't have, but which I didn't mention before but is very useful, is Stones'
295:
208:
161:
1651:
403:
323:
2228:
has 43 subcategories for individual years. 39 of them only has the year article. The remaining 4 have a single other article:
1943:
1591:
826:
1568:
765:
719:
638:
There are two problems here: first, that's not the only template involved, and secondly the changes you have been testing at
542:
1724:
1267:
ask me will there be x or y or any articles in the category "Ireland in 666"; I have already answered that with "give the
42:
of former discussions. Please do not edit it. If you wish to revitalize an old topic, bring it up on the active talk page.
38:
1919:
1900:
1634:
1612:
517:
286:
How does a person put something on Wikinews? I had a version of the page saved in my Sandbox but that was deleted too. --
143:
58:
1685:
1682:
1679:
230:
2180:
706:
If I can't persuade you to reverse your closure, please can you hold off any deletion until I have taken this issue to
959:
such a perverse and provocative decision was made is perhaps a bigger issue that the issue of the categories per se.
695:. That's precisely what I was concerned about, because it can lead to the articles not being correctly categorised.
1914:
1895:
1528:
2199:
1700:
1668:
1305:
under the new system? If the new article is about a notable event in year 666 then that event can be mentioned in
997:
2001:
1302:
1001:
2143:
2113:
2024:
1971:
1596:
1518:
1233:
269:
635:
as significant. This outcome presumes that I can in fact get the template to work in the necessary fashion."
1508:
Hey Angus, if you thought the Scottish clan articles were bad enough ... think again! I've found a new low:
1729:
822:
618:, and it should not in this case have been taken as such a trumpa card that it overrides other guidelines.
197:
181:
thing to do about it is. I'll also have a think about his comments on the church section. Any thoughts?
1260:
1216:
has a series navigation box? It only links to 501-509 in Ireland, and 490s, 500s and 510s. The navbox in
2219:
2095:
2085:
2075:
236:
Oh, and I know it has no lede. I usually write those last after I have settled the main text. Thanks!
2136:
2106:
2065:
2055:
2045:
2017:
1513:
1226:
1106:
761:
715:
681:
663:
629:
538:
279:
264:
2241:
2237:
2233:
2229:
1924:
1850:
1414:
818:
1771:
1429:- so anyone who has set their preferences to show US or ISO style dates is going to be surprised.
805:
is the place to complain; yes, carry on the same way; no bad faith was presumed; and lastly, yes,
1630:
1608:
1573:
1433:
1405:
841:
739:
557:
504:
484:
456:
452:
wonders whether the body went to Iona because Aldfrith was there. Will see what else I can find.
400:
354:
338:
320:
219:
205:
185:
172:
158:
140:
113:
101:
88:
75:
17:
1950:
1381:
I agree completely. That was basically the arguments by me and other delete/merge supporters in
572:
have everything consistently structured and consistently cross-linked to enable easy navigation.
480:
That sounds like enough, and worth adding, if you ask me; I think that's what qp's looking for.
1812:
649:
593:
599:
not only categorises the by-year categories, it adds a series navigation box to them (see eg.
500:
Aldfrith just got promoted to FA, so I'll move this list to the talk page, suitably redacted.
2249:
2205:
1972:
1705:
1547:
1494:
1390:
1358:, aren't we technically talking about a delete here? I'm not against having categories like
1314:
1169:
1114:
1010:
987:
928:
1909:
1890:
1458:
973:
757:
711:
534:
148:
8:
1979:
1845:
1133:
1078:
976:
already wrote above: "... can you hold off any deletion until I have taken this issue to
583:). In general, I think it's a good principle, but like all guidelines it says at the top
300:
2265:
1624:
1602:
1538:
1503:
1430:
1402:
1276:
1151:
1092:
1028:
964:
946:
874:
838:
736:
554:
501:
481:
453:
397:
351:
335:
317:
291:
241:
227:
202:
182:
169:
155:
137:
132:
110:
98:
85:
72:
97:
last issue; I left a note at FAC asking whether there were other remaining concerns.
1989:
1563:
30:
350:
Done; thanks. I will see if I can make a dent in some of qp's other points today.
2245:
2201:
1720:
1675:
RfC: Is the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography a valid reference on Knowledge?
1587:
1490:
1386:
1310:
1165:
1110:
1006:
983:
924:
791:
2130:
I've asked for Fram's opinion. To see how useless the current categories are, see
1509:
585:"As the occasional exception may arise, it should be approached with common sense"
2134:
and its various subcats, which just add wholly unnecessary levels of navigation.
1961:
1939:
1906:
1887:
1804:
1786:
1696:
1687:(The RfC was the only route I saw of including information from the 2004 OCNB).
1664:
1450:
1124:
213:
1882:
1978:
1920 stuff most likely is PD, even US stuff would be. I have created a page on
1873:
1347:
1306:
1290:
1217:
1201:
1129:
1074:
898:
580:
250:
2261:
1837:
1582:
and review and tell me how i improve a become a good editor on here ok thanks
1552:
Thank you so much for your review. I was beginning to think nobody cared ;)
1534:
1454:
1372:
1272:
1147:
1088:
1024:
977:
960:
942:
870:
810:
806:
802:
707:
576:
568:
287:
237:
223:
2224:
Will the CfD close affect years after 1100 or would that require a new CfD?
2176:
2168:
2131:
1985:
1645:
1554:
1449:
link to days (eg 24th) or months - I think it's daft. Only to years as in
1716:
1583:
615:
472:, adding a source; an explanatory phrase would be good, per qp10qp. For
126:
1881:
is in a GAC and a user (previously unknown to me) has moved the page to
1744:
1738:
1579:
1383:
Knowledge:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 January 30#Years in Ireland
1023:- when I put the engines into reverse it takes 10 km before I can stop.
1957:
1935:
1798:
1692:
1660:
1020:
642:
would cause precisely the problem which I have been concerned about :(
553:
No problem: I'll give everyone who wants to plenty of time to comment.
415:. I am sure I have a source for this. Will add it back when I find it.
431:. I am struggling on this one. I see what he means but not so simple.
1297:
under the old system, then what is the problem in just placing it in
1048:
1483:
829:
comment, although it was about something else, seemed relevant: if
68:
1578:
i was woundring if you could look at my editor review here a link
1162:
Knowledge:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough consensus
1103:
Knowledge:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough consensus
1782:
1878:
1851:
2006:
Are there any plans for the newly created categories such as
913:(I would actually prefer to also merge a lot of the one-line
1331:
The main gist of the argument is this: Merge/Don't merge
448:
island) in the Forth being intended. Sharp in the Penguin
855:
Very, very bad call. I wish to challenge this decision -
1710:
Glad to help re husband's name. Found the reference in
575:
The under-population principle is not even mentioned in
525:
I was surprised and disappointed by your closure of the
329:
I've done more work on the maps; can you take a look at
2011:
1087:
Maybe this will help the Angus/Hunter thought process?
1580:
http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Editor_review/oo7565
677:
However, to my mind the worst effect would be that to
1846:
1844:
1769:
1766:
1736:
63:
Angus, I've been working on Awadewit's points on the
1471:
Requesting restoration of a page you voted to delete
2175:which only contains one article Ardfern moved from
2010:and similar to be deleted? For example looking at
1482:The rewritten article is temporarily posted here:
1484:http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Hamsterdunce/sandbox
1934:think I've ever misused the button. Thanx. --
1208:, whereas the decades and centuries links go to
1512:. That's too good to be removed I'm afraid. ;)
1263:with the endless repetition of this dirge. And
1840:for me, before I dare do anything for real...
2226:Category:Years of the 12th century in Ireland
998:User talk:Sarah777#Year in Ireland categories
815:Knowledge:Categories, lists, and series boxes
527:CfD debate on the years-in-Ireland categories
1371:categories? Seems like a win-win to me. --
1160:Bad faith is just an example of a reason at
996:Angus, I'm discussing this with Sarah777 at
920:Category:Years of the 6th century in Ireland
691:would apply a #ifexist test before applying
443:. I don't think there is anything much. The
1684:or question my motives in bringing the RfC.
1019:Relax guys; I've docked. Think of my as an
409:(I changed the bullets to a numbered list.)
1811:for your generous nomination, and also to
1777:No seriously, thanks for contributing at
1421:(from my page - I'm a bit confused here!)
1770:
1327:Just to make sure I'm reading this right
1047:
1002:User talk:PrimeHunter#Strong suggestions
2096:deletion log for equivalent Ireland cat
2086:deletion log for equivalent Ireland cat
2076:deletion log for equivalent Ireland cat
2066:deletion log for equivalent Ireland cat
2056:deletion log for equivalent Ireland cat
2046:deletion log for equivalent Ireland cat
1652:Oxford Dictionary of National Biography
1220:has more links, yet you're saying that
419:. Several sources, will add something.
14:
1146:ones he was dismissing on that basis.
698:Before that template was created, the
625:that you "take BHG's last point about
579:(it appears only in the sub-guideline
218:When you find time, can you read over
35:
1986:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus
1673:Many thanks for your comments on the
1445:Not sure what the problem is here; I
1005:after your close then I accept that.
801:As far as the stuff below this goes:
603:. This has an important consequence:
1742:Quick, let's delete the front page!
427:. I'll let you trim the background.
1601:...fair-use cleanup ? Seriously. -
468:OK. The Deacon already dealt with
23:
1982:that has some more info on that.--
1650:I've noticed that you've used the
1475:Sir: I have rewritten the page on
1271:editors a chance - wait and see".
1255:on ignoring the fact that this is
24:
2281:
1289:If any future article other than
689:User:Angusmclellan/yearsinireland
640:User:Angusmclellan/yearsinireland
1743:
1737:
655:, which cross-links between the
29:
1813:
1564:
1553:
1303:Category:7th century in Ireland
1204:, the single year links are to
889:I still don't see any need for
567:The first general guideline in
435:. The Deacon mentioned Kirby's
1342:Seeing as the only article in
13:
1:
2270:22:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
2254:01:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
2210:17:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
2152:15:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
2122:00:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
2033:23:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
1997:05:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
1966:23:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
1944:22:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
1920:09:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
1901:08:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
1855:09:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
1836:- thank you! Now it's off to
1725:22:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
1701:19:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
1669:22:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
1640:14:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
1618:14:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
1592:20:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
1569:19:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
1558:WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN
1543:15:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
1524:22:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
1499:21:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
1463:17:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
1437:13:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
1409:18:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
1395:17:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
1376:15:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
1319:23:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
1281:17:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
1242:14:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
1174:13:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
1156:05:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
1138:04:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
1119:04:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
1097:04:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
1083:04:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
1033:04:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
1015:03:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
992:02:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
969:02:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
951:02:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
933:02:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
879:01:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
845:13:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
771:01:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
743:01:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
725:00:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
508:18:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
488:23:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
460:23:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
404:20:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
358:16:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
342:15:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
1555:
823:Knowledge:Overcategorization
645:The two other templates are
561:23:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
548:23:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
392:know, please drop me a note.
324:03:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
296:05:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
275:21:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
257:Scottish War of Independence
245:02:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
231:02:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
209:01:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
189:03:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
176:03:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
162:01:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
144:14:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
117:20:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
105:18:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
92:19:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
79:16:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
28:
7:
2190:were later created to hold
1123:That must have been a very
811:very little is set in stone
518:Year in Ireland CfD closure
439:, but I haven't seen that.
59:Aldfrith and the golden age
10:
2286:
1293:could have been placed in
835:Category:Just this article
783:I don't see that there is
445:Anonymous Life of Cuthbert
255:I have a copy of Barron's
1107:Knowledge:Deletion review
2242:Category:1175 in Ireland
2238:Category:1152 in Ireland
2234:Category:1151 in Ireland
2230:Category:1111 in Ireland
1529:List of English Monarchs
1356:Category:660s in Ireland
1337:Category:660s in Ireland
1299:Category:660s in Ireland
907:Category:500s in Ireland
903:Category:500s in Ireland
895:Category:500s in Ireland
819:Knowledge:Categorization
305:Draft done; take a look
261:Anglo-Scottish Relations
2184:Category:410 by country
1369:Category:665 in Ireland
1360:Category:665 in Ireland
1344:Category:665 in Ireland
1333:Category:665 in Ireland
1295:Category:666 in Ireland
1222:Category:506 in Ireland
1214:Category:506 in Ireland
1101:CfD is not a vote. See
897:. The one-line article
891:Category:506 in Ireland
833:is useless, what about
693:Categor:yyyy in ireland
669:which provides in each
601:Category:506 in Ireland
220:Augustine of Canterbury
18:User talk:Angusmclellan
2188:Category:410 in Europe
2092:Category:186 in Europe
2082:Category:157 in Europe
2072:Category:140 in Europe
1973:Image:Leon Trotsky.JPG
1775:
1597:What do you mean by...
1477:Retarded Animal Babies
1056:
831:Category:Every article
687:, where your draft at
671:xth century in Ireland
2192:Category:410 in Italy
2173:Category:410 in Italy
2062:Category:80 in Europe
2052:Category:76 in Europe
2042:Category:20 in Europe
2008:Category:20 in Europe
1774:
1051:
450:Life of Saint Columba
196:I left a note at the
2138:One Night In Hackney
2108:One Night In Hackney
2019:One Night In Hackney
1789:if I do start being
1730:I can has thankspam?
1712:The Forgotten Pilots
1514:Deacon of Pndapetzim
1510:O'Donnell#Ascendancy
1228:One Night In Hackney
623:note in your closure
265:Deacon of Pndapetzim
1980:copyright in Poland
1949:Thanks. #include "
2220:Ireland after 1100
1951:GreenLanternOath.h
1868:
1776:
1257:under construction
1057:
133:User talk:LaraLove
1867:
1866:
1863:
1862:
1810:
1751:
1638:
1623:I see. Thanks. -
1616:
1521:
1261:assume good faith
825:and other stuff.
807:things can change
769:
723:
546:
437:Wilfred at Hexham
281:Corey Worthington
272:
198:article talk page
46:
45:
2277:
2150:
2146:
2139:
2120:
2116:
2109:
2031:
2027:
2020:
1994:
1992:
1925:Rollback request
1917:
1913:
1898:
1894:
1857:
1852:
1848:
1842:
1838:new admin school
1826:
1809:
1807:
1796:
1767:
1761:
1760:
1753:
1752:
1748:
1747:
1741:
1659:. Many thanks.--
1628:
1606:
1567:
1565:
1561:
1517:
1415:Years in Ireland
1247:That is because
1240:
1236:
1229:
796:
790:
760:
714:
686:
682:YearInIrelandNav
680:
668:
664:IrelandInCentury
662:
659:categories, and
654:
648:
634:
630:YearInIrelandNav
628:
598:
592:
537:
268:
33:
26:
25:
2285:
2284:
2280:
2279:
2278:
2276:
2275:
2274:
2222:
2149:
2144:
2137:
2135:
2119:
2114:
2107:
2105:
2030:
2025:
2018:
2016:
2004:
1995:
1990:
1984:
1976:
1927:
1915:
1911:
1896:
1892:
1876:
1871:
1870:
1869:
1859:
1805:
1797:
1749:
1732:
1708:
1648:
1599:
1576:
1560:
1550:
1531:
1506:
1473:
1417:
1329:
1239:
1234:
1227:
1225:
1125:rough consensus
978:deletion review
974:BrownHairedGirl
859:The opinion of
857:how do I do it?
803:deletion review
794:
788:
758:BrownHairedGirl
712:BrownHairedGirl
708:deletion review
700:year-in-Ireland
684:
678:
666:
660:
657:yyyy in Ireland
652:
646:
632:
626:
596:
590:
535:BrownHairedGirl
520:
303:
284:
253:
216:
151:
129:
61:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
2283:
2273:
2272:
2221:
2218:
2217:
2216:
2215:
2214:
2213:
2212:
2196:410 in Ireland
2166:
2157:
2156:
2155:
2154:
2141:
2125:
2124:
2111:
2101:
2100:
2099:
2089:
2079:
2069:
2059:
2049:
2022:
2003:
2000:
1983:
1975:
1970:
1969:
1968:
1954:
1926:
1923:
1875:
1872:
1865:
1864:
1861:
1860:
1847:Kim Dent-Brown
1764:
1757:
1756:
1750:
1735:
1734:
1733:
1731:
1728:
1707:
1704:
1681:accessibility,
1647:
1644:
1643:
1642:
1598:
1595:
1575:
1572:
1556:
1549:
1546:
1530:
1527:
1505:
1502:
1472:
1469:
1468:
1467:
1466:
1465:
1440:
1439:
1431:Angus McLellan
1423:
1416:
1413:
1412:
1411:
1403:Angus McLellan
1398:
1397:
1348:665 in Ireland
1328:
1325:
1324:
1323:
1322:
1321:
1307:666 in Ireland
1291:666 in Ireland
1284:
1283:
1231:
1218:506 in Ireland
1202:506 in Ireland
1197:
1196:
1195:
1194:
1193:
1192:
1191:
1190:
1189:
1188:
1187:
1186:
1185:
1184:
1183:
1182:
1181:
1180:
1179:
1178:
1177:
1176:
1099:
1046:
1045:
1044:
1043:
1042:
1041:
1040:
1039:
1038:
1037:
1036:
1035:
911:
901:is already in
899:506 in Ireland
887:
886:taking action.
882:
881:
852:
851:
850:
849:
848:
847:
839:Angus McLellan
799:
776:
775:
774:
773:
753:
746:
745:
737:Angus McLellan
611:
610:
609:
608:
588:
573:
564:
563:
555:Angus McLellan
519:
516:
515:
514:
513:
512:
511:
510:
493:
492:
491:
490:
463:
462:
454:Angus McLellan
410:
394:
393:
389:
385:
382:
379:
375:
371:
363:
362:
361:
360:
345:
344:
302:
299:
283:
278:
252:
249:
248:
247:
215:
212:
194:
193:
192:
191:
150:
147:
128:
125:
124:
123:
122:
121:
120:
119:
60:
57:
55:
44:
43:
34:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2282:
2271:
2267:
2263:
2258:
2257:
2256:
2255:
2251:
2247:
2243:
2239:
2235:
2231:
2227:
2211:
2207:
2203:
2200:
2197:
2193:
2189:
2185:
2181:
2178:
2174:
2170:
2167:
2163:
2162:
2161:
2160:
2159:
2158:
2153:
2148:
2147:
2140:
2133:
2129:
2128:
2127:
2126:
2123:
2118:
2117:
2110:
2102:
2097:
2093:
2090:
2087:
2083:
2080:
2077:
2073:
2070:
2067:
2063:
2060:
2057:
2053:
2050:
2047:
2043:
2040:
2039:
2037:
2036:
2035:
2034:
2029:
2028:
2021:
2013:
2009:
2002:"Europe" cats
1999:
1998:
1993:
1987:
1981:
1974:
1967:
1963:
1959:
1955:
1952:
1948:
1947:
1946:
1945:
1941:
1937:
1933:
1922:
1921:
1918:
1910:
1908:
1905:Many thanks.
1903:
1902:
1899:
1891:
1889:
1884:
1880:
1858:
1856:
1853:
1849:
1841:
1839:
1835:
1831:
1827:
1824:
1820:
1816:
1808:
1802:
1801:
1792:
1788:
1784:
1780:
1773:
1768:
1763:
1762:
1759:
1758:
1755:
1754:
1746:
1740:
1727:
1726:
1722:
1718:
1713:
1706:Pauline Gower
1703:
1702:
1698:
1694:
1688:
1686:
1683:
1680:
1676:
1671:
1670:
1666:
1662:
1658:
1653:
1641:
1636:
1632:
1626:
1625:Master Bigode
1622:
1621:
1620:
1619:
1614:
1610:
1604:
1603:Master Bigode
1594:
1593:
1589:
1585:
1581:
1574:Editor Review
1571:
1570:
1566:
1562:
1559:
1548:Editor Review
1545:
1544:
1540:
1536:
1526:
1525:
1520:
1515:
1511:
1501:
1500:
1496:
1492:
1486:
1485:
1480:
1478:
1464:
1460:
1456:
1452:
1448:
1444:
1443:
1442:
1441:
1438:
1435:
1432:
1428:
1424:
1422:
1419:
1418:
1410:
1407:
1404:
1400:
1399:
1396:
1392:
1388:
1384:
1380:
1379:
1378:
1377:
1374:
1370:
1366:
1361:
1357:
1353:
1349:
1345:
1340:
1338:
1334:
1320:
1316:
1312:
1308:
1304:
1300:
1296:
1292:
1288:
1287:
1286:
1285:
1282:
1278:
1274:
1270:
1266:
1262:
1258:
1254:
1250:
1249:AT THE MOMENT
1246:
1245:
1244:
1243:
1238:
1237:
1230:
1223:
1219:
1215:
1211:
1207:
1203:
1175:
1171:
1167:
1163:
1159:
1158:
1157:
1153:
1149:
1145:
1141:
1140:
1139:
1135:
1131:
1126:
1122:
1121:
1120:
1116:
1112:
1108:
1104:
1100:
1098:
1094:
1090:
1086:
1085:
1084:
1080:
1076:
1071:
1070:
1069:
1068:
1067:
1066:
1065:
1064:
1063:
1062:
1061:
1060:
1059:
1058:
1055:
1050:
1034:
1030:
1026:
1022:
1018:
1017:
1016:
1012:
1008:
1003:
999:
995:
994:
993:
989:
985:
982:
979:
975:
972:
971:
970:
966:
962:
958:
954:
953:
952:
948:
944:
940:
936:
935:
934:
930:
926:
921:
916:
912:
908:
904:
900:
896:
893:when we have
892:
888:
884:
883:
880:
876:
872:
867:
862:
858:
854:
853:
846:
843:
840:
836:
832:
828:
824:
820:
816:
812:
808:
804:
800:
793:
786:
782:
781:
780:
779:
778:
777:
772:
767:
763:
759:
754:
750:
749:
748:
747:
744:
741:
738:
733:
729:
728:
727:
726:
721:
717:
713:
709:
704:
701:
696:
694:
690:
683:
675:
672:
665:
658:
651:
650:IrelandByYear
643:
641:
636:
631:
624:
619:
617:
605:
604:
602:
595:
594:IrelandByYear
586:
582:
578:
574:
570:
566:
565:
562:
559:
556:
552:
551:
550:
549:
544:
540:
536:
530:
528:
523:
509:
506:
503:
502:Mike Christie
499:
498:
497:
496:
495:
494:
489:
486:
483:
482:Mike Christie
479:
475:
471:
467:
466:
465:
464:
461:
458:
455:
451:
446:
442:
438:
434:
430:
426:
422:
418:
414:
411:
408:
407:
406:
405:
402:
399:
398:Mike Christie
390:
386:
383:
380:
376:
372:
368:
367:
366:
359:
356:
353:
352:Mike Christie
349:
348:
347:
346:
343:
340:
337:
336:Mike Christie
332:
328:
327:
326:
325:
322:
319:
318:Mike Christie
314:
310:
308:
298:
297:
293:
289:
282:
277:
276:
271:
266:
262:
258:
246:
243:
239:
235:
234:
233:
232:
229:
225:
221:
211:
210:
207:
204:
203:Mike Christie
199:
190:
187:
184:
183:Mike Christie
179:
178:
177:
174:
171:
170:Mike Christie
166:
165:
164:
163:
160:
157:
156:Mike Christie
146:
145:
142:
139:
138:Mike Christie
134:
118:
115:
112:
111:Mike Christie
108:
107:
106:
103:
100:
99:Mike Christie
95:
94:
93:
90:
87:
86:Mike Christie
83:
82:
81:
80:
77:
74:
73:Mike Christie
70:
66:
56:
53:
52:
51:
50:February 2008
41:
40:
32:
27:
19:
2223:
2177:Category:410
2142:
2132:Category:383
2112:
2023:
2005:
1977:
1931:
1928:
1904:
1883:Rùm (island)
1877:
1843:
1833:
1829:
1822:
1818:
1814:
1799:
1794:
1790:
1787:slapped down
1765:
1711:
1709:
1689:
1672:
1649:
1627:from SRK.o//
1605:from SRK.o//
1600:
1577:
1557:
1551:
1532:
1507:
1491:Eric Barbour
1487:
1481:
1474:
1446:
1420:
1364:
1351:
1341:
1335:et al, into
1330:
1268:
1264:
1256:
1252:
1248:
1232:
1209:
1205:
1198:
1143:
1054:Common Sense
1053:
956:
938:
914:
865:
860:
856:
785:no consensus
784:
731:
705:
699:
697:
692:
676:
670:
656:
644:
637:
620:
612:
584:
531:
524:
521:
477:
473:
469:
449:
444:
440:
436:
432:
428:
424:
420:
416:
412:
395:
364:
315:
311:
304:
285:
260:
256:
254:
217:
195:
152:
149:Aldfrith FAC
130:
62:
54:
49:
48:
47:
37:
2246:PrimeHunter
2202:PrimeHunter
1387:PrimeHunter
1311:PrimeHunter
1166:PrimeHunter
1111:PrimeHunter
1007:PrimeHunter
984:PrimeHunter
925:PrimeHunter
809:, and yes,
388:regardless.
301:Ireland map
263:. Regards,
136:edit war.
36:This is an
1907:Ben MacDui
1888:Ben MacDui
1791:impossibly
1504:Omgoodness
1269:productive
1210:categories
1021:Oil tanker
1793:pompous.
1130:ww2censor
1075:ww2censor
941:problem.
522:Hi angus
2262:Sarah777
1635:Contribs
1613:Contribs
1535:Mkeranat
1455:Sarah777
1373:Kbdank71
1273:Sarah777
1206:articles
1148:Sarah777
1089:Sarah777
1025:Sarah777
961:Sarah777
943:Sarah777
915:articles
871:Sarah777
766:contribs
720:contribs
543:contribs
331:this one
238:Ealdgyth
224:Ealdgyth
69:Aldfrith
2169:Ardfern
2165:called.
1830:neutral
1795:Thanks
1783:lolcats
1352:already
1253:totally
1052:The SS
792:listify
732:ifexist
581:WP:OCAT
214:Looksee
39:archive
1874:Rum do
1834:oppose
1825:uppets
1817:aster
1779:my RfA
1717:RuthAS
1691:RfC.--
1584:Oo7565
1434:(Talk)
1406:(Talk)
1128:that.
866:ironic
842:(Talk)
798:fixed.
762:(talk)
740:(Talk)
716:(talk)
577:WP:CAT
569:WP:CAT
558:(Talk)
539:(talk)
505:(talk)
485:(talk)
457:(Talk)
401:(talk)
355:(talk)
339:(talk)
321:(talk)
251:Barron
206:(talk)
186:(talk)
173:(talk)
159:(talk)
141:(talk)
114:(talk)
102:(talk)
89:(talk)
76:(talk)
1991:talk
1958:Zsero
1936:Zsero
1806:Chat
1800:Pedro
1693:Damac
1661:Damac
1447:never
1365:could
1350:, is
1265:don't
1144:which
16:<
2266:talk
2250:talk
2206:talk
2186:and
1962:talk
1940:talk
1916:Walk
1897:Walk
1832:and
1721:talk
1697:talk
1678:use,
1665:talk
1657:here
1646:ODNB
1631:Talk
1609:Talk
1588:talk
1539:talk
1519:Talk
1495:talk
1459:talk
1451:1014
1427:this
1391:talk
1315:talk
1277:talk
1170:talk
1152:talk
1134:talk
1115:talk
1093:talk
1079:talk
1029:talk
1011:talk
1000:and
988:talk
965:talk
947:talk
939:real
929:talk
875:talk
827:This
710:? --
621:You
616:WP:V
307:here
292:talk
270:Talk
242:Talk
228:Talk
67:for
2179:in
2145:303
2115:303
2026:303
1956:--
1932:you
1879:Rùm
1633:) (
1611:) (
1354:in
1301:or
1235:303
957:how
861:all
764:• (
718:• (
541:• (
374:it.
370:it.
316:--
127:Map
65:FAC
2268:)
2252:)
2240:,
2236:,
2232:,
2208:)
2182:.
2012:20
1964:)
1942:)
1821:f
1803::
1723:)
1699:)
1667:)
1590:)
1541:)
1522:)
1497:)
1461:)
1453:.
1393:)
1346:,
1317:)
1279:)
1172:)
1154:)
1136:)
1117:)
1109:.
1095:)
1081:)
1031:)
1013:)
990:)
967:)
949:)
931:)
877:)
821:,
817:,
795:}}
789:{{
756:--
685:}}
679:{{
667:}}
661:{{
653:}}
647:{{
633:}}
627:{{
597:}}
591:{{
533:--
529:.
294:)
288:AW
273:)
240:|
226:|
2264:(
2248:(
2204:(
2098:)
2094:(
2088:)
2084:(
2078:)
2074:(
2068:)
2064:(
2058:)
2054:(
2048:)
2044:(
1988:|
1960:(
1953:"
1938:(
1912:/
1893:/
1823:P
1819:o
1815:M
1719:(
1695:(
1663:(
1637:)
1629:(
1615:)
1607:(
1586:(
1537:(
1516:(
1493:(
1457:(
1389:(
1313:(
1275:(
1168:(
1150:(
1132:(
1113:(
1091:(
1077:(
1027:(
1009:(
986:(
963:(
945:(
927:(
873:(
768:)
722:)
545:)
478:7
474:5
470:2
441:7
433:6
429:5
425:4
421:3
417:2
413:1
290:(
267:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
