Knowledge talk:Stand-alone lists/Archive 10

443:

themselves) insufficient and has arbitrary and uninformed ideas of what a good reference would be. Such activities are useful for pruning slapdash lists with non-notable entries, but are very frustrating when you've worked extensively to catalogue and annotate the most notable representatives of a particular subject. Often, the remaining blue-link-only list is better represented by the category page, though the category page will contain many non-notable people (the idea that a blue link means sufficient notability is beyond naïve). It is hard to battle such editors, since it takes no thought or work to delete entries, while you can spend much effort to find reliable sources for each, which then can be dismissed capriciously as insufficient. My experience is that creating a couple of pages to show they can be blue-linked won't help the remaining unlinked or red-linked entries, and it simply is too much to ask for every list maker to create pages for every item in a large list.

2195:

suck as lists, as they often don't contain what their titles indicate that they contain in the sense that lists do. Most likely, categories list subcategories that in turn contain the articles I'm looking for. Such a category is a list of categories, not a list of articles, and therefore does not conform to MOS for lists. When lists list other lists, they are entitled "Lists of" and are therefore truthful: the title represents the contents accurately. So, I know what it is I'm getting. "List of" should always indicate that the contents are topics and or article links, not subcategories that have to be clicked on to get the rest of the articles. With categories you have to gather up all the subcategories to make use of the whole list. That is a royal pain. If I wanted to do that, I'd go to category system in the first place. In short, the titles of lists and categories indicate two different scopes and contexts, and are therefore not interchangeable.

1957:- discourage this. (I agree with above !votes that it is not currently policy forbidden, but I would argue that we maybe should consider doing that. Arguments: List articles (should) put material in context, why is this list 'notable'. Also, categories contain articles which are by themselves notable. Obviously, subjects that are in there are 'by definition' notable otherwise they would not have a Knowledge article. That is however not a criterion for being listed in a list article. There the bar is much lower. We generally do expect that someone independent of the subject talked about the subject, i.e., it has a secondary source, but it does not need to rise to the level of the subject being notable enough for an own article. Within a categorisation scheme, those which are 'worth mentioning', but not notable enough would never appear in these lists. -- 3294:, which states in the lead paragraph the criteria to be included in the list, "The following is a list of albums released in 2019. The albums should be notable which is defined as significant coverage from reliable sources that are independent of the subject." These lists require in-line citations for each entry because many album articles are badly created by fans and are actually not notable, so just having an article is not sufficient to be included on the list, or the album itself may not have an article yet, but can be proven to be notable, so can be included in the list. The determination of whether the list required citations was the basis of many discussions over several years among list users and among outside observers who had no interest in the list, but looked at the list with other considerations in mind. 413:. Every person on this list has entries in the leading music encyclopedias or other reliable reference sources. But a particular editor IronGuard has deleted all those redlinks (they have subsequently been restored). I've seen other lists where this person has done similarly. When I've tried to suggest the rationale above, the editor merely cites the guideline. Being that they seem unable to think outside the box, I figure maybe make the box more open to possibilities (since, based on the Signposts editorials, I'm far from the only one who believes that retaining redlinks is a good thing). - 31: 254:, and generalizing is only going to confuse. Stanajj made the mistake of taking the dispute here rather than that list's talk page. We most definitely allow individual lists to set inclusion criteria that restrict entries to subjects with extant articles. If that's the case on the list in question, again, it's just confusing to make it seems like it's not allowed somehow. It's certainly not the case that, by default, a list includes everything that exists. — 2212:– which brings us to another way that such links render page titles false: a "Lists of" article lists lists. If some of its links are redirects to categories instead, then the contents of the page is not "Lists" as the title indicates. We're representing that we have lists of articles on these topics, when we really don't. This is bad juju, and will make readers angry. People do not wish to be lied to. There is enough misrepresentation in the world already. 3284:, which states "Selection criteria (also known as inclusion criteria or membership criteria) should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources. In cases where the membership criteria are subjective or likely to be disputed (for example, lists of unusual things or terrorist incidents), it is especially important that inclusion be based on reliable sources given with inline citations for each item." The subparagraph for the section, 1536: 2413: 1795:- I suspect that some of these inconsistencies may stem from de-categorization (also known as “listifying” a failed Category). You would have to look at the category and/or page history to be sure however. Having said that... I don’t think we should redirect pointing to categories. There is no need. Categories should be noted in a separate section (at the bottom of the article), and not in running text. 2479: 1978:. I think it is very useful. Its designed to capture all the names of these organisations, which are continually being reorganised, and there doesnt seem to be any other place to keep track of them. Other editors then say "can we have a similar list of the current NHS trusts?" I think that is much better done by a category, because keeping the list up to date is a big task. There is a similar list 1054:(and citation) may end up being omitted. That means that the information at the list no longer appears at the linked article. And neither does the citation verifying it. However, if we cite information in every article where it appears (including lists) a rewrite in one does not effect the verifiability at the other. Repeating citations wherever the information appears is always the safer option. 2965: 2673:: "Lists of lists should also be available as alphabetical categories" as meaning each LoL should have a corresponding category. The article "Lists of Ruritanian villages" should be the main article for "Category:Lists of Ruritanian villages", and each list of Ruritanian villages should be in that category. The template could help with that. That is, 924:

through the whole AfD yet, so apologies if I have this wrong), it's not that editors are calling something OR simply because they refuse to acknowledge sources in linked pages, but because it looks like you (or others) are calling things "swamp monsters" because sources call them a monster and associate them with swamps. —

335:. There are many articles on fossils and other plant and animal taxa that contain long lists of subtaxa, while others only contain a link to a separate list elsewhere. I think it may be helpful to develop some guidance. If such guidance reaches stability, links to it should be created on relevant WikiProject pages such as 1316:, but if you have specific suggestions for the improvement of lists, feel free to impart them at the relevant places. This, as a central discussion over standalone lists, is not an appropriate place to start debating specific data which could (or could not) improve specific lists. Cheers though, appreciate your input. 3387:. I'm still learning the best way to format everything and use the markup editor so I'm pretty tired and have probably already made some mistakes in the merging. I don't think I have the energy to write up a summary right now so I wanted to leave some sort of comment so that people are aware of what happened. 2643:- these are very similar to DABs in the sense that the vast majority of the time someone wikilinks to them, they meant to link something else. I don't think there are many LoLs that are comparable (and I think the few that are should probably be reclassified as DABs - but we'll see how that discussion goes). 2772:

template placed away from the categories, in some other random section. Which is confusing for our hypothetical editor in this scenario, but also generally suggests that editors who are applying these templates in the first place are making errors that they wouldn't otherwise make with plain category

2573:

Replacing ] by {{List of lists}} is consistent with putting {{disambiguation}} in a DAB or {{Set index article}} in an SIA. The template renders the category plus a standard warning message with a link to the guideline. The immediate (minor) value is the message and the link to the guideline, but the

2550:

Would the benefit of this just be helping to correct mistargeted links via the message "If an internal link incorrectly led you here, you may wish to change the link to point directly to the intended list or article."? Is this a common issue for "List of lists" articles? I do think in some cases this

1584: 1107:

to when it omits a citation, ditto TFA/ITN. There are many ways we defer to the sources included in an article without copying them over. In many cases, it would be a good idea to do so, but that nobody has done so doesn't mean it's not verified -- it just means someone needs to do the maintenance. —

1106:

Likening this practice to "citing" a Knowledge article is misleading. Nobody advocates for citing a Knowledge article. It's citing a source that has already been cited. A lead of an article doesn't "cite" the rest of the article when it omits a citation, a DYK hook doesn't "cite" the article it links

832:

to reference each and every entry for days of the year contents, including events and birth/death dates. That's regardless of the fact the each item has to be a blue link to a sub-article. So while what Masem asserts is currently true in a few areas of Knowledge, it soon won't be so the best course

1982:

which I think is less useful. It only includes notable hospitals - ie hospitals with articles about them - and is subdivided by states, but otherwise doesnt have much useful information which couldn't be provided by a category. Its not true that list articles put material in context. Some do, most

1934:

a list article be solely a cross-namespace redirect to a category index page? Usually not, unless it's only a stage in a process towards something better. Or this is a special case and someone has a special reason why we need this particular odd duck category that maps precisely to a particular list

923:

Generally agree with Masem/TRM. Ideally every entry has a source, but as long as the sources are easily accessible in the subjects' own articles, they don't need to be removed. That said, this doesn't actually look to get at the main OR issues in that AfD. As far as I can tell (and I've not yet read

852:

If there is no possible reason to bother with such nonsense, it best to agree to change this page to say so. See if anyone has a legitimate argument not to. When you have list articles so long they have to be broken into separate lists, realistically no one is ever going to bother referencing that

3330:

concerning the way we include lists of women by occupation as compared with lists of people by occupation. With categories, we avoid having "male" be the "null gender" by requiring that, for example, a person in "Spanish women novelists" is also in "Spanish novelists". I was surprised not to find a

3305:

In the specific case of your query, it sounds as if you are already on the talk page discussing the need for citations, and you are reaching out to this Stand-alone list project page to see if there is anything in the list or a consensus among the observers of this project page to swing discussions

3297:

In general I would suggest that any list user who is considering the requirements for citations in stand-alone lists start with discussing the need in the talk page of the list, or be bold and either add or remove the citations depending on the desire and see if anyone objects enough to revert, and

977:

If a single source provides proper referencing for inclusion of each item on the list, then great, that's fine; there just should be a clear way to indicate that (like a lede sentence, "The following is a list of French forts in North America, as documented by in (reference work name)".) That works

786:

It says in the opening sentence a swamp monster is a monster that lives in a swamp. Could call the article list of monsters that live in a swamp, but it just sounds better to say list of swamp monsters. Is t here anything that could be called a swamp monster that was not a monster that lived in a

442:

IronGargoyle is indeed a notorious erythrophobe, who seems to have made it his mission to rid all lists of the color red and in doing so has stepped on many a toe. Unsourced entries or those with expired links are easy prey, but he/she considers interlanguage links (even those with external sources

427:

If it is likely that these people would indeed eventually have an article, then I would say it is appropriate to redlink their names. That said, nothing says they MUST be redlinked... and if an editor strongly disagrees, my advice is always to "let the wookie win" (in other words, don't waste your

390:

So... when deciding whether to redlink a name in a list, seriously ask yourself if there are enough sources that talk about the person in some depth... sources that could support an article about that person. In other words, is it realistic that an article will be written about that person or not?

3025:

added material, in part in response to comments on its talk page. The essay seems to have settled down, and does not seem controversial. This is a fairly obscure topic, but the essay may be some help in discussions about lists of lists. Would there be any objection to adding a pointer to it at the

2194:

sets of articles, while not all categories are. Lists and categories are two distinct navigation systems with different characteristics, including scope. One should not be misrepresented as the other... When I click on a list link, I expect to be taken to a list article, not a category. Categories

1163:

And there's no functional difference with the same practice in DYK or the other venues I listed above. I agree that it's lazy bullshit to see a ref and not copy it when adding a list entry. Only slightly less lazy bullshit to refuse to scan the article for a cited statement before removing it. But

386:

Redlinking can be good... but NOT redlinking is also good... as an unlinked name can indicate that the person listed is not considered notable enough for a stand alone article. Remember that a lot of people are note worthy... but not Notable. They should be mentioned in Knowledge, but only within

1340:, which appears to be an indiscriminate list of every mention of a space marine in any sort of fictional work or game. This isn't strictly a pop-culture list, since, up to this point in Earth's history, all space marines are fictional. Does this list need to be trimmed back, if so, how? Thanks. - 1053:

There is a fundamental reason why we SHOULD repeat a citation on lists, and NOT rely on a linked article to provide the citation: Knowledge articles change. The linked article is not set in stone, and may get completely rewritten at some point... and in the process of a rewrite, the information

885:

years ago....the intent was to refect the consensus that statements of facts be sources as with any other page (like so and so kill 20 people )....not list of wiki links. That said should a tomato be sourced as a fruit is a list of fruit or is the article enough? In my view a list it's self as a

645:

keeps arguing nonstop that anything listed without a reference is Original Research. That's a list article, and has been for most of its long life on Knowledge, but doesn't have "list of" in its name yet. Anyway, I think this guideline article should have in its rules specific information about

493:

So, this is apparently a Knowledge guideline, yet it provides examples of "what to do" which are maintenance tagged and out of date. It provides advice which is also out of date. We need some people to get together and work on fixing this. I'm happy to volunteer, but it'd be best if there were

1211:

The worst sin is the traffic flow. I'd wager that the great majority of users who swing by this page do so ONLY to edit something — paste in their fave performer, tweak links to other WP articles, or (rarely) remove non-notables or other erroneous data. Few (if any) page visitors drop by to scan

2128:

Pretty much every article on Knowledge is a work in progress. This proposal would seem to violate that concept. You would not be able to develop such a list, so you would be locking the list into a very basic structure. I wouldn't object to it being permitted on a "place-holder" basis but if an

3288:

gives examples of common selection criteria, but one of the important take-aways is that it is indicating that each list can have or develop it's own criteria, which should be agreed upon by the list users. One example of a series of lists developing their own criteria is the List of <year:

2902:

and having the template automatically apply it. It seems like a potentially very useful tracking category. These LoLs have some interesting characteristics that set them apart from others. In many cases, they're obviously the result of a large stand-alone list article that was split into a few

370:

There are some lists where there are included people who are redlinks. They are maintained that way because they inform editors of the work that needs to be done on the article. However, there are some editors who take WP:LISTNAME very very literally and remove any redlinked name, citing that

1024:

Rhododendrites, there are multiple reasons given, and this is just one argument I found odd so wanted a clear answer. The Rambling Man, in years past, I worked on a number of list articles where if someone didn't like it and couldn't delete it, they just went and erased all things without

623:

deduced from checking the lede para or infobox of the blue-linked article, it shouldn't need to be sourced. So for example, a list of cat breeds, a list of colors, etc. It's an "obvious" membership that sourcing would be wasting time as long as the blue-linked article is properly sourced.

446:

It would be helpful if there is a link to a page like this to defend oneself in the edit summary. Perhaps this page could spell out more specifically that a carefully created and maintained list can (and almost should) have unlinked and/or red linked entries, when they are sourced or have

428:

time arguing about it.) Instead, choose a few of the names (I would suggest five), start articles about them, and then link to those articles (at that poi9nt they would be bluelinks). Hopefully this will show the nay-sayer that all the names should be linked, and they will back down.

2446:

with some new advice about how to format external links in some stand-alone lists. This format is not mandatory, but it may be helpful in some cases. Please feel free to try it out in pages that you think are appropriate, and leave feedback on the guideline's talk page. Thanks,

2665:

symbols, and when you edit it all you see is {{Disambiguation}}, then removing the template will remove the category. The visual elements at the foot of DAB and SIA pages do not seem distracting to me. It just shows that they are a bit different from normal pages, as are lists of

674:

There, I don't think falls into the "free pass" of my considerations. I see Will-o-wisp on there, and while I can see the lede on its page talks about it being seen over bogs, that I don't think makes it obviously a "swamp monster", and thus inclusion without a source is OR.

3129:

The purpose usually is mainly navigational, but lists of lists often give some information about list entries, and may give extensive information. I think it would be hard to distinguish between navigation lists and informational ones, or to prevent navigational ones adding

2473:

asked "... would it also be feasible to create a footer template indicating lists of lists that works in a similar fashion as the set index footer?" I think that would be a good idea, and would be glad to do it. The template {{List of lists}} would display something like:

1254:

In sum, the ONLY actual utility of most WP lists is to give fans a place to show off their useless knowledge in a manner that doesn't clog up an actual ARTICLE. The primary reason to maintain lists at all is much the same as calling Roto-Rooter to keep your toilet drain

3074:. However, i find Disambiguation, Outlines, and Indexes, are for navigational purposes only. So with that mindset Should we call "List of lists" something else? This is why i believe we should have separate classifications for navigation lists and informational ones. 3215:, are articles that alphabetically list all articles related to some broad topic. They are conceptually quite different from an article that lists list articles that share some common domain. Disambiguation pages and outlines are also disjoint from lists of lists. 2246:– allowing category redirects in list space is an encroachment with political repercussions. If an editor creates a list over a redirect to a category, another editor who favors categories could revert the page creation, thus deleting the list without taking it to 2256:– creating a page over a redirect also undermines the new page viewing feature of contributions tracking. Another approach would be to ask an admin to remove the redirect to make way for a new page, but that is an inconvenient and often time-consuming step. 1291:

Finally, entries for lists of commercial products such as this would benefit HUGELY from demanding that dates of first production and last production (the years, at least) be noted. Certainly there must be similar info that would improve other lists in like

978:

even if you have two main reference works that you combine to get the full list. If you have to agglomerate sources beyond a couple, then each line probably should be referenced separately even if you are using the same reference over and over again. --

2389:) that an uninvolved and experienced editor review and close this RfC. If people think we can form a consensus ourselves, that would be preferable of course, but so far this discussion has seen little in the way of back-and-forth conversation. -- 771:

Determining that something is a monster and combining that with a fact that it can be found in swamps in order to call it a "swamp monster" is not a weak SYNTH claim, if that's what you're referring to. It's a pretty textbook SYNTH problem. —

1683:

and that list articles should be taking the place over the redirects. I understand this is an odd closure, as it was a yes/no discussion, but a lot of the allows seemed more like a weak allow, shifting the consensus more towards disallow. --

2792:

The concern about added complexity is valid and should be raised for any change. It should be acceptable in this case because it is consistent with the related DAB and SIA pages, and list of lists will mostly only be started by experienced

1133:

ref there. The person was just spouting bullshit (less work to yammer on a talk page then to actually bring a ref, even from another WP article). But functionally, there is no difference between the two, in non-blue sky cases. There are

1600: 1585: 1002:- there are lots of things that sit undone on Knowledge until someone does them. Doesn't mean it's good or desirable, but also doesn't mean we should remove them unless local consensus determines a citation is an inclusion criterion. — 186:, etc. it's up to the editors on that talk page whether it will be comprehensive or only notable examples. It looks like many editors have been going by the latter, so the next step would be trying to persuade them on the talk page. — 2608:, it seems like they don't really do anything beyond rendering the message box (and adding the dab/sia categories). I do think there could be some value in showing this message, but I also think it's not a free win. I see two costs: 724:

says as its lede sentence "A monster is a creature that produces fear or physical harm by its appearance or its actions." If sources don't specifically call it a "monster", but devil's, evil spirits, and whatnot, would that matter?

3061:

What are the naming conventions for lists? If there's going to be more than one "List of List"? When should we create a "list of list" and when should we avoid it? Although "List of..." i consider actual Knowledge content (example:

154:

Alexf's "the list" looks to refer to the Republic Records list, not all lists. I understand the confusion (presuming there's confusion), however, because this thread belongs on the list's talk page, which is completely empty.

1633: 904:

don't think we need to cite that a tomato is a fruit, but perhaps we do for the benefit of our readers. Reliance on sourcing in linked articles is no longer deemed acceptable. The sooner this is accepted, the better.

447:

interlanguage links. The criteria for the source or link should only be that it makes it clear that the person either is worthy to be in the list or is notable enough for a stand-alone article sometimes in the future.

1628: 1390:

If the person is famous for a specific event, the notability requirement need not be met. If a person in a list does not have a Knowledge article about them, a citation (or link to another article) must be provided

753:

Yes it does for purposes of WP:V, and avoiding the weak SYNTH claim. It does seem you have a source, so you can justify it on the list, but it is not crystal-clear obvious fact that can get away without sourcing.

624:

Non-blue-linked terms must be sourced. And in lists where the membership is something that requires more digging (such as "List of people from X"), those should be sourced since the membership is not obvious. --

2289:

are a type of article, not just a collection of links; blurring the line between lists and categories will degrade the quality of lists (as readers start to think a list should be just a collection of links);

1638: 1422:

to writing separate articles about people known only for one event. BLP1E and BIO1E only apply to people who have received significant coverage in independent, reliable secondary sources, yet we still prefer

371:

guideline. Can the guideline be modified so as to recognize that some redlinks are good because they inform editors. (I believe there has been at least two Signpost editorial that have argued similarly.) -

2365:“Disallow” is the wrong word. Creating them should not be sanctioned. They are ok transiently, but should be promptly corrected to links to lists or articles. It is not hard to make a list from a category. — 2146:

I don't think its a functional list at all and it would be more beneficial as a category. It tries to suggest that Knowledge List articles as a subject is worthy of having its own list. I don't think that's

1939:

be one of those special cases. Perhaps it is, but they better have a special augment to justify it. Typical lists and categories can have a lot in common, but don't necessarily map to one another perfectly.

2314:- Largely due to the same reasons as outlined by Black Falcon above. I also think there are lists that have things not notable enough for their own page, which would not be feasible using this solution. 2574:

longer term value is providing a place to add code related to lists of lists: the template could be enhanced to render maintenance categories. E.g. does the list of lists have a corresponding category?

488: 1612: 503: 1623: 959:

I agree.....what I am saying is I have seen lists of wiki links source by one book in the lead or chart table header that justifies inclusion of said item over sources beside every wikilink like

3083:

To me, calling it a "list of lists" is a literal list of articles that their primary topic is a lists (Santa's List, Schindler's List, Bucket Lists). Then there are also list of lists like

2229:– we have redlinks for a reason, and this approach defeats the purpose of having them in the first place: to bring attention to the fact that such a page is missing and needs to be created. 1427:

to write a bio about them if they only played a minor role in the event, and they wouldn't notable at all if not for that one event, in spite of the brief media spotlight they had on them.

1443: 3258: 3396: 1243:, and finally over to the various non-WP sources (official sites, fan sites, the Fender site) — in NO CASE do I think it would be a good idea to dredge through a Knowledge list only to 108:

on this list with a source that is from Republic themselves saying he was signed to their label. Why should we purposely make this objective list incomplete due to lack of notability?--

3126:

A list of lists is useful if it groups related lists, helps navigation and gives more structure/information than would be possible with a category. Otherwise, it should not be created.

1452:

People who meet the notability requiement, but only because of their connection to single event which they did not play a significant role in, still meet these list guidelines even if

3348: 1369: 2849: 2552: 1737: 3194: 2273:

in the strongest terms, as someone who has worked quite a bit on both lists and categories. While categories and lists both serve a navigational function (not their only function),

1168:

is a rather obvious one in which citations would be needed in the list no matter what... and yet oddly, we wouldn't need them if the same subjects were featured on the main page. —

3261:

regarding whether items in standalone lists require citations. We're also discussing what the inclusion criteria should be for this list. I would welcome additional input. Thanks!

3353: 3321: 1761: 2921:

into smaller subcategories, which I think will help. Some of the lists of lists may belong in more than one subcategory. The template generates three maintenance categories:

104:

I don't think artists should need notability to be listed on a list that lists people on their record label. The fact they they were signed is objective. I am trying to add

3164:

Well we already do distinguish them with Indexes, Disambiguations, and Outlines. All replacement for the word "List". Why can't we call these list of lists such as indexes?

846: 380: 305: 2265: 2238: 2221: 2065: 2051: 2386: 2204: 1494: 954: 933: 365: 277: 263: 217: 195: 3270: 2716:

Different editors have different levels of comfort and familiarity with the source editor, wikitext, templates etc. What about editors who mostly use the visual editor?

2156: 1415:, strictly speaking, notable. It's incorrect to call these exceptions to LISTPEOPLE, or imply a non-notable person could be added to a list by citing BLP1E and BIO1E. 1079:- Knowledge articles are not reliable - and that is true whether you try to cite a WP article a ref or try to "cite" with a blue link. Please don't make that argument. 2631:

I'm leaning against the idea just because I think lists of lists seem much less likely to attract mistargeted links than dab pages or SIAs. Think of SIA articles like

1949: 1862: 613: 222:

I know he isn't a mainstream artist yet but that doesn't mean I am promoting him for just wanting to mention him. I am not him, nor am I close to him, I'm just a fan.-

2182: 2118: 2030: 1325: 1048: 876: 3133:

The term "list of lists" has been around a long time to mean articles that are mainly lists of other list articles. I suppose there could be a list of articles like

2525: 1785: 1579: 2306: 2104: 1935:

page in the article namespace. If someone is insisting a particular list in the article namespace shall only have blue linked items, then they're arguing that this

1837: 810: 544: 3247: 3206: 3176: 3159: 3099: 3053: 2138: 1922: 1894: 1643: 1063: 200:

As an aside, Stanajj, since the artist in question is the same as your name, and since it doesn't look like anyone has mentioned this so far, you may want to read

3224: 1992: 1662: 245: 3252: 2374: 1879: 1846: 1101: 2432: 2323: 1965: 1804: 1727: 231: 149: 2360: 1177: 1158: 1116: 972: 914: 895: 522: 781: 2709:

Ah, I get it now - thank you for clarifying. Yeah, I see value in that as well. But again, I also see some danger in added complexity/cognitive overhead. Re

2695:(or a subcategory) and into Category:Lists of Ruritanian villages| . It may also put it into one or more hidden maintenance categories. I see value in that. 1302: 1011: 352: 2983:. It's in a very rough and incomplete state, but it's at least a starting point, and a place where we can discuss the finer points of LoLs without spamming 2861: 2545: 2013: 1697: 2889: 1601:

Knowledge:Village pump (policy)#Proposed amendment to WP:LISTPEOPLE regarding the inclusion of lists of non-notable victims in articles about tragic events

1586:

Knowledge:Village pump (policy)#Proposed amendment to WP:LISTPEOPLE regarding the inclusion of lists of non-notable victims in articles about tragic events

766: 748: 715: 687: 669: 636: 3315: 2996: 2957: 2912: 2835: 2787: 2704: 2652: 2583: 2564: 1870:. While it is not always going to be the best option, it is appropriate in at least some cases and so it would be detrimental to disallow them generally. 456: 437: 422: 400: 2461: 1853:. But smaller, potentially manageable list articles should stay red to encourage creation. Is there a specific example that you find to be problematic? 474: 227: 117: 113: 2130: 2021:

Readers expect more than a list of items. There are guidelines and manuals of style that argue against it as well as have been provided to this point.

563: 549: 536: 135: 3008: 2930: 2109:

TTT, are you referring in your second sentence to deletion-by-redirection of these lists, without any discussion at AfD? If so , I agree with you.

1816:, it is currently allowed. While many of these can/should be turned into articles, I don't see any reason to forbid this. The current redirect on 990: 692:

The lede says "especially over bogs, swamps, or marshes". The lights are caused by swamp gas, they found in swamps, and many see them as monsters.

2456: 1528: 3339:, copying the latter into the former would make the latter a fork. Is that a concern? Surprised not to have come across this question before... — 1550: 2467: 360: 2936: 2848:

A separate question is whether all the lists of lists (LoLs?) are correctly classified, or should be DABs or SIAs. That should be discussed at

2406: 1354:(While I realize that this guideline is primarily about stand-alone lists, embedded lists are generally required to meet the same standards. - 223: 158: 109: 105: 1363: 1349: 178:

mean a stand-alone article is necessary, but it usually does, especially when it's a list of people. Ultimately while we have guidelines like

1675:

It is clear that even from the allow !votes casted here that the practice is highly discouraged of redirecting lists to categories. There is

1604: 510: 1930:

if you must. "Could a list article be solely a cross-namespace redirect to a category index page?" Yes. There's nothing saying you can't.

1906:: categories, lists, and navboxes are different and serve different narrow purposes (though all with some element of navigation to them). 555: 574:

don't have any references anywhere in the article. I figure since its common sense, you don't need a reference for every single thing.

317: 89: 84: 2393: 1189: 3120: 1617: 72: 67: 59: 2417: 1667: 1434:

guideline should allow non-notable names to appear on lists about notable events, but BLP1E and BIO1E don't enter into it at all. --

1268:

of amplifier, information I could actually consider including in a published article or academic piece. For instance, as I noted in

236:

Alexf's assertion is purely false, goes against the SAL guideline and isn't something that an experienced admin should be claiming.

3285: 941:- I note your wording, i.e. they're not removed, they just sit there unreferenced, as opposed to all the rest of the content which 590:, same way. Is it Original Research to list anything in a list article like these without a reference for every single list item? 97: 2806:

tag at the top, because I wanted it to be very clear that it was that kind of list. Another editor moved it down. Some tags, like

1085:

That said, many times inclusion is blue sky to any regular person (not experts) obvious, and asking for a source is just pedantic.

2492:

If an internal link incorrectly led you here, you may wish to change the link to point directly to the intended list or article.

2164:. This will lead to confusion. If you click on a link for a list article, you should not expect to end up in category space. 1714:

Could a list article be solely a cross-namespace redirect to a category index page? E.g. could ] redirect to ]. Please answer

1138:

of blue sky cases. There was some fuss over a list of orchestras a while back, and people demanding citations got silly. the

2077:

I think a redirect to a category is preferable than a redlink. However, I don't think this should be used to delete articles.-

1206:

to the Talk page, then realized the comments probably belong somewhere more specific to the actual problem. So, here follows.

3299: 1757: 1235:

sometimes played an unusual Fender guitar, I consider adding a comment about this. Where then do I turn? Obviously: first to

960: 3281: 300:

There is a discussion about list inclusion criteria in the context of software article. This includes a proposal to improve

3384: 3366: 3355: 3336: 1741: 1709:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

570:

is in the article as an example, and no references to that, and some items on it don't even have a Knowledge article. The

3331:

corresponding guideline for list articles. Unlike categories, it does bring up concerns about duplicate content. So while

2402:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2380: 2190:– lists are part of the encyclopedia proper, and are a type of article, while categories are not. "List of" articles are 1596: 348: 3182: 3027: 2486: 2087: 1831: 939:... but as long as the sources are easily accessible in the subjects' own articles, they don't need to be removed. ... 3067: 2611:

Adding indirection/complexity to the process of adding/removing categories. i.e. a reader sees that an article is in

1917: 1887:. A category is practically a list. This is a type of XNR I am willing for us to sacrifice "namespace elegance" for. 1574: 3150:

The essay can certainly be improved. The question is whether it should be linked from here to make it more visible.

3116: 3115:

The recommended name form is "Lists of X", although "List of X" is quite common, and other forms may be used, like

251: 98: 47: 17: 2443: 3370: 1556: 579: 3362: 2880:. It needs careful testing before being rolled out. I see no urgency: we have lived without it for a long time. 3332: 1512:

A notable person known only for a single event may still be included on a list, even if all the conditions of

1331: 1261: 1199: 2826:, are usually put at the bottom. I am not sure if there is any particular principle here, or just convention. 886:

list should be sourced as something we should list. I have seen a sources used in a lead that covers a list.--

2924: 2899: 2437: 1475: 828:

I'm afraid the answer is soon becoming "yes", every item needs an inline citation. We have a sudden move at

340: 2657:

Both the above arguments also apply to DABs or SIAs. It should be obvious that if a page shows in Category:

1764:

doesn't: this means a reader sometimes get a Category index page and sometimes doesn't. In another example,

3383:

cleanup box because the #Titles section should now be revised so it is a summary of the information now on

3071: 1149:

should be there, should be completely driven by citations in that list article, tho. That is what I mean.

583: 387:

the context of a broader, related article. They just don’t merit having an entire article devoted to them.

336: 2939:, which generally mean the category name is not the same as the list name, which may also be questionable. 1264:

could be interesting. That would be to order the random scrapheap NOT by surname of "user," but rather by

3277: 2260: 2233: 2216: 2199: 2046: 1075:

however, the notion that "the refs are in the blue-linked article" is horrible. It flies in the face of

344: 295: 2551:

could be a red flag that the page should actually be classified as a DAB. Coincidentally, I just posted

2061: 2026: 1082:

On top of that, every article needs to be able to stand on its own, as pages get split out all the time.

3327: 3084: 2800: 2619:

so they can delete it, but they can't find it. Using templates to add cats also doesn't play well with

2510: 2299: 2152: 1979: 1817: 1321: 1139: 996:

they're not removed, they just sit there unreferenced, as opposed to all the rest of the content which

950: 910: 842: 571: 559: 499: 273: 241: 145: 38: 2129:

editor comes along and wants to create a more conventional list then that has to take precedence IMO.

1744:

has 886 examples—which is a small number relative to the number of articles, and many are things like

3392: 2903:

sub-pages for size considerations. Many of them are also good candidates for recategorizing as DABs.

2898:

While I'm still not totally sold on this overall endeavour, I want to tip my hat to you for creating

2114: 1945: 1858: 1490: 1439: 1088:

But if it isn't blue sky obvious, then yes it should be sourced and that should be triple true about

3036: 3014: 2980: 2945: 2176: 1656: 619:

Personally, assuming that it is just a list of blue-linked terms, if the membership on the list is

356: 322: 1845:

but use sparingly. This is the best way to handle (potentially) very large list articles such as

1470:

A person is typically included in a list of people only if all the following requirements are met:

1337: 3186: 3063: 2918: 2723: 2692: 2612: 2592: 2498: 2339: 1781: 1769: 1723: 1560: 1247:

come up with what is probably some piece of random guesswork by a tone-deaf teenage non-musician.

1129:

there, cite it here. I have had the discussion many times, and at least half the time, there was

1076: 587: 410: 3190: 2874: 2555:

specifically on certain classes of 'lists of lists' that should, IMO, be reclassified as DABs.

2452: 2083: 1850: 1825: 1121:

There is no functional difference between putting the WP article in a ref, and (Wikilinking it

2057: 2037: 2022: 3276:

A lists requirements should be discussed between users/editors of the list, and agreed upon.

3165: 3088: 2810: 2670: 2148: 2134: 1914: 1891: 1571: 1317: 1298: 1269: 1125:

saying "it is supported in the other article"} - the latter is lazy bullshit. If the ref is

946: 906: 838: 495: 269: 237: 141: 3388: 3377: 2640: 2110: 1988: 1941: 1854: 1765: 1679:

to forbid or explicitly allow list redirects to categories, but I do find a consensus that

1592: 1486: 1435: 1375: 882: 3306:

one way or the other. I believe you will need to just work it out among your list users.

3189:

to Category:Indexes of lists, but then we would have about 1,200 articles with names like

1555:

Gist: Add brief advice about what to do about excessively large items in lists, to either

8: 3341: 3291: 2540: 2370: 2171: 1875: 1753: 1685: 1651: 1170: 1109: 1004: 926: 774: 256: 210: 188: 3311: 3243: 3202: 3155: 3049: 2984: 2953: 2885: 2857: 2831: 2766: 2733: 2700: 2579: 2521: 2427: 2319: 1975: 1800: 1777: 1719: 1309: 1059: 567: 532: 433: 396: 306:

Knowledge talk:WikiProject Software#Restrictions for entries in software list articles

3266: 3220: 3212: 3138: 2992: 2908: 2783: 2778:

Anyways, not strongly opposed (or for) at this point, just playing devil's advocate.

2648: 2560: 2448: 2390: 2355: 2303: 2295: 2095: 2078: 1821: 1634:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/List of Criterion Collection DVD and Blu-ray releases

1313: 1165: 1146: 470: 452: 418: 376: 183: 2534:

per my comments on the linked discussion; why this wasn't done before is beyond me.

1467:

I would probably prefer to keep the wordage at a minimum and move it to a footnote:

2626:

Adding more visual elements that compete with actual article content for attention.

2620: 2302:

to a category is better than leaving it red so someone can create the article). --

2099: 1909: 1888: 1629:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/List of Masters of Cinema releases (2nd nomination)

1608: 1566: 1359: 1345: 1294: 1154: 1097: 1026: 854: 788: 726: 693: 647: 591: 575: 465:! I'll think of some wording and post it on this talk page to solicit comments. - 1236: 1232: 123:

Every article in the list must have an article in the English Knowledge asserting

2796:

The placement question is interesting. The first time I started an SIA I put the

1984: 1517: 1513: 1457: 1453: 1383: 1379: 1285: 1281: 1212:

through the heap, which has been carefully alphabetized for no particular reason.

986: 762: 683: 632: 205: 2442:

After discussions spread over the last couple of years, we have finally updated

2298:

should be used to encourage list creation (I strongly disagree that redirecting

1520:

are met, which would otherwise discourage creating a separate biography article.

46:

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

2636: 2535: 2470: 2366: 2335: 2091: 2009: 1974:. I have some relevent experience. One of the articles I am most proud of is 1871: 1773: 1693: 1639:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/List of Criterion Collection LaserDisc releases

1273: 968: 891: 527:

Updating examples is something we should do on all policy and guideline pages.

518: 313: 1407:

If someone meets all the narrow criteria of BLP1E or WP:BIO1E, then they have

837:

been the case) is to reference every article as if no other article existed.

3307: 3239: 3198: 3151: 3134: 3045: 3022: 2974: 2949: 2881: 2853: 2827: 2820: 2696: 2575: 2517: 2423: 2315: 2291: 2286: 2280: 2247: 2165: 2001: 1962: 1958: 1903: 1796: 1055: 900:

No, sorry, times have changed. Lists are (rightly) expected to standalone.

829: 642: 528: 429: 406: 392: 301: 201: 179: 171: 1738:

Knowledge:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 November 26#List of store brands

1308:

Thanks for your insight. Of course any list could be improved, there is no

1228: 566:

which do not. The bicycle list keeps having new ones added all the time.

3262: 3259:

Talk:List of cultural references to the September 11 attacks#Sources needed

3216: 3018: 2988: 2904: 2779: 2753: 2743: 2644: 2602: 2556: 2346: 1813: 466: 462: 448: 414: 372: 128: 3142: 3039:

for an informal essay on content, purpose, naming etc. of lists of lists.

2870:

Since there were no strong objections, I have started a first version of

2632: 1355: 1341: 1276:, and so culturally significant for noting how pop-music guitarists from 1150: 1093: 167: 124: 1624:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/List of HD DVD releases (2nd nomination)

2516:

Are there any problems with this, or improvements that should be made?

979: 755: 676: 625: 132: 3017:

tries to give advice on lists of lists. It was started a month ago by

1736:. Guidance isn't clear one way or another. There is a live example at 509:

I will help ....will look over some recent Rfc's. We should make sure

2933:, which may also be DAB candidates - or a matching category is needed 2005: 964: 887: 514: 309: 2917:

The area is a bit of a mess. As a first pass, I am trying to break

2615:

and thinks it shouldn't be, they go to edit the source looking for

1277: 489:

Problems with this guideline, the way its written, and its examples

2679:

If not provided, use the list of lists name as the "listcat" value

2948:

is needed to document and discuss LoL issues. I can start it ...

721: 2662: 2658: 2478: 1240: 1224: 1752:—and some that I have looked at are troublesome (for instance, 1260:

I must note an overlooked circumstance in which something like

2468:

Knowledge talk:Set index articles#Can lists of lists be SIAs?

1400:; and b) establish their notability on either BLP1E or BIO1E 556:

Knowledge:Stand-alone_lists#General_formats_of_list_articles

3193:

that should be moved to the new category and to names like

3185:

to Knowledge:Stand-alone lists#Indexes of lists and rename

1551:

Knowledge talk:Manual of Style/Lists#Overly long list items

3238:

Since there were no objections, I have added the pointer.

3197:. It seems like a lot of work, and a separate discussion. 2387:

Knowledge:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure

1370:

BLP1E and BIO1E do not say what LISTPEOPLE thinks they say

1539: 1449:

Alternatively, maybe what LISTPEOPLE is trying to say is

511:

Knowledge:Manual of Style/Lists#Stand-alone list articles

3335:

does not currently include many of the people listed at

3302:), which is one optional method formalized by Knowledge. 2686:

exists, complain if it does not, render it if it exists.

1644:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/List of Eclipse releases

1460:

would discourage creating a separate article about them.

1272:, a very popular guitar amp in the '60s was in fact the 1219:

The final downfall of almost all lists stems from their

3322:

is there a corresponding guideline to DUPCAT for lists?

3145:

etc., but it would be vulnerable to deletion proposals.

268:

Even if that's the case, his assertion is still false.

170:

for list items because of, for example, all the things

2852:. I will try to contribute to that discussion there. 2418:

Talk:List of terrorist incidents#RfC: List criteria

1681:

list redirects to categories are highly discouraged

366:

List of people: redlinks and why they should remain

2931:Category:Lists of lists with no matching category‎ 564:List of bicycle brands and manufacturing companies 2816:, are usually put at the top while others, like 3253:Citations as a requirement? Inclusion criteria? 3112:I think the essay covers most of those points: 2937:Category:Lists of lists with listcat specified‎ 1481:The person's membership in the list's group is 461:That's a really good explanation and proposal, 2497:The template would by default add the page to 1961:08:09, 10 December 2018 (UTC) (should added -- 1397:establish their membership in the list's group 1288:seemed to be seeking toward a specific sound. 1227:was touring the area, and I wanted to write a 174:(like a record label's catalog). That doesn't 2850:Disambiguation pages for composite titles... 2331:as they are almost equivalent to categories. 409:. A specific example that I have in mind is 2691:So the template puts the list of lists into 3257:As an FYI, I'm involved in a discussion at 2285:This would be a bad idea for many reasons: 1597:Knowledge:Stand-alone lists#Lists of people 3183:Knowledge:Stand-alone lists#Lists of lists 3121:Chronological lists of classical composers 3028:Knowledge:Stand-alone lists#Lists of lists 2416:You are invited to join the discussion at 1545:Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere. 1386:, and the struck words should be deleted: 646:this to avoid future pointless arguments. 550:should everything in a list be referenced? 3009:Pointer to Knowledge:Lists of lists essay 2509:positional parameters in the same way as 2042:please provide links to them. Sincerely, 2987:. Bold contributions very much welcome! 2676:Accept an optional "|listcat=" parameter 1529:Proposal on overly long entries in lists 2979:you're right. I went ahead and created 2444:Knowledge:External links#Links in lists 2294:are (generally) harmful and confusing; 1411:the first condition of LISTPEOPLE, the 1223:as a work of reference. Let's say that 250:Again, Alexf looks to be talking about 14: 2407:RfC: terrorist incidents list criteria 1820:is better than having nothing at all. 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 3300:Knowledge:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle 1758:Category:Fan films based on Star Wars 961:List of French forts in North America 582:and all other such list linked to at 3385:Knowledge:Naming conventions (lists) 3367:Knowledge:Naming conventions (lists) 3363:Knowledge:Stand-alone lists § Titles 3356:Knowledge:Naming conventions (lists) 3337:List of Japanese women photographers 1742:Category:Redirects to category space 1705:The following discussion is closed. 25: 1849:, which is of course a redirect to 1338:Space marine#Appearances in fiction 833:of action (which realistically has 349:Knowledge:WikiProject Palaeontology 23: 2927:, which may well be DAB candidates 2477: 1618:Some AfDs which may be of interest 24: 3407: 3369:, since there was a consensus on 3087:that resembles what you provided. 3068:List of Final Fantasy video games 2462:Proposed "List of lists" template 1668:RfC about redirects to categories 1591:There is a proposed amendment to 1378:text fails to correctly describe 1336:I ran across an embedded list at 1204:Why this list sucks big wet rocks 3117:List of composers by nationality 2963: 2762:For some reason I often see the 2411: 2398:The discussion above is closed. 1534: 1476:Knowledge notability requirement 252:List of Republic Records artists 99:List of Republic Records artists 29: 18:Knowledge talk:Stand-alone lists 3195:Index of lists of American Jews 580:List of legendary creatures (A) 554:The example in this article at 3333:List of Japanese photographers 2713:, it's worth keeping in mind: 2457:23:07, 25 September 2019 (UTC) 1812:- as this is not forbidden by 1506: 1326:22:14, 30 September 2018 (UTC) 1303:17:33, 30 September 2018 (UTC) 1262:List of Fender amplifier users 1200:List of Fender amplifier users 13: 1: 3248:01:30, 22 December 2019 (UTC) 3225:22:34, 16 December 2019 (UTC) 3207:21:21, 13 December 2019 (UTC) 3177:20:13, 13 December 2019 (UTC) 3160:20:04, 13 December 2019 (UTC) 3100:19:30, 13 December 2019 (UTC) 3054:19:08, 13 December 2019 (UTC) 2997:21:05, 12 November 2019 (UTC) 2958:19:54, 12 November 2019 (UTC) 2925:Category:Short lists of lists 2913:19:17, 12 November 2019 (UTC) 2900:Category:Short lists of lists 2890:16:55, 11 November 2019 (UTC) 2361:13:07, 25 December 2018 (UTC) 2324:02:47, 24 December 2018 (UTC) 2307:19:10, 15 December 2018 (UTC) 2266:09:41, 14 December 2018 (UTC) 2239:09:41, 14 December 2018 (UTC) 2222:09:41, 14 December 2018 (UTC) 2205:09:41, 14 December 2018 (UTC) 2183:15:43, 13 December 2018 (UTC) 2157:15:18, 13 December 2018 (UTC) 2139:10:31, 12 December 2018 (UTC) 2119:22:51, 11 December 2018 (UTC) 2105:21:17, 11 December 2018 (UTC) 2066:14:25, 14 December 2018 (UTC) 2052:09:41, 14 December 2018 (UTC) 2031:16:09, 11 December 2018 (UTC) 2014:16:26, 10 December 2018 (UTC) 1993:10:02, 10 December 2018 (UTC) 1966:10:38, 10 December 2018 (UTC) 1950:07:12, 10 December 2018 (UTC) 1923:06:42, 10 December 2018 (UTC) 1863:05:06, 30 November 2018 (UTC) 1838:00:05, 30 November 2018 (UTC) 1805:14:17, 29 November 2018 (UTC) 1786:13:15, 29 November 2018 (UTC) 1728:13:15, 29 November 2018 (UTC) 1663:15:41, 21 December 2018 (UTC) 1613:08:14, 20 December 2018 (UTC) 1580:23:26, 20 November 2018 (UTC) 1495:00:46, 15 November 2018 (UTC) 1444:23:29, 14 November 2018 (UTC) 1178:14:17, 14 February 2018 (UTC) 1159:05:34, 14 February 2018 (UTC) 1117:03:36, 14 February 2018 (UTC) 1102:03:10, 14 February 2018 (UTC) 1064:23:35, 13 February 2018 (UTC) 1049:23:12, 13 February 2018 (UTC) 1012:01:55, 14 February 2018 (UTC) 991:23:29, 13 February 2018 (UTC) 973:22:56, 13 February 2018 (UTC) 955:22:54, 13 February 2018 (UTC) 934:22:51, 13 February 2018 (UTC) 915:22:39, 13 February 2018 (UTC) 896:22:34, 13 February 2018 (UTC) 877:22:24, 13 February 2018 (UTC) 847:22:16, 13 February 2018 (UTC) 811:02:36, 14 February 2018 (UTC) 782:01:47, 14 February 2018 (UTC) 767:23:47, 13 February 2018 (UTC) 749:23:44, 13 February 2018 (UTC) 716:23:39, 13 February 2018 (UTC) 688:23:31, 13 February 2018 (UTC) 670:22:07, 13 February 2018 (UTC) 637:22:03, 13 February 2018 (UTC) 614:22:00, 13 February 2018 (UTC) 537:23:51, 13 February 2018 (UTC) 523:23:02, 13 February 2018 (UTC) 504:22:52, 13 February 2018 (UTC) 475:16:26, 13 February 2018 (UTC) 457:04:16, 13 February 2018 (UTC) 438:19:21, 12 February 2018 (UTC) 423:17:07, 12 February 2018 (UTC) 401:02:46, 12 February 2018 (UTC) 381:01:54, 12 February 2018 (UTC) 361:14:31, 31 December 2017 (UTC) 341:Knowledge:WikiProject Animals 318:15:16, 24 December 2017 (UTC) 3397:04:11, 7 December 2020 (UTC) 3072:List of Kingdom Hearts media 2862:02:25, 5 November 2019 (UTC) 2836:12:32, 6 November 2019 (UTC) 2788:23:10, 5 November 2019 (UTC) 2705:12:44, 5 November 2019 (UTC) 2653:02:57, 5 November 2019 (UTC) 2584:02:25, 5 November 2019 (UTC) 2565:23:48, 4 November 2019 (UTC) 2546:22:37, 4 November 2019 (UTC) 2526:22:29, 4 November 2019 (UTC) 1895:13:03, 6 December 2018 (UTC) 1880:23:26, 1 December 2018 (UTC) 1762:Fan films based on Star Wars 1698:03:49, 11 January 2019 (UTC) 1364:01:19, 18 October 2018 (UTC) 1350:01:16, 18 October 2018 (UTC) 1070:i go back and forth on this. 584:Lists of legendary creatures 337:Knowledge:WikiProject Plants 333:Appropriate topics for lists 7: 3278:Knowledge:Stand-alone lists 2433:17:38, 22 August 2019 (UTC) 2394:20:46, 6 January 2019 (UTC) 2375:21:08, 6 January 2019 (UTC) 2056:See the previous comments. 545:What advice is out of date? 345:Knowledge:WikiProject Fungi 10: 3412: 3328:Talk:List of photographers 3085:List of One Piece episodes 2511:Template:Set index article 2342:if you want my attention.) 2300:List of hospitals in Italy 1980:List of hospitals in India 1818:List of hospitals in Italy 1532: 1142:is obviously an orchestra. 1140:Chicago Symphony Orchestra 720:The Knowledge article for 572:List of theological demons 560:List of business theorists 327:I've added the subheading 3361:I added the content from 3316:17:56, 24 June 2020 (UTC) 3286:Common selection criteria 3271:15:24, 24 June 2020 (UTC) 3211:Indexes, as described in 2739:, they might instead see 2292:cross-namespace redirects 2275:categories and lists are 1312:here and most things are 351:, and their subprojects. 278:10:33, 17 July 2017 (UTC) 264:16:40, 13 July 2017 (UTC) 246:15:55, 13 July 2017 (UTC) 232:15:32, 13 July 2017 (UTC) 218:15:13, 13 July 2017 (UTC) 196:15:09, 13 July 2017 (UTC) 150:12:10, 13 July 2017 (UTC) 136:11:58, 13 July 2017 (UTC) 118:11:40, 13 July 2017 (UTC) 3349:16:27, 3 July 2020 (UTC) 3326:A discussion came up on 3037:Knowledge:Lists of lists 3015:Knowledge:Lists of lists 2981:Knowledge:Lists of lists 2946:Knowledge:Lists of lists 2588:Looking at the code for 2553:a wall of text at WT:DAB 2485:This article includes a 2400:Please do not modify it. 1707:Please do not modify it. 1557:WP:Manual of Style/Lists 1239:then, if that's a wash, 405:Thanks for the response 3187:Category:Lists of lists 3064:List of Star Wars films 2919:Category:Lists of lists 2711:It should be obvious... 2693:Category:Lists of lists 2613:Category:Lists of lists 2499:Category:Lists of lists 1770:Category:Stanley family 641:Someone at the AFD for 411:List of music theorists 3280:has a section labeled 3191:Lists of American Jews 2482: 1851:Category:Living people 1484: 1462: 1405: 1332:Lists of every mention 1145:Whether any person on 494:others involved too. 3290:albums, for example, 2487:list of related lists 2481: 2438:External links update 2385:I have requested (at 2338:this page, so please 1847:List of living people 1474:The person meets the 1468: 1450: 1418:BLP1E and BIO1E are 1388: 1270:Talk:Guitar amplifier 42:of past discussions. 3354:#Titles merged into 2682:Check that Category: 2659:Disambiguation pages 2641:Rattlesnake Mountain 2279:the same thing (see 1766:Smith Stanley family 3292:List of 2019 albums 3119:(a hybrid) or even 2719:Rather than seeing 1754:Star Wars fan films 588:List of colors: A–F 296:Software discussion 3282:Selection criteria 2483: 1976:List of NHS trusts 1708: 1420:additional hurdles 568:List of cat breeds 513:is also updated.-- 2801:set index article 2501:, and would take 2344: 2287:stand-alone lists 2261:The Transhumanist 2234:The Transhumanist 2217:The Transhumanist 2200:The Transhumanist 2103: 2047:The Transhumanist 1998:Disallow strongly 1718:with discussion. 1706: 1696: 1432:Stand-alone lists 1231:. Recalling that 1221:utter uselessness 1190:Why lists aren't 1166:list of Satanists 1147:List of Satanists 945:referenced..... 95: 94: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 3403: 3382: 3376: 3346: 3344: 3298:if so, discuss ( 3181:We could rename 3139:Schindler's List 2978: 2971: 2967: 2966: 2879: 2873: 2825: 2819: 2815: 2809: 2805: 2799: 2771: 2765: 2758: 2752: 2748: 2742: 2738: 2732: 2728: 2722: 2618: 2607: 2601: 2597: 2591: 2543: 2538: 2493: 2431: 2430: 2415: 2414: 2358: 2354: 2352: 2349: 2332: 2264: 2237: 2220: 2203: 2179: 2174: 2149:Blue Pumpkin Pie 2081: 2050: 2041: 1921: 1834: 1828: 1692: 1690: 1659: 1654: 1578: 1561:WP:Summary style 1546: 1538: 1537: 1521: 1510: 1318:The Rambling Man 1175: 1173: 1114: 1112: 1077:WP:USERGENERATED 1045: 1042: 1039: 1036: 1033: 1030: 1009: 1007: 983: 947:The Rambling Man 940: 931: 929: 907:The Rambling Man 873: 870: 867: 864: 861: 858: 839:The Rambling Man 807: 804: 801: 798: 795: 792: 779: 777: 759: 745: 742: 739: 736: 733: 730: 712: 709: 706: 703: 700: 697: 680: 666: 663: 660: 657: 654: 651: 629: 610: 607: 604: 601: 598: 595: 576:Lists of deities 496:The Rambling Man 329:Lists of subtaxa 323:Lists of subtaxa 270:The Rambling Man 261: 259: 238:The Rambling Man 215: 213: 193: 191: 172:Knowledge is not 162: 142:The Rambling Man 129:reliable sources 81: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 3411: 3410: 3406: 3405: 3404: 3402: 3401: 3400: 3389:WhirlWithoutEnd 3380: 3374: 3359: 3342: 3340: 3324: 3255: 3011: 2972: 2964: 2962: 2877: 2871: 2823: 2817: 2813: 2807: 2803: 2797: 2769: 2763: 2756: 2750: 2746: 2740: 2736: 2730: 2726: 2720: 2616: 2605: 2599: 2595: 2589: 2541: 2536: 2495: 2494: 2491: 2464: 2440: 2426: 2421: 2412: 2409: 2404: 2403: 2383: 2356: 2350: 2347: 2345: 2257: 2230: 2213: 2196: 2177: 2172: 2111:UnitedStatesian 2043: 2035: 1942:Dennis Bratland 1907: 1855:UnitedStatesian 1832: 1826: 1748:redirecting to 1711: 1702: 1701: 1700: 1686: 1670: 1657: 1652: 1620: 1589: 1564: 1547: 1544: 1542: 1535: 1531: 1526: 1525: 1524: 1511: 1507: 1487:Dennis Bratland 1436:Dennis Bratland 1430:Obviously, the 1372: 1334: 1286:Michael Monarch 1282:Mike Bloomfield 1196: 1171: 1169: 1110: 1108: 1043: 1040: 1037: 1034: 1031: 1028: 1005: 1003: 1000:referenced..... 981: 938: 927: 925: 871: 868: 865: 862: 859: 856: 805: 802: 799: 796: 793: 790: 775: 773: 757: 743: 740: 737: 734: 731: 728: 710: 707: 704: 701: 698: 695: 678: 664: 661: 658: 655: 652: 649: 627: 608: 605: 602: 599: 596: 593: 552: 547: 491: 368: 325: 298: 257: 255: 211: 209: 189: 187: 156: 102: 77: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 3409: 3373:. I added the 3358: 3352: 3343:Rhododendrites 3323: 3320: 3319: 3318: 3303: 3295: 3254: 3251: 3236: 3235: 3234: 3233: 3232: 3231: 3230: 3229: 3228: 3227: 3209: 3148: 3147: 3146: 3131: 3127: 3124: 3105: 3104: 3103: 3102: 3078: 3077: 3076: 3075: 3042: 3041: 3010: 3007: 3006: 3005: 3004: 3003: 3002: 3001: 3000: 2999: 2942: 2941: 2940: 2934: 2928: 2893: 2892: 2867: 2866: 2865: 2864: 2846: 2845: 2844: 2843: 2842: 2841: 2840: 2839: 2838: 2794: 2776: 2775: 2774: 2760: 2724:Disambiguation 2717: 2689: 2688: 2687: 2680: 2677: 2671:WP:LISTOFLISTS 2667: 2637:Typhoon Billie 2629: 2628: 2627: 2624: 2593:disambiguation 2568: 2567: 2548: 2490: 2484: 2476: 2463: 2460: 2439: 2436: 2408: 2405: 2397: 2382: 2379: 2378: 2377: 2363: 2326: 2309: 2268: 2251: 2241: 2224: 2207: 2192:self-contained 2185: 2159: 2141: 2123: 2122: 2121: 2072: 2071: 2070: 2069: 2068: 2058:Walter Görlitz 2038:Walter Görlitz 2023:Walter Görlitz 2016: 1995: 1969: 1952: 1925: 1897: 1882: 1865: 1840: 1807: 1789: 1788: 1774:Stanley family 1712: 1703: 1674: 1673: 1672: 1671: 1669: 1666: 1647: 1646: 1641: 1636: 1631: 1626: 1619: 1616: 1588: 1583: 1533: 1530: 1527: 1523: 1522: 1504: 1503: 1499: 1498: 1497: 1483: 1482: 1479: 1464: 1463: 1371: 1368: 1333: 1330: 1329: 1328: 1293: 1274:Fender Bassman 1258: 1257: 1250: 1249: 1215: 1214: 1195: 1188: 1187: 1186: 1185: 1184: 1183: 1182: 1181: 1180: 1172:Rhododendrites 1143: 1111:Rhododendrites 1086: 1083: 1080: 1072: 1071: 1067: 1066: 1051: 1021: 1020: 1019: 1018: 1017: 1016: 1015: 1014: 1006:Rhododendrites 993: 928:Rhododendrites 920: 919: 918: 917: 879: 826: 825: 824: 823: 822: 821: 820: 819: 818: 817: 816: 815: 814: 813: 776:Rhododendrites 718: 551: 548: 546: 543: 542: 541: 540: 539: 490: 487: 486: 485: 484: 483: 482: 481: 480: 479: 478: 477: 444: 388: 367: 364: 353:Dwergenpaartje 324: 321: 297: 294: 293: 292: 291: 290: 289: 288: 287: 286: 285: 284: 283: 282: 281: 280: 258:Rhododendrites 212:Rhododendrites 198: 190:Rhododendrites 166:lists require 101: 96: 93: 92: 87: 82: 75: 70: 65: 62: 52: 51: 34: 15: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3408: 3399: 3398: 3394: 3390: 3386: 3379: 3372: 3371:the Talk page 3368: 3364: 3357: 3351: 3350: 3345: 3338: 3334: 3329: 3317: 3313: 3309: 3304: 3301: 3296: 3293: 3287: 3283: 3279: 3275: 3274: 3273: 3272: 3268: 3264: 3260: 3250: 3249: 3245: 3241: 3226: 3222: 3218: 3214: 3210: 3208: 3204: 3200: 3196: 3192: 3188: 3184: 3180: 3179: 3178: 3175: 3174: 3171: 3168: 3163: 3162: 3161: 3157: 3153: 3149: 3144: 3140: 3136: 3132: 3128: 3125: 3122: 3118: 3114: 3113: 3111: 3110: 3109: 3108: 3107: 3106: 3101: 3098: 3097: 3094: 3091: 3086: 3082: 3081: 3080: 3079: 3073: 3069: 3065: 3060: 3059: 3058: 3057: 3056: 3055: 3051: 3047: 3040: 3038: 3033: 3032: 3031: 3029: 3024: 3023:User:Aymatth2 3020: 3016: 2998: 2994: 2990: 2986: 2982: 2976: 2970: 2961: 2960: 2959: 2955: 2951: 2947: 2943: 2938: 2935: 2932: 2929: 2926: 2923: 2922: 2920: 2916: 2915: 2914: 2910: 2906: 2901: 2897: 2896: 2895: 2894: 2891: 2887: 2883: 2876: 2875:List of lists 2869: 2868: 2863: 2859: 2855: 2851: 2847: 2837: 2833: 2829: 2822: 2812: 2802: 2795: 2791: 2790: 2789: 2785: 2781: 2777: 2768: 2761: 2755: 2745: 2735: 2725: 2718: 2715: 2714: 2712: 2708: 2707: 2706: 2702: 2698: 2694: 2690: 2685: 2681: 2678: 2675: 2674: 2672: 2668: 2664: 2660: 2656: 2655: 2654: 2650: 2646: 2642: 2638: 2634: 2630: 2625: 2622: 2614: 2610: 2609: 2604: 2594: 2587: 2586: 2585: 2581: 2577: 2572: 2571: 2570: 2569: 2566: 2562: 2558: 2554: 2549: 2547: 2544: 2539: 2533: 2530: 2529: 2528: 2527: 2523: 2519: 2514: 2512: 2508: 2504: 2500: 2488: 2480: 2475: 2472: 2469: 2459: 2458: 2454: 2450: 2445: 2435: 2434: 2429: 2425: 2419: 2401: 2396: 2395: 2392: 2388: 2376: 2372: 2368: 2364: 2362: 2359: 2353: 2343: 2341: 2337: 2330: 2329:Allow indexes 2327: 2325: 2321: 2317: 2313: 2310: 2308: 2305: 2301: 2297: 2293: 2288: 2284: 2282: 2278: 2272: 2269: 2267: 2263: 2262: 2255: 2252: 2249: 2245: 2242: 2240: 2236: 2235: 2228: 2225: 2223: 2219: 2218: 2211: 2208: 2206: 2202: 2201: 2193: 2189: 2186: 2184: 2181: 2180: 2175: 2167: 2163: 2160: 2158: 2154: 2150: 2145: 2142: 2140: 2136: 2132: 2127: 2124: 2120: 2116: 2112: 2108: 2107: 2106: 2101: 2097: 2093: 2089: 2085: 2080: 2076: 2073: 2067: 2063: 2059: 2055: 2054: 2053: 2049: 2048: 2039: 2034: 2033: 2032: 2028: 2024: 2020: 2017: 2015: 2011: 2007: 2003: 1999: 1996: 1994: 1990: 1986: 1981: 1977: 1973: 1970: 1967: 1964: 1963:Dirk Beetstra 1960: 1959:Dirk Beetstra 1956: 1953: 1951: 1947: 1943: 1938: 1933: 1929: 1926: 1924: 1919: 1916: 1913: 1912: 1905: 1901: 1898: 1896: 1893: 1890: 1886: 1883: 1881: 1877: 1873: 1869: 1866: 1864: 1860: 1856: 1852: 1848: 1844: 1841: 1839: 1835: 1829: 1823: 1819: 1815: 1811: 1808: 1806: 1802: 1798: 1794: 1791: 1790: 1787: 1783: 1779: 1778:Shhhnotsoloud 1775: 1771: 1768:redirects to 1767: 1763: 1759: 1756:redirects to 1755: 1751: 1747: 1743: 1739: 1735: 1732: 1731: 1730: 1729: 1725: 1721: 1720:Shhhnotsoloud 1717: 1710: 1699: 1695: 1691: 1689: 1682: 1678: 1665: 1664: 1661: 1660: 1655: 1645: 1642: 1640: 1637: 1635: 1632: 1630: 1627: 1625: 1622: 1621: 1615: 1614: 1610: 1606: 1602: 1598: 1594: 1593:WP:LISTPEOPLE 1587: 1582: 1581: 1576: 1573: 1570: 1569: 1562: 1558: 1553: 1552: 1541: 1519: 1515: 1509: 1505: 1502: 1496: 1492: 1488: 1480: 1477: 1473: 1472: 1471: 1466: 1465: 1461: 1459: 1455: 1448: 1447: 1446: 1445: 1441: 1437: 1433: 1428: 1426: 1421: 1416: 1414: 1410: 1404: 1402: 1401: 1396: 1395: 1387: 1385: 1381: 1377: 1376:WP:LISTPEOPLE 1367: 1365: 1361: 1357: 1352: 1351: 1347: 1343: 1339: 1327: 1323: 1319: 1315: 1311: 1307: 1306: 1305: 1304: 1300: 1296: 1289: 1287: 1283: 1279: 1275: 1271: 1267: 1263: 1256: 1252: 1251: 1248: 1244: 1242: 1238: 1237:Sergio Vallín 1234: 1233:Sergio Vallín 1230: 1226: 1222: 1217: 1216: 1213: 1209: 1208: 1207: 1205: 1201: 1193: 1179: 1174: 1167: 1162: 1161: 1160: 1156: 1152: 1148: 1144: 1141: 1137: 1132: 1128: 1124: 1120: 1119: 1118: 1113: 1105: 1104: 1103: 1099: 1095: 1091: 1090:living people 1087: 1084: 1081: 1078: 1074: 1073: 1069: 1068: 1065: 1061: 1057: 1052: 1050: 1047: 1046: 1023: 1022: 1013: 1008: 1001: 999: 994: 992: 988: 984: 976: 975: 974: 970: 966: 962: 958: 957: 956: 952: 948: 944: 937: 936: 935: 930: 922: 921: 916: 912: 908: 903: 899: 898: 897: 893: 889: 884: 883:WP:LISTVERIFY 881:When I wrote 880: 878: 875: 874: 853:many things. 851: 850: 849: 848: 844: 840: 836: 831: 812: 809: 808: 785: 784: 783: 778: 770: 769: 768: 764: 760: 752: 751: 750: 747: 746: 723: 719: 717: 714: 713: 691: 690: 689: 685: 681: 673: 672: 671: 668: 667: 644: 643:Swamp monster 640: 639: 638: 634: 630: 622: 618: 617: 616: 615: 612: 611: 589: 585: 581: 577: 573: 569: 565: 561: 557: 538: 534: 530: 526: 525: 524: 520: 516: 512: 508: 507: 506: 505: 501: 497: 476: 472: 468: 464: 460: 459: 458: 454: 450: 445: 441: 440: 439: 435: 431: 426: 425: 424: 420: 416: 412: 408: 407:User:Blueboar 404: 403: 402: 398: 394: 389: 385: 384: 383: 382: 378: 374: 363: 362: 358: 354: 350: 346: 342: 338: 334: 330: 320: 319: 315: 311: 307: 303: 279: 275: 271: 267: 266: 265: 260: 253: 249: 248: 247: 243: 239: 235: 234: 233: 229: 225: 221: 220: 219: 214: 207: 203: 199: 197: 192: 185: 181: 177: 173: 169: 165: 160: 153: 152: 151: 147: 143: 139: 138: 137: 134: 130: 126: 122: 121: 120: 119: 115: 111: 107: 100: 91: 88: 86: 83: 80: 76: 74: 71: 69: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 3360: 3325: 3256: 3237: 3172: 3169: 3166: 3135:Santa's List 3130:information. 3095: 3092: 3089: 3043: 3034: 3019:User:Colin M 3012: 2968: 2811:unreferenced 2710: 2683: 2669:I interpret 2531: 2515: 2506: 2502: 2496: 2465: 2449:WhatamIdoing 2441: 2410: 2399: 2391:Black Falcon 2384: 2333: 2328: 2311: 2304:Black Falcon 2276: 2274: 2270: 2259: 2253: 2243: 2232: 2226: 2215: 2209: 2198: 2191: 2187: 2169: 2161: 2143: 2125: 2079:TonyTheTiger 2074: 2045: 2018: 1997: 1971: 1954: 1936: 1931: 1927: 1910: 1899: 1884: 1867: 1842: 1822:power~enwiki 1809: 1792: 1749: 1745: 1733: 1715: 1713: 1704: 1687: 1680: 1677:no consensus 1676: 1649: 1648: 1590: 1567: 1554: 1549:Please see: 1548: 1508: 1500: 1469: 1451: 1431: 1429: 1424: 1419: 1417: 1412: 1408: 1406: 1399: 1398: 1393: 1392: 1389: 1373: 1353: 1335: 1290: 1265: 1259: 1253: 1246: 1220: 1218: 1210: 1203: 1202:, and added 1197: 1191: 1135: 1130: 1126: 1122: 1089: 1027: 1025:references. 997: 995: 942: 901: 855: 834: 827: 789: 727: 694: 648: 620: 592: 553: 492: 369: 332: 328: 326: 299: 175: 163: 140:Since when? 103: 78: 43: 37: 3378:bad summary 3143:Bucket list 2633:Albion Road 2131:Betty Logan 1911:SMcCandlish 1772:and not to 1568:SMcCandlish 1409:already met 1295:Weeb Dingle 36:This is an 3213:WP:INDEXES 3044:Comments? 3013:The essay 2537:Jalen Folf 2381:Consensus? 2334:(I am not 2096:WP:CHICAGO 1985:Rathfelder 1750:Category:X 1501:References 1314:incomplete 1229:puff piece 184:WP:LISTBIO 168:notability 125:notability 90:Archive 12 85:Archive 11 79:Archive 10 3035:See also 2767:Set index 2734:Set index 2471:JalenFolf 2367:SmokeyJoe 2296:red links 2100:WP:WAWARD 1872:Thryduulf 1198:I was at 1092:per BLP. 73:Archive 9 68:Archive 8 60:Archive 5 3308:Mburrell 3240:Aymatth2 3199:Aymatth2 3152:Aymatth2 3046:Aymatth2 2975:Aymatth2 2950:Aymatth2 2944:I thing 2882:Aymatth2 2854:Aymatth2 2828:Aymatth2 2793:editors. 2697:Aymatth2 2661:with no 2576:Aymatth2 2518:Aymatth2 2507:sort key 2503:category 2336:watching 2316:VegaDark 2312:Disallow 2271:Disallow 2188:Disallow 2178:superman 2162:Disallow 2147:correct. 2144:Disallow 2019:Disallow 1900:Disallow 1797:Blueboar 1694:(aka DQ) 1658:superman 1518:WP:BIO1E 1514:WP:BLP1E 1458:WP:BIO1E 1454:WP:BLP1E 1384:WP:BIO1E 1380:WP:BLP1E 1310:deadline 1278:Don Rich 1245:possibly 1127:actually 1056:Blueboar 529:Blueboar 430:Blueboar 393:Blueboar 206:WP:PROMO 127:through 3263:DonIago 3217:Colin M 3170:Pumpkin 3093:Pumpkin 3030:, e.g. 3026:end of 2989:Colin M 2905:Colin M 2780:Colin M 2684:listcat 2663:(−) (±) 2645:Colin M 2557:Colin M 2532:Support 2340:ping me 2254:Comment 2244:Comment 2227:Comment 2210:Comment 2126:Comment 2092:WP:FOUR 1983:don't. 1793:Comment 1734:Comment 1292:manner. 1194:useless 1192:totally 787:swamp? 722:monster 467:kosboot 463:Afasmit 449:Afasmit 415:kosboot 373:kosboot 224:Stanajj 159:Stanajj 110:Stanajj 39:archive 3070:, and 3021:, and 2985:WT:SAL 2666:lists. 2621:hotcat 2542:(talk) 2351:umbolo 2281:WP:CLN 2248:WP:AfD 2173:wooden 2166:WP:EGG 2002:WP:XNR 1932:Should 1904:WP:CLN 1889:Deryck 1843:Allow, 1760:, but 1716:Yes/No 1688:Amanda 1653:wooden 1605:Cunard 1356:BilCat 1342:BilCat 1255:clear. 1151:Jytdog 1094:Jytdog 835:always 830:WP:DOY 621:easily 558:shows 331:under 304:. See 302:WP:CSC 202:WP:COI 180:WP:CSC 176:always 106:Stanaj 2773:tags. 2424:Leviv 2075:Allow 1972:Allow 1928:Allow 1885:Allow 1868:Allow 1814:WP:R2 1810:Allow 1746:CAT:X 1599:) at 1374:This 1266:model 1164:yes, 1044:Focus 872:Focus 806:Focus 744:Focus 711:Focus 665:Focus 609:Focus 133:Alexf 131:. -- 16:< 3393:talk 3312:talk 3267:talk 3244:talk 3221:talk 3203:talk 3167:Blue 3156:talk 3090:Blue 3050:talk 2993:talk 2969:Done 2954:talk 2909:talk 2886:talk 2858:talk 2832:talk 2821:stub 2784:talk 2701:talk 2649:talk 2598:and 2580:talk 2561:talk 2522:talk 2505:and 2466:See 2453:talk 2371:talk 2320:talk 2153:talk 2135:talk 2115:talk 2062:talk 2027:talk 2010:talk 2006:Izno 2004:. -- 2000:per 1989:talk 1946:talk 1937:must 1902:per 1876:talk 1859:talk 1801:talk 1782:talk 1724:talk 1609:talk 1491:talk 1440:talk 1394:: a) 1382:and 1360:talk 1346:talk 1322:talk 1299:talk 1241:Maná 1225:Maná 1155:talk 1136:lots 1098:talk 1060:talk 982:asem 969:talk 965:Moxy 951:talk 911:talk 892:talk 888:Moxy 843:talk 758:asem 679:asem 628:asem 562:and 533:talk 519:talk 515:Moxy 500:talk 471:talk 453:talk 434:talk 419:talk 397:talk 377:talk 357:talk 314:talk 310:Kvng 274:talk 242:talk 228:talk 208:. — 204:and 164:most 146:talk 114:talk 3365:to 3347:\\ 3289:--> 3173:Pie 3096:Pie 2754:sia 2749:or 2744:dab 2729:or 2639:or 2603:sia 2428:ich 2420:. 2357:^^^ 2277:not 2168:. 1920:😼 1577:😼 1559:or 1540:FYI 1516:or 1456:or 1425:not 1413:are 1284:to 1280:to 1176:\\ 1123:and 1115:\\ 1010:\\ 963:.-- 932:\\ 780:\\ 308:. ~ 262:\\ 216:\\ 194:\\ 3395:) 3381:}} 3375:{{ 3314:) 3269:) 3246:) 3223:) 3205:) 3158:) 3141:, 3137:, 3066:, 3052:) 2995:) 2956:) 2911:) 2888:) 2878:}} 2872:{{ 2860:) 2834:) 2824:}} 2818:{{ 2814:}} 2808:{{ 2804:}} 2798:{{ 2786:) 2770:}} 2764:{{ 2757:}} 2751:{{ 2747:}} 2741:{{ 2737:}} 2731:{{ 2727:}} 2721:{{ 2703:) 2651:) 2635:, 2606:}} 2600:{{ 2596:}} 2590:{{ 2582:) 2563:) 2524:) 2513:. 2489:. 2455:) 2422:– 2373:) 2322:) 2283:). 2258:— 2231:— 2214:— 2197:— 2170:-- 2155:) 2137:) 2117:) 2098:/ 2094:/ 2090:/ 2086:/ 2064:) 2044:— 2029:) 2012:) 1991:) 1955:No 1948:) 1940:-- 1908:— 1892:C. 1878:) 1861:) 1836:) 1830:, 1803:) 1784:) 1776:. 1740:. 1726:) 1650:-- 1611:) 1603:. 1565:— 1563:. 1543:– 1493:) 1485:-- 1442:) 1391:to 1366:) 1362:) 1348:) 1324:) 1301:) 1157:) 1131:no 1100:) 1062:) 998:is 989:) 971:) 953:) 943:is 913:) 894:) 845:) 765:) 754:-- 686:) 675:-- 635:) 586:, 578:, 535:) 521:) 502:) 473:) 455:) 436:) 421:) 399:) 379:) 359:) 347:, 343:, 339:, 316:) 276:) 244:) 230:) 182:, 148:) 116:) 64:← 3391:( 3310:( 3265:( 3242:( 3219:( 3201:( 3154:( 3123:. 3048:( 2991:( 2977:: 2973:@ 2952:( 2907:( 2884:( 2856:( 2830:( 2782:( 2759:. 2699:( 2647:( 2623:. 2617:] 2578:( 2559:( 2520:( 2451:( 2369:( 2348:w 2318:( 2250:. 2151:( 2133:( 2113:( 2102:) 2088:C 2084:T 2082:( 2060:( 2040:: 2036:@ 2025:( 2008:( 1987:( 1968:) 1944:( 1918:¢ 1915:☏ 1874:( 1857:( 1833:ν 1827:π 1824:( 1799:( 1780:( 1722:( 1607:( 1595:( 1575:¢ 1572:☏ 1489:( 1478:. 1438:( 1403:. 1358:( 1344:( 1320:( 1297:( 1153:( 1096:( 1058:( 1041:m 1038:a 1035:e 1032:r 1029:D 987:t 985:( 980:M 967:( 949:( 909:( 902:I 890:( 869:m 866:a 863:e 860:r 857:D 841:( 803:m 800:a 797:e 794:r 791:D 763:t 761:( 756:M 741:m 738:a 735:e 732:r 729:D 708:m 705:a 702:e 699:r 696:D 684:t 682:( 677:M 662:m 659:a 656:e 653:r 650:D 633:t 631:( 626:M 606:m 603:a 600:e 597:r 594:D 531:( 517:( 498:( 469:( 451:( 432:( 417:( 395:( 375:( 355:( 312:( 272:( 240:( 226:( 161:: 157:@ 144:( 112:( 50:.

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