110:
130:
187:
1263:
gain a wider range of opinions - there's no need for it to go anywhere near AfD. In my opinion, AfD should only be about whether an article should exist on the subject; the actual content of the article is another matter entirely. Actually deleting an article that could instead be stubbified only serves to remove a bunch of contributions from general view, which in my mind goes against the openness of
Knowledge. Sometimes we focus too much on the pedia and not enough on the wiki.
358:
90:
218:
work creating an article on your behalf, and claiming you have the right to do this, you need to rethink your position: If you are not willing to take responsibility for improving the articles you gaily vote to keep, then you are making the jobs of the people genuinely trying to improve
Knowledge by upmerging content, reducing walled gardens to a manageable number of articles, and trying to use limited resources effectively much, much harder.
120:
36:
140:
100:
150:
1325:, when there were no good sources in the article. How good these sources were varied; sometimes they really didn't support the notability, sometimes they very weakly did, sometimes they were good - but they weren't in the article under discussion, and occasionally - with the more POV-pushing kind of article - directly contradicted everything actually in the article.
103:
202:”), which, though its subject may be notable, has no redeeming qualities whatsoever. Perhaps its only source is a promotional, questionable website. Perhaps its material seems to be completely made up from thin air. In such cases, just delete it. Knowledge lacks articles on a lot of things, and, if the people who found 87 blog and chatpage sources using the
631:
A single paragraph with a minimum of a single reliable source is not a high bar to reach. Anyone who is willing to put in the effort to create and go through an AfD should be equally willing to stubbify and write 3 sentences for an article. Having a single paragraph article with a proper reference is
677:
There's been a trend of "stubbifying" that's come up after 2008, and, yes, it helps deal with the issue. I decided the main essay shouldn't be overly changed, but I added the last section - alternatives to deletion - for the republication since we have more options now. I do think that upmerging can
273:
However, a clean slate offers the chance to do things right. A new editor can come in, think about how best to structure the article, and create a much more useful framework for further work. It also gives permission for the article to be fairly short, but with the potential for expansion. It's just
226:
It is worse to have an article on a notable subject than not to have it, if it contains information that is misleading, or could be slanted, due to a lack of sources to verify the text is still accurate. Some articles have been hacked or slanted with incorrect text, for weeks or months, because the
217:
On
Knowledge, we are all unpaid volunteers. Very often, "keep" votes on these sort of articles will be combined with an insistence that... other people rewrite the article from scratch, whereas the person saying this has no intention of editing the article at all. If you're insisting other people do
213:
exist, it may be necessary to cut them down to a few, manageable articles, so that they can be brought up to sufficient quality. This means going through the huge swaths of bad articles and picking out the worst and least notable for deletion. Likewise, fixing a very bad article on a small aspect of
1147:
In 2008 I was dealing with pseudoscience, pseudohistory, and other such things a lot more than entertainment, and the essay likely reflects that. But there is an upper limit to how much of a topic we can do well, and, yes, passionate editors who work well can raise that limit. Still, we should stay
790:
The options are not just keep in that form or delete it. My point was that an AfD discussion is inherently the problem. Because the point of an AfD is to determine notability of a subject. And if the article subject is already stated to be notable, then the entire AfD was pointless from the get-go.
681:
It's probably also worth noting that what I was editing in 2008 included a lot of pseudoscience pages, where you would get, for example, 300 articles on, say, Ayurveda, including a bunch of barely-sourced "medicines", which you could readily prove existed, and cover from an ayurvedic viewpoint, but
1452:
A. Yes, I'm presuming that, otherwise notability becomes an issue. B. A POV fork can be redirected to the main article, ideally adding a section on that POV, if it isn't there and isn't totally fringe. C. If A, then for sure C. However, I suspect we may be arguing about thin air. How often does an
1414:
I would flip your argument around and say we should not remove a set of sources that establish notability and force any volunteer recreating the article to go find them again. Tagging a substandard article takes no more work than PRODing it and trimming it to a stub doesn't seem much harder than a
1394:
You have a point, but I will say that there are nuances there. The idea that you can tell other editors "Write an entire new article, here's some sources, otherwise the fraudulent article stays" is problematic - we're all volunteers here; no-one gets to tell someone they must do something, or hold
1262:
I'm generally not a fan of deleting an article where editing can fix it - and by "editing" I include blanking the entire thing and starting again. It requires no special permissions to stubbify an article, and if consensus to do so can be reached on the article's talk page - perhaps with an RfC to
1113:
apparently was legitimately to merge. It seems counterproductive and nonsensical to be de facto deleting content like this when there is so much other nonsense out there. Deletion, in other words, is largely driven by the whim of whomever decides to start deleting a sort or class of articles, and
594:
Also, if a subject is notable (which would only be representable via proper reliable source coverage that has a significant amount of information), then I find it hard to see how any argument other than
Stubbify/Re-write a stub paragraph from scratch is viable. That one act alone is what should be
236:
This sort of attempt at misleading the reader can often be identified at
Articles for Deletion. Horrifyingly, though, some people don't care, and instead insist the article should be kept, even when the entire article is demonstrably full of such attempts to mislead, and thus cannot be trusted, in
1143:
While that's true, consider the case of, say, pseudoscience. It's valuable for
Knowledge to document pseudoscience, but we can't possibly maintain hundreds of different articles which deal with the pseudoscience at increasingly fine detail. And a POV-pushing article on pseudoscience is much worse
1021:
be deleted. However there is a percentage that are borderline where good arguments can made either way - that's why they aggregate at AfD and not speedied. These can result in difficult discussions. This does not mean people are unreasonable about deleting. It just means not everything is totally
962:
There would doubtless be a network theory way to do this just by analyzing the network of pages and their interwiki links to identify either full splinter networks (a set of pages that only link to each other) or edge isthmuses of the main network that only sparsely link across (especially if the
590:
If an article is notable, then reliable sources would exist for it to showcase that notability and it also wouldn't be made up. I understand that you meant that the article subject was notable, but the existing article didn't represent or use anything that is a part of that notability, but I feel
1379:
I predicated my comment on the the assumption that the subject's notability has been established by reliable sources. If those sources completely contradict the content of the article, that is an editorial problem that should be solved by the usual editorial mechanisms, tagging (citation needed,
1224:
You say that like it's a bad thing. If there's "no evidence anyone is ever going to be inclined" to write or update an article, then IMHO that article should not exist, because the community is either unwilling or unable to adequately curate it. I also think that's rather the whole point of this
261:
Imagine you wanted to build a house, but the sewer main has just burst, spreading sewage across the area where it's to be built. You'd fix the sewage main and clean away the sewage first, leaving yourself with a clean, pristine area on which to build your new house. And yet, on
Knowledge, we can
986:
Very interesting essay but nothing is going to change as long as there are editors who have an interest in keeping a "bad" article. One example was an AfD discussion regarding a BLP where every citation was primary and/or highly exaggerated - likely the work of a "yourwikipediabio.com" group.
321:
rather than something that's actively misleading, unreadable, or, for more fringe subjects, part of an unmaintainable mess of interconnected articles. Lacking an article encourages people to create one. And they'd surely do a better job at it than whatever terrible mess got someone linking you
178:, and this is the version as modified by various editors over the years. It shows its 2008 roots in its rather aggressively-sarcastic tone, and the specific way voters are portrayed – which is more relevant to how people acted here in 2008 than today, I hope – and the references to <ref: -->
1058:
value for the content writer. The best way is always to rewrite completely, following the same process as writing a new article from scratch. It is much easier that way because you have your sources organised and right in front of you. Chasing up facts one at a time is time largely wasted.
585:"Sometimes, an article comes up for AfD (“Article for Deletion”), which, though its subject may be notable, has no redeeming qualities whatsoever. Perhaps its only source is a promotional, questionable website. Perhaps its material seems to be completely made up from thin air."
599:
cases of a notable article subject that has the issues you are pointing out, but is a notable topic. End of story, that is the action to take. And AfD isn't it if the person nominating knows the subject is notable, they should be the ones stubbifying/rewriting it themselves.
1189:
Honestly, I expected this article to drive debate more than be universally accepted: An essay is meant to express one view; it's not a guideline, it's just one opinion, and there's plenty of room for contrary opinions. I think you do a good job at raising valid objections.
468:
616:
Not entirely accurate; if
Knowledge is better without the current article, and no one is willing to write a better one, then the article should be deleted or redirected. Ideally, there would be someone willing to write a better one, but we don't live in an ideal world.
557:
Nope, the bulk of the longevity dispute seems to be from before I became active. I'd seen references to the case but never looked too closely at it, so that's something I'll need to dig through. Thanks for the additional lead (and for your work cleaning it up).
1209:
I wish your intuition had been correct. I think the pendulum has swung too far, such that "throw it out and start over" (when there's no evidence anyone is ever going to be inclined to do that) is sufficiently popular to be an existential threat to
Knowledge.
265:
A badly written, poorly structured, and, especially, a POV-ridden article can be a nightmare to edit, and can intimidate editors away from it. It gives the perception of a monumental task, which has to be done all at once. And if there are any problems with
991:. Again, there was an editorial rally from those who didn't want the shop's memory to die and another article stays as "No consensus". Second, our setup allows any editor to instantly make a new article go "live". We moderate and review
1026:(which holds true on Knowledge very well), about 20% of them are going to be fairly controversial. Of those 20%, another 20% will be ever more. And so on until you get to the really big ones that use up everyone's time and attention. --
1167:
I'm thinking there's an actual balance between universal rules, and situationally appropriate common sense. I don't think
Knowledge is good at the latter, as we tend to attract folks who like a Byzantine labyrinth of policy.
143:
903:
As Wugapodes said, this is an interesting essay. Is anyone aware of previous efforts to identify these "walled gardens" or "collective orphans" within Knowledge; I would be very interested in looking through them.
295:: If the subject's notable and not something that can easily be redirected, but the existing content is unusable, then cutting everything that's poorly sourced or problematic might salvage a small part of the work.
804:, the point of Knowledge is that if a subject is notable, we should have an article on it. Period. The end goal is to have articles on all notable subjects. The way to fix a "disaster" is as I already mentioned.
795:
the proper response when asked about the notability of a notable topic. Which is why I pointed out that the automatic response to an issue of an article not properly representing the subject it's about should
113:
763:
exactly that. And it's certainly possible for an article on a notable subject to contain falsehoods or fabrications. It's also possible for that article to lack any reliable sources — even if those sources
1300:
be a justification for deletion. Those references are valuable to our readers even if the article has been reduced to a minimal stub, and they can aid future editors who wish to write a better article.--
1380:
dubious, etc.), bold edits, talk page discussion, dispute resolution, page protection. Our readers need to hear that sources dispute its efficacy. Deletion reviewer shouldn't act as super editors.--
301:
the article to a relevant one of better quality. This isn't quite deletion, as the history can still be seen, and anything relevant can be picked out. If there's actually usable content, a
153:
820:
That's not quite true. Articles that have been on notable subjects, were fully sourced, and for that matter were quite popular with the readers, can and have been deleted at AFD under
133:
402:
76:
1358:
And someone votes "Keep. These sources show that the efficacy of homeopathy is a matter of academic discussion." But the sources are all about how homeopathy doesn't work.
249:
redeeming merits, then the mere theoretical idea that a (completely different) article could be written on the subject which would be acceptable under Knowledge policy is
772:
any of them. It's precisely the articles filled with unsourced, fabricated, distorted, self-serving nonsense, that the essay is targeting; the ones that get "keep" votes
867:
That has been interpreted broadly to mean that if enough people don't like a particular subject area, articles on that subject area can be barred from Knowledge. See
457:
417:
397:
868:
427:
233:
The goal is a balance: to make articles tamper-resistant but also allow for improvements, with updates for later research or news reports, by anyone in the world.
209:
In the end, Knowledge can only maintain articles at sufficient quality if there are people interested in improving them according to Knowledge policy. Where large
844:? Because what that covers would inherently not be notable subjects in the first place (since, for example, dictionary words aren't subjects in the first place).
591:
like that was poorly laid out in this introduction. It just creates confusion on what notability even means if the article lacks notability in its representation.
569:
552:
1110:
432:
412:
1321:
Realise that I'm a lot less involved in deletion discussions anymore, but a common thing that used to happen was that someone would find three or four sources
800:
be stubbify from scratch, not attempt to delete it. So I guess I am arguing against the central premise of the essay, in that it's fundamentally wrong. Since,
437:
387:
382:
313:, we can much easier maintain them if there aren't a lot of articles largely duplicating the same content. Also good for stubs that have no real way to expand.
754:
I unberstand that you meant that the article subject was notable, but the existing article didn't represent or use anything that is a part of that notability
392:
70:
123:
905:
672:
618:
422:
375:
505:
This is an interesting essay. I'd never thought to apply the concept of walled gardens to Knowledge, so I appreciate Adam introducing that perspective.
578:
I think you made the argument better throughout the rest of the article, but starting with this just created an inherent contradiction from the get-go:
483:
1415:
full deletion nomination and discussion. That stub with its sources is valuable to our readers whether other volunteers expand in the future or not.--
975:
1389:
1462:
1447:
1424:
1409:
1372:
1105:
I think this attitude does a disservice to entertainment content. Sure, it's possible to have a wrong article about a Mortal Kombat character, but
407:
369:
55:
44:
643:
626:
447:
1309:
987:
Multiple editors rallied in defense and it stayed as "No consensus". Another was an AfD about a defunct small business that would normally fail
1482:
1471:(and several other articles on RAF bases) I petitioned an admin to restore the article for me with nothing but the infobox and the references.
690:
didn't exist. Basically, a degree of specialisation that no reliable source was going to cover if they hadn't bought into the concept already.
529:
You obviously never stumbled across longevity articles, which I did in late 2010. That was the poster child of walled gardens on Knowledge for
452:
913:
704:
657:
611:
1219:
1204:
1177:
1162:
1008:
886:
855:
835:
534:
345:
336:
1395:
the encyclopedia hostage with fraudulent articles unless they do. Especially if the sources that person provided aren't actually that good.
815:
785:
1559:
1453:
article with enough good sources to establish notability come up for deletion? If you see one, let me know. I'll be happy to stubbafy it.--
546:
1131:
1082:
1291:
1100:
939:
1245:
1041:
957:
524:
256:
227:
text was not compared to reliable sources and corrected. That problem is being reduced by use of ref-tag footnotes ("<ref: -->
533:, it took over a decade to cut that down to reasonable size. Deleting massive amounts of junk was essential to cleaning that up.
21:
1535:
740:
If an article is notable, then reliable sources would exist for it to showcase that notability and it also wouldn't be made up.
1296:
In my view, if a subject's notability has been established, which requires suitable references to reliable sources, there can
1530:
1525:
935:
931:
927:
542:
488:
648:
I completely agree, and would have added a comment to the effect of this comment if someone else had not already made it.
1065:
As long as any of the facts or ideas added to an article would belong in the "finished" article, they should be retained
865:
merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia.
495:
1520:
472:
93:
776:
on the grounds that "subject is notable", therefore we "must" have an article about it. (Even if it's a disaster?)
537:
was in 2010/2011, and that was only the very beginning of the second (and, after 8 more years, finally successful)
968:
199:
1467:
I gave one example up above. Another type is where the article has been deleted as a copyvio. In the case of
1238:
1054:
have some value for the reader if they are factually accurate (but who's to know?), unsourced articles have
1515:
357:
49:
35:
17:
943:
1069:: Neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), Verifiability, and No original research.
1345:
It works! It's amazing! I've worked as a homeopath for years and think everyone should try it! (etc.)
1106:
175:
174:
This is actually an essay I wrote (under my old pseudonymous account) back in 2008. It's located at
1458:
1420:
1385:
1305:
860:
510:
210:
909:
850:
810:
638:
622:
606:
1004:
872:
282:
Of course, sometimes an article isn't entirely junk. Perhaps it could be partially salvaged?
214:
a larger subject may waste resources better spent fixing the articles on the larger subject.
999:
rebuild flew under the radar with zero RSs and COI for years before it was finally deleted.
1541:
1506:
1088:
241:
should, once again, fix the problems they don't want to do the work to fix. This is wrong.
963:
only links are to extremely central nodes indicating possibly trivial links to pages like
277:
221:
8:
1468:
1454:
1416:
1381:
1316:
1301:
653:
564:
519:
1477:
1215:
1173:
1127:
1077:
1060:
881:
830:
1429:
That does rather presume A. the sources are decent, B. the article isn't some form of
289:: Check the article's history to see if a good version exists that can be reverted to.
1436:
1430:
1398:
1361:
1284:
1233:
1193:
1151:
1096:
923:
845:
805:
781:
717:
693:
633:
601:
479:
163:
1433:
of a better article, and C. that there's enough usable material to even get a stub.
206:
really cared about the subject, they'd find reliable sources to remake the article.
1328:
This led to awkward conversations of the sort where the article was something like:
1034:
1001:
664:
306:
1109:
looks like a perfectly fine fiction/entertainment/pop culture article... and yet,
683:
229:") that pinpoint each statement to a particular source, for rapid verification.
988:
668:
649:
561:
516:
310:
242:
1553:
1472:
1211:
1184:
1169:
1138:
1123:
1072:
953:
922:
You could start with beauty pageants and their contestants. Have a gander at
876:
841:
825:
821:
735:
seems to be based on some inferences that contradict the points in the essay.
267:
186:
1442:
1404:
1367:
1264:
1228:
1199:
1157:
1092:
777:
768:(which, as you say, they must), that doesn't matter if the article doesn't
699:
506:
274:
much more pleasant to work on a clean slate, than in a cesspool of sewage.
1050:
of poorly-referenced or completely unreferenced articles, and while they
1027:
726:
starting with this just created an inherent contradiction from the get-go
1114:
has never been, (except for maybe the BLPPROD project), focused on the
1023:
791:
Complaining about Keep votes is entirely missing the point, since Keep
270:, any attempts at improvement can be halted before they even start.
179:
tags, which were just coming in at the time, and did, certainly help.
305:
can be used instead. For obscure subjects, especially ones prone to
1022:
clear in every case. It never can be, never will be. Following the
948:
749:
can be notable, but there's no such thing as a "notable article".
262:
sometimes insist the sewage remains until the house is finished.
203:
678:
be better than stubbifying, as context is often more helpful.
731:
I'm really not seeing this supposed contradiction, but your
1067:
if they meet the three article content retention policies
964:
869:
Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Justin Bieber on Twitter
1091:
on any day of the week, especially on Monday mornings.
632:
even more so better than having no article on a topic.
513:
might be of interest to those who want to look deeper.
926:(orphan) for starters. Or anything listed in template
995:
publication. A really bad article about yet another
745:An article can't, itself, "be notable" or not. The
686:required non-alternative medicine sources for, and
493:If your comment has not appeared here, you can try
30:
Delete the junk!: Some articles aren't worth saving
231:(NB: That's a pretty 2008 thing to say, isn't it?)
871:for an example. This decision gave real teeth to
1551:
509:dealt with walled gardens in the early 00's and
1087:Interesting choice of photo. It reminds one of
257:Why starting from scratch can be an advantage
161:
541:effort to get that disaster area contained.
940:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Lexi Wilson
1504:Make sure we cover what matters to you –
1144:than an inaccurate entertainment article.
245:is a core policy, and if the article has
198:Sometimes, an article comes up for AfD (“
759:Well, not just "meant" that, the essay
496:
14:
1552:
535:WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity
317:The point is that it's better to have
938:. I took a swing at the problem with
54:
29:
1333:
193:Throw out the junk, then start anew.
1560:Knowledge Signpost archives 2022-08
27:
356:
307:fringe or pseudoscientific beliefs
185:
56:
34:
28:
1571:
478:These comments are automatically
543:The Blade of the Northern Lights
148:
138:
128:
118:
108:
98:
88:
511:their discussion on the subject
1483:23:49, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
1463:22:54, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
1448:17:44, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
1425:15:23, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
1410:17:10, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
1390:15:33, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
1373:02:16, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
1310:15:48, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
1246:05:12, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
976:00:33, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
489:add the page to your watchlist
13:
1:
1292:15:15, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
1220:05:31, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
1205:05:26, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
1178:04:56, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
1163:03:42, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
1132:04:54, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
1101:10:22, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
1083:05:12, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
1042:03:54, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
1009:02:36, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
958:01:28, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
914:01:09, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
887:07:02, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
856:04:57, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
836:22:07, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
816:04:46, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
786:03:58, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
705:17:56, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
658:02:35, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
644:01:12, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
627:01:09, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
612:00:57, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
570:19:16, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
553:02:46, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
525:00:39, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
268:claimed ownership of articles
1225:essay in the first place. --
928:Miss Universe 2013 delegates
464:
18:Knowledge:Knowledge Signpost
7:
10:
1576:
176:Knowledge:Delete the junk
1120:most potentially harmful
403:News from Wiki Education
278:Alternatives to deletion
222:Another reason to delete
311:pushing a point of view
287:Check previous versions
1441:Has about 8.1% of all
1403:Has about 8.1% of all
1366:Has about 8.1% of all
1341:Efficacy of homeopathy
1198:Has about 8.1% of all
1156:Has about 8.1% of all
942:and it was a complete
756:
742:
728:
698:Has about 8.1% of all
486:. To follow comments,
361:
190:
39:
1323:during the discussion
752:
738:
724:
360:
253:an argument to keep.
243:Neutral Point of View
189:
38:
482:from this article's
293:Stubbify the article
204:University of Google
200:Article for Deletion
1469:RAF Shepherds Grove
840:Under what part of
1507:leave a suggestion
1046:I've overhauled a
473:Discuss this story
362:
191:
45:← Back to Contents
40:
1353:
1352:
1289:
972:
924:Miss Denmark 2022
861:WP:INDISCRIMINATE
497:purging the cache
458:From the archives
418:Technology report
398:Discussion report
50:View Latest Issue
1567:
1544:
1509:
1480:
1475:
1446:
1408:
1371:
1334:
1320:
1285:
1241:
1236:
1231:
1203:
1188:
1161:
1148:in that limit.
1142:
1080:
1075:
1039:
1032:
1017:articles at AfD
1007:
970:
951:
884:
879:
853:
848:
833:
828:
813:
808:
721:
703:
676:
641:
636:
609:
604:
568:
549:
523:
500:
498:
492:
471:
428:Featured content
380:
372:
365:
348:
340:
228:...</ref: -->
166:
152:
151:
142:
141:
132:
131:
122:
121:
112:
111:
102:
101:
92:
91:
71:Delete the junk!
62:
60:
58:
1575:
1574:
1570:
1569:
1568:
1566:
1565:
1564:
1550:
1549:
1548:
1547:
1546:
1545:
1540:
1538:
1533:
1528:
1523:
1518:
1511:
1505:
1501:
1500:
1478:
1473:
1445:
1434:
1407:
1396:
1370:
1359:
1314:
1239:
1234:
1229:
1202:
1191:
1182:
1160:
1149:
1136:
1093:Kudpung กุดผึ้ง
1078:
1073:
1035:
1028:
1000:
947:
882:
877:
851:
846:
831:
826:
811:
806:
715:
702:
691:
662:
639:
634:
607:
602:
559:
547:
514:
502:
494:
487:
476:
475:
469:+ Add a comment
467:
463:
462:
461:
433:Recent research
413:Tips and tricks
373:
368:
366:
363:
352:
351:
346:
343:
338:
332:
331:
280:
259:
224:
195:
194:
183:
168:
167:
160:
159:
158:
149:
139:
129:
119:
109:
99:
89:
83:
80:
69:
65:
63:
53:
52:
47:
41:
31:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
1573:
1563:
1562:
1539:
1534:
1529:
1524:
1519:
1514:
1513:
1512:
1503:
1502:
1499:
1498:
1497:
1496:
1495:
1494:
1493:
1492:
1491:
1490:
1489:
1488:
1487:
1486:
1485:
1440:
1402:
1376:
1375:
1365:
1351:
1350:
1347:
1343:
1338:
1332:
1331:
1330:
1329:
1326:
1317:ArnoldReinhold
1294:
1259:
1258:
1257:
1256:
1255:
1254:
1253:
1252:
1251:
1250:
1249:
1248:
1197:
1155:
1145:
1103:
1085:
1044:
1011:
983:
982:
981:
980:
979:
978:
917:
916:
900:
899:
898:
897:
896:
895:
894:
893:
892:
891:
890:
889:
873:WP:IDONTLIKEIT
757:
750:
743:
736:
729:
722:
713:
712:
711:
710:
709:
708:
707:
697:
679:
592:
588:
587:
586:
580:
579:
576:
575:
574:
573:
572:
477:
474:
466:
465:
460:
455:
450:
445:
440:
438:Traffic report
435:
430:
425:
420:
415:
410:
405:
400:
395:
390:
388:Special report
385:
383:News and notes
379:
370:31 August 2022
367:
355:
354:
353:
344:
335:
334:
333:
329:
315:
314:
296:
290:
279:
276:
258:
255:
237:the idea that
223:
220:
211:walled gardens
196:
192:
184:
182:
181:
170:
169:
157:
156:
146:
136:
126:
116:
106:
96:
85:
84:
81:
75:
74:
73:
72:
67:
66:
64:
61:
57:31 August 2022
48:
43:
42:
33:
32:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1572:
1561:
1558:
1557:
1555:
1543:
1537:
1532:
1527:
1522:
1517:
1508:
1484:
1481:
1476:
1470:
1466:
1465:
1464:
1460:
1456:
1451:
1450:
1449:
1444:
1439:
1438:
1432:
1428:
1427:
1426:
1422:
1418:
1413:
1412:
1411:
1406:
1401:
1400:
1393:
1392:
1391:
1387:
1383:
1378:
1377:
1374:
1369:
1364:
1363:
1357:
1356:
1355:
1354:
1348:
1346:
1342:
1339:
1336:
1335:
1327:
1324:
1318:
1313:
1312:
1311:
1307:
1303:
1299:
1295:
1293:
1290:
1288:
1283:
1282:
1279:
1276:
1273:
1270:
1267:
1261:
1260:
1247:
1244:
1243:
1242:
1237:
1232:
1223:
1222:
1221:
1217:
1213:
1208:
1207:
1206:
1201:
1196:
1195:
1186:
1181:
1180:
1179:
1175:
1171:
1166:
1165:
1164:
1159:
1154:
1153:
1146:
1140:
1135:
1134:
1133:
1129:
1125:
1121:
1117:
1112:
1108:
1104:
1102:
1098:
1094:
1090:
1086:
1084:
1081:
1076:
1070:
1068:
1062:
1057:
1053:
1049:
1045:
1043:
1040:
1038:
1033:
1031:
1025:
1020:
1016:
1012:
1010:
1006:
1003:
998:
994:
990:
985:
984:
977:
974:
967:or similar).
966:
961:
960:
959:
955:
950:
945:
941:
937:
933:
929:
925:
921:
920:
919:
918:
915:
911:
907:
902:
901:
888:
885:
880:
874:
870:
866:
862:
859:
858:
857:
854:
849:
843:
839:
838:
837:
834:
829:
823:
819:
818:
817:
814:
809:
803:
799:
794:
789:
788:
787:
783:
779:
775:
771:
767:
762:
758:
755:
751:
748:
744:
741:
737:
734:
730:
727:
723:
719:
714:
706:
701:
696:
695:
689:
685:
680:
674:
670:
666:
661:
660:
659:
655:
651:
647:
646:
645:
642:
637:
630:
629:
628:
624:
620:
615:
614:
613:
610:
605:
598:
593:
589:
584:
583:
582:
581:
577:
571:
566:
563:
556:
555:
554:
550:
544:
540:
536:
532:
528:
527:
526:
521:
518:
512:
508:
504:
503:
499:
490:
485:
481:
470:
459:
456:
454:
451:
449:
446:
444:
441:
439:
436:
434:
431:
429:
426:
424:
421:
419:
416:
414:
411:
409:
406:
404:
401:
399:
396:
394:
391:
389:
386:
384:
381:
377:
371:
364:In this issue
359:
350:
342:
330:
327:
325:
320:
312:
308:
304:
300:
297:
294:
291:
288:
285:
284:
283:
275:
271:
269:
263:
254:
252:
248:
244:
240:
234:
232:
219:
215:
212:
207:
205:
201:
188:
180:
177:
172:
171:
165:
155:
147:
145:
137:
135:
127:
125:
117:
115:
107:
105:
97:
95:
87:
86:
78:
59:
51:
46:
37:
23:
19:
1437:Adam Cuerden
1435:
1399:Adam Cuerden
1397:
1362:Adam Cuerden
1360:
1344:
1340:
1322:
1297:
1286:
1280:
1277:
1274:
1271:
1268:
1265:
1227:
1226:
1194:Adam Cuerden
1192:
1152:Adam Cuerden
1150:
1122:of content.
1119:
1115:
1066:
1064:
1055:
1051:
1047:
1036:
1029:
1018:
1014:
996:
992:
969:T.Shafee(Evo
906:BilledMammal
864:
801:
797:
792:
773:
769:
765:
760:
753:
746:
739:
732:
725:
718:Silver seren
694:Adam Cuerden
692:
687:
673:BilledMammal
619:BilledMammal
596:
538:
530:
442:
393:In the media
376:all comments
328:
323:
318:
316:
302:
298:
292:
286:
281:
272:
264:
260:
250:
246:
239:other people
238:
235:
230:
225:
216:
208:
197:
173:
164:Adam Cuerden
94:PDF download
1542:Suggestions
1061:WP:PRESERVE
665:Silverseren
507:Ward's wiki
480:transcluded
423:Serendipity
144:X (Twitter)
1024:80/20 Rule
1013:Of course
82:Share this
77:Contribute
22:2022-08-31
1536:Subscribe
1479:(discuss)
1111:consensus
1079:(discuss)
883:(discuss)
832:(discuss)
669:Bahnfrend
650:Bahnfrend
484:talk page
349:"Essay" →
1554:Category
1531:Newsroom
1526:Archives
1474:Hawkeye7
1431:POV fork
1212:Jclemens
1185:Jclemens
1170:Jclemens
1139:Jclemens
1124:Jclemens
1074:Hawkeye7
878:Hawkeye7
827:Hawkeye7
733:response
684:WP:MEDRS
595:done in
565:a·po·des
520:a·po·des
408:In focus
339:Previous
299:Redirect
134:Facebook
124:LinkedIn
114:Mastodon
20: |
1005:Riband►
997:Titanic
989:WP:CORP
778:FeRDNYC
747:subject
671:, and
539:massive
448:Gallery
341:"Essay"
326:essay.
319:nothing
1019:should
847:Silver
842:WP:NOT
822:WP:NOT
807:Silver
798:always
774:purely
770:employ
635:Silver
603:Silver
548:話して下さい
453:Humour
154:Reddit
104:E-mail
1521:About
1298:never
1240:Kevin
1116:worst
1030:Green
993:after
971:&
946:. ☆
944:whiff
934:, or
930:, or
852:seren
812:seren
766:exist
688:those
640:seren
608:seren
531:years
443:Essay
303:merge
68:Essay
16:<
1516:Home
1459:talk
1421:talk
1386:talk
1306:talk
1287:TALK
1216:talk
1174:talk
1128:talk
1107:this
1097:talk
1089:this
1056:zero
1015:many
1002:Blue
973:Evo)
954:talk
936:2015
932:2014
910:talk
782:talk
761:said
654:talk
623:talk
562:Wug·
517:Wug·
347:Next
324:this
1455:agr
1443:FPs
1417:agr
1405:FPs
1382:agr
1368:FPs
1302:agr
1200:FPs
1158:FPs
1118:or
1052:may
1048:lot
965:USA
949:Bri
802:yes
700:FPs
597:all
309:or
251:not
162:By
79:—
1556::
1461:)
1423:)
1388:)
1349:”
1337:“
1308:)
1275:ge
1218:)
1176:)
1130:)
1099:)
1071:.
1063::
956:)
912:)
875:.
863::
824:.
793:is
784:)
667:,
656:)
625:)
560:—
551:)
515:—
337:←
247:no
1510:.
1457:(
1419:(
1384:(
1319::
1315:@
1304:(
1281:s
1278:r
1272:g
1269:a
1266:W
1235:Y
1230:N
1214:(
1187::
1183:@
1172:(
1141::
1137:@
1126:(
1095:(
1037:C
952:(
908:(
780:(
720::
716:@
675::
663:@
652:(
621:(
567:
545:(
522:
501:.
491:.
378:)
374:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
