Knowledge talk:Discontinuation of comments subpages

793:- Before anything is done, what is needed is to find out exactly how many of these pages there are, and to get the opinions of people who write on these pages and use them. i.e. Ask someone to actually dig out some data on this: how many such subpages there are and the sizes of them, and which projects actually use them, before blanket subst'ing and deletion takes place. Also suggest finding the best ones and getting the people that use them to participate in the discussion. Also, comments made on a talk page often get archived without being actioned. The idea of having a separate workflow for general talk page comments and one devoted to assessments and planning how to improve the article, is a valid one, even if not widely adopted. Suggest WP 1.0 project contacted, as they use these subpages in some of their reports. Also, talk page archives organised by topics allow better integration of such comments, and allows similar ones from over the years to be grouped together. Finally, copying and deleting will affect the edit and contributions history of those that edited those pages (and lose attribution). Suggest leaving redirects in place, and when pasting to talk pages, use an edit summary that points to the redirects for the edit history and attribution, and make sure the redirects are tagged as containing useful edit history, so they are not deleted by various bots that like hoovering up such things. 396:. I've thought about raising this myself and tried to find places /Comments was actually used. The ones I found just had a single short comment that could have been moved to the talk page. Perhaps these have value for certain articles but for the vast majority they just confuse people and add unnecessary pages. If they really are needed for some pages, then alternate templates can easily be created (or keep the existing ones as alternates and make the new ones the default). The descriptions given to the /Comments page all sound exactly the same as the description of the Talk page and I don't see why there are two pages for the same thing. If Geometry Guy has an example of where they are used differently then he should provide a link to show us. I have no problem with the project banners themselves, they serve important categorization functions, but the comment link should go away.-- 873:

template for just such cases. But I think the statistics show, though not conclusively given caveats I mentioned, this really doesn't happen very often. It's silly to worry about preserving and making sure comments are accessible when it's just somebody leaving a signature with no actual comment, or adding "Needs references" or "Important topic" with no details. Being concerned about preserving useful information is one thing, and there are ways around that, but if you're worried about hurting the feelings of people who made a lot of meaningless edits without contributing to the quality of the articles then you've got to do more to convince me.--

1625: 1601: 99:

one's watchlist). Once the page is assessed, the link to the /Comments subpage is no longer available, making this an abandoned orphan. For the vast majority of pages, this subpage is unneeded, since the actual talkpage of the article is very rarely used. Therefor, I propose that all Wikiproject templates no longer point to the /comments subpage but direct discussion of the assessment to the article talk page proper, where the comments will actually be seen (e.g. by the person that tagged the article for the wikiproject). I only noticed their existence by going through all recently created talk pages and finding

1861:(2) Set up a bot to turn all or a subset of Comments pages into redirects to the talk page of the article, giving in the edit summary a diff to an explanation of what is being done here. Simultaneously, the bot should leave a message on the article talk page that a Comments page exists, that it may or may not contain useful review information, and that those wanting to view that information should view the history of the Comments page (with a link both to the page history, and to the page immediately before it was turned into a redirect). 668:

that don't use or monitor the /comments at all. There are thousands of /comments pages created without anyone reading them, having them on their watchlist, ..., wasting the efforts of the people that posted there in the first place, and often on articles where the actual talk page has no content at all except for the banners. This proposal is to deprecate the suggestion of creating /comments pages on all talk pages as the default, leaving it to specific wikiprojects to install the functionality in their own template if they prefer this.

2409:

removing the |COMMENTS, |COMMENTS_CAT and |COMMENTS_FORCE sections, which would do the trick for most project headers (there are a few which have this functionality directly in their templates, instead of using this one). If people here cuold either guide my on what to do and what not to do in the template, or simply do the necessary changes themselves, that would be great. If you prefer more discussion first, and/or subst of all comments pages first, then we should check what to do first and how to proceed.

1463: 1432: 1635: 1219:

the "god-awful" thing Happy-Melon refers to. I think Le Docteur makes an excellent point; also, Carcharoth's comment is spot-on about the need for assessors to provide more information on the article than a simple B or C - I think that was a big reason why I supported the /Comments proposal initially. I like DinoGuy1000's list of suggested action points, and I think we should make the default setting in banners be "Comments=off". I'd also add a handful of my own:

959:: For the record, I've deleted and oversighted at least a few of these comment pages because the only comment made there met the criteria for oversight, including people posting extremely personal details (true or not, some of it accusing people of criminal acts) on the page. I don't know whether or not they would show up on the web, but they certainly weren't on the radar of most people including the usual editors of the main article, sometimes for weeks or months. 974:

blanking; or (c) valid creation followed by vandalism followed by blanking of the vandalism. There is no way of knowing until they are manually inspected. The main problem seems to have been that these pages didn't end up on anyone's watchlist, unlike the normal page and talk page. And stuff slipped by recent changes patrol. So this is both a strong argument for deprecating the pages (they are mostly unwatched) and also for not undertaking blanket bot actions.

1167:

personally see any need for assessments to be signed and dated, or for an assessor to leave comment. Assessments can always be queried or changed if belived to be wrong, and there are numerous venues where people can seek feedback on an article. Let's be realistic: providing "rapid-fire" assessments to the 371,267 (at the last count) currently unassessed articles on Knowledge would be a mammoth task in itself without pausing to comment on each and every one.

1473: 1557: 1449: 517:. This is a matter for individual WikiProjects. Comment subpages provide a way to sign and date WikiProject ratings, and have a permanence and easy accessibility that threaded and/or archived talk page comments do not. Some WikiProjects find them useful. Centralized moves to get rid of them are inappropriate. It is much more in the spirit of Knowledge to allow WikiProjects to turn the features on or off according to their needs. 1855:

them. The option that appears to have most consensus is substituting the comments to the current talk page and then deleting. I object to that because it destroys the contributions histories. There are also problems because it may indiscriminately copy vandalism onto active talk pages. There is also the question of useful comments hidden in talk page histories. What I suggest is the following:

4044: 2716: 2693: 2656: 2633: 2596: 3936:

and sort a redirect to a parent category because they don't know that a more specific category exists, or to a more specific category when the redirect should be sorted to a more general, parent category. And of course there are those redirects that may be unwanted and their category kept empty. And so on. Also am reminded that new rcats should always be indexed to

3813:. Then WikiGnomes could pick up any slack at their leisure. I've had to make the same choice with AWB on occasion. 'Should I do it manually or use AWB?' and frequently chose to use AWB even though it would have been better (but much slower) to do the job manually. There are always trade-offs, so perhaps a bot is a very good start on the challenge. 439:

for such strange things as 'wikiproject assessment'. And so many genuine talk page comments get lost there... Detailed assessments are actually useful, and this is a further reason to put them on the article talk page, plainly visible, so that anyone can see them and try to help. There is a little more than 25200 such pages,

858:

months ago, and then looks for them in their contributions log (if they were an admin, they would find them in their "deleted contributions" log) and is mightily puzzled until they find out the pages were deleted, and a copy-paste copy of their comments is now lingering unread in some talk page archive somewhere.

1107:, for example: the comments subpage contains just a date, which might makes sense to you chaps at the Mathematics project, but when transcluded in the Biography and France banners also on that page, the same comment becomes confusing, obscure, and probably not even accurate as a date for the assessment. 3981:

Not sure why the total number of included redirects should be important in this case, and sorting is not dependent on the specific rcat at hand. Miscategorization should not be an issue here either: The list of the redirects to be tagged is ready, everything left to do is to make the edits. I have no

3063:

These indicate to me that no one is systematically using these pages for the purpose they were intended. Most of the edits are moves alongside the corresponding article, or maintenance to redirects. There are relatively few which relate to adding comments. I think it's high time to get rid of them. I

2365:

Actually, I'd check their history and the main talk page, and if the issues which had been on the subpage had been resolved prior to blanking (or if it had never had any substantial content in the first place), I would probably speedy it under G6, general housekeeping (although I could be wrong about

2034:

WikiProject specific; that isn't the issue here. I wouldn't have so much of a problem with comments pages if they were project specific, but they aren't, we're talking about common pages that are shared by any project which places it's banner on a talk page. We just need a better way of doing things.

1283:

is not long from being enabled on Knowledge; when that happens, it will be possible to forgo the /Comments subpage system for a dedicated assessment thread which could then be linked directly from the banner. This would allow each project to maintain its own assessment comments locally, would get rid

1218:

I like the compromises being discussed above. If there are projects that find the Comments feature useful, they should be allowed to continue, IMHO. However, we need to find a way to remove the feature in cases where the WikiProject is not actively using the feature, because for most projects it is

591:

I've already stated my support above, but wanted to propose that perhaps GA comment subpages should also be included in this proposal. Since GA comments regard problems with the article while coordinating ways to improve it, which seem like the job of article talk pages in general, why not have those

567:

No, this is not a matter for individual WikiProjects. Comments subpages are in the Talk namespace and as such are not specific to any particular projects. Are you speaking on behalf of any particular project here? If any projects are interested in keeping these pages, they should be made to host them

491:

I chose that slightly arbitrary age of 2 years 10 months precisely to get that sample number of around 3,000. There are 13,360 pages which have not been edited in the past two years. The number of subpages older than a given age follows an exponential curve up until around June 2007, then becomes a

360:

be better patrolled, and there should be a clear set of guidelines on their purpose. As I write this, there is an edit notice above consisting of a big orange exclamation point above next to some explanation about suggesting new proposals. Perhaps something similar could be done on /Comments pages?

3935:

reasons to monitor a "maintenance" category are many and varied. They include tracking the total number of redirects in a category along with ensuring that the redirects are correctly sorted (usually large categories monitored by bots). Also, sometimes editors (bless their hearts) will miscategorize

2011:

In general, WikiProject ratings are up to individual WikiProjects to decide upon. If some project wants to use comments subpages, that is their prerogative.If some other project wants to invent a D rating, that is their prerogative as well. Other projects are not required to use these things. The WP

1854:

I don't see any consensus here for even the deletion that Happy-melon describes. What we have is a large number of Comments pages, ranging from 'empty' to 'appears empty but useful stuff in the page history', to 'in use', to 'currently in a vandalised state'. And little way of distinguishing between

1276:

One possible solution to the visibility problem is to have the bot generate another report specifically of articles with comments, and remove the comments column from the current assessment log pages. It would still be quite a bit of stuff for larger projects using comments, but it would at least be

1214:

That was a very different situation to where we are now. The reality today is that most projects do not use the tables as much as we expected - the stats table is much more popular! Also, many projects are dealing with thousands of articles. As a result, the comments are much less visible than we

377:

The biggest problem with putting any information on these pages is that the subpage doesn't show up on anyone's watchlist except the person leaving the comments. Article creators won't know that the page has been assessed, or that any comment has been left at all. At least by keeping the information

270:

Allright, I'll start and remove the link (encouraging to create them) from all talk page (Wikiproject) headers, I'll obviously not delete any subpages themselves. A bot to subst them on the main talkpages would be great though, as among the clutter there are bound to be noteworthy comments (e.g. one

3878:

I am very careful about creating new rcats, because it means also creating an associated maintenance/tracking category that must be monitored, either by an editor(s) or by a bot, on a regular basis. I like to be sure that it would be good for the project. I've been dealing with redirects, rcats and

2996:

About 3 months ago I also went through this process with WP:VG. I first sought input from all relevant WikiProjects. In discussion prior to deleting the comments pages, the topic of edit history attribution came up and was discussed in some detail. At least one editor was concerned that the history

2507:

Send requests to all projects which have been using the subpages, giving a brief overview of the situation and asking if they still want the functionality (provide a link to where they should comment; no reply equals silent consensus to stop using the functionality for their own banner) - it should

1346:

The deletion of pages requires specific community discussion. In particular, deleting Comments pages older than January 2007 is flawed because in slow moving areas, the comments are often still relevant. Further, comments pages may be unlinked because of page moves (prior to the "move all subpages"

1238:

Longer term, it would be nice to have a full review of how we carry out assessments, and how to streamline the process. In some cases, that may mean finding ways (technical or social) to get features like /Comments to function the way they were intended. But personally, I want to make sure I have

1133:

I agree. And furthermore, one of the biggest drawbacks to the assessment scheme as set up was not having a way for people to sign and date their assessments (and even add a comment). This would have forced people to take responsibility for the assessment they were making. The absence of this led to

697:

351:

I agree with the need to rethink the /Comments pages, because all to often they do present a false appearance of some kind of "official" assessment and editors often do not know what they are about. However, they obviously do serve at least some useful purpose: at the minimum, they often endorse a

1408:

parameter in their banner (example below). This makes the comments project-specific and eliminates the need to have a separate page. This would only be suitable when the comments are reasonably short, but from what I read here it seems that they were only ever intended to be for short comments (or

1362:

would need to be opened at some stage. However we are still quite a long way away from that as we first have to work out what to do with the content of all these pages and then get a bot to deal with it. Gguy, I appeciate that you value these comments pages, but the consensus here is that they are

872:

I think the sampling is useful to tell what kind of editing is being and done and how much notification will be needed. If people actually did put a lot of work into some of these pages then I say by all means keep it and keep the link on the talk page, which is why I suggested having an alternate

537:

to suggest improvements to the article," which is what the talk page is for. If the comments page has a different use then it should say what it is on the banner instead of confusing people. I'm willing to keep an open mind about whether these pages are useful but I have yet to see any evidence of

438:

depreciation and merging of relevant content in talk page then redirection of existing ones, or deletion if possible. Additionally to the above, this is extraordinarily confusing to new users, a usability disaster. New users see this and go commenting, on about anything, regardless of whether it's

2475:

parameter which allows them to be typed straight into the banner without the need for a subpage. Alternatively, the subpages could be relocated in project space. As I said at VP, these comments subpages are either specific to a certain project or they are not, but either way they aren't something

1323:

Ok, I think we're coming to an agreement here. For a first step, I have removed the "forced comments" functionality from WPBM, so nonexistent comments pages are not redlinked and their creation is not actively encouraged. At some point I will also delete the three groups of pages I listed above

857:

Sampling is not really good enough here (though thanks for doing that survey). What is needed is some indication of who is using these pages, and to do that, all of the major contributors to such pages need to be listed and notified. Imagine someone spent hours doing hundreds of these pages a few

667:

For those saying that this is for individual wikiprojects to decide. I don't think we can (or want to) stop individual projects from using these. However, the vast, vast majority currently use a central template which include this /comments on over 2 million talk pages, many of those for projects

250:

comments, so a /Comments subpage is highly redundant. No doubt many of them do have valid comments, but in my experience a lot of them are 2-3 years old and bear little or no relation to the article in it's current state. No reason for them to be transcluded in project banners either, because the

3770:

That task would be independent, right? I don't think anybody would manually go through 22 thousand pages and tag everything correctly. Also, your point might actually be a reason to use a bot, as a bot could query the necessary information more efficiently: It could, for example, take the listas

1960:

Drafted message looks good. Agree with your more detailed proposal, except point 7. It makes little sense to delete the pages (even after a year), especially if you are leaving a talk page message pointing people to the history of the redirect. Deletion destroys contribution histories. Would you

1748:

True, there may well be features of that extension which can be expolited here. However, we don't know when it may be enabled, and even when it is enabled, it will likely take some time adjusting to it before we can decide the best approach. Are there any disadvantages with my proposed method of

1121:

I agree that one drawback of the current set-up has always been that WikiProjects have to share the comments subpage of an article and all comments get transcluded by all banners. If this can be fixed while allowing WikiProjects which value dated, signed and commented ratings, to continue to use

165:

I've never come across these, and from what you say, it's not really an idea that's working, or obviously necessary. An alternative to deleting these subpages would be turning them into a more permanent record (i.e. always linked, for re-assessments) but I'm not convinced that's really necessary

98:

Many talk page Wikiproject templates have, when an article is unassessed, a pointer to a /comments subpage. E.g; WPBiography, WP Disney, ... The trouble is that this subpage is hardly used, so comments there will usually be completely ignored (it is not created by the tagger, so it will be on no

4336:

could be why I'm a little slower than most editors. I try to be thorough and check at least 3 x 50edits pages deep. I might never see a particular redirect again so I check everything when I have the chance. The only way to find out about page merges and moves is in the redirect's page history.

3020:

Interesting - thanks. The history merges would have made the process twice as complicated, and is largely unnecessary in my opinion. It's probably easiest just to redirect the /Comments page (rather than deleting it) which would preserve the history (just in case anyone is interested). — Martin

973:

This may mean that bot-actions can't be done here and all comments pages that have been created will need to be manually inspected for such problems. The empty subpages are likely to be cases such as: (a) creation in a vandalised state followed by blanking; (b) valid creation followed by vandal

2408:

Ah, so here originate the replies to my proposal at the Village Pump from ;-) I was looking at the place where those /coments links on Wikiproject headers were generated, and ended here. The template itself is not the easiest, and used on a massive amount of pages, so I am a bit wary of simply

1979:

Okay, well point 7 can be left to a future time if a MfD is ever opened on these pages. It's certainly not important at this stage. Personally I would still prefer to substitute the contents on the talk page, as it is easier to read than having to check the history, but I don't think it's that

749:

One of the points of having 'comments' pages for articles, rather than projects, was to have a single comments page per article used by all projects active on that article. Some articles have 5-10 projects listed on their talk page. Should there be 5-10 comments pages saying slightly different

2424:

S'allright, we know how to dig the comments functionality out of the banner when we have consensus to do so. Given that that's a change that will affect 25,000 pages overtly (and thousands more less obviously), I think we all think that a bit more time is needed to establish a consensus; and

179:

that was close to 500KB (that's not a typo, the exact size was 489,208 bytes) and appeared to be nothing but a copy-pasted government report or legal document or something. It had been created in January 2008 and hadn't been touched until I tagged it to be speedied. I have a feeling there are

3499:

Just to note that this task has largely been completed and approximately seventeen thousand comments have been substituted and redirected. There may be a few more trickling through the job queue, and then one final query of the database to find any others. (Any subpages of talk pages without

1858:(1) Inform all WikiProjects this feature has been disabled for future use, and ask which WikiProjects are using these pages. Wait a month for replies, and then filter out the pages that are in use and tag them as such. This stage may prove impractical, so skipping to stage two may be needed. 1166:

to be rough though, particuarly at the bottom end of the scale. IMO it's not until you get to B-Class where constructive criticism becomes useful, and we have the B-Class checklists for that purpose. Most Stub-Class assessments are pretty obvious, and many of those are done by bots. I don't

1102:

Hmmm, an example of a project using comments correctly (or at least usefully), perhaps, but there are alternatives. A mere date for the assessment could be placed directly in the banner; so too could an actual comment, or comments could be transcluded from a subpage of the project. Take

4540:

should probably have been the redirect target; however, I'm not sure whether there was any significance in the comments. Anyway, I propose that I redirect the rest and then quickly go through them to see whether the target is a redlink that should not be one and retarget them.

1134:

rapid-fire "rough" assessments, with little structure present to lead people forward on a path of article improvement, but rather a "we've rated it, our job is done" attitude. If that could be turned around, it would be be far more useful than tearing down the current system.

2470:

Removing forced comments would be a good move, IMO, but we'll need to build a proper concensus for anything drastic. Some projects will no doubt want to keep comments in their banners, so it would be as well to explore the alternatives as well. I've seen some banners with a

842:

These results apply only to the Mathematics project and the results may be a lot different for other projects, and admittedly the sample size is small. But I thought the Mathematics project was appropriate because some of the opposition to the proposal is associated with

930:(May to July 2006). I will notify the people who took part in those discussions who are still here, as they may be able to shed light on what has changed since then, and whether the current use of these comments subpages has fulfilled initial expectations or not. 1965:? If not, then these pages shouldn't be deleted either. Of course, if there are pages where the page history is only vandalism, then by all means delete, but don't assume currently empty pages only have vandalism in the page history (or have no page history). 4311:

Thanks, I did not know this (and I'm not sure I understand why it is necessary to track this kind of redirect from move). Anyway, I'm going to only apply the new rcat now (keeping already used rcats intact), because I don't check each and every page history.

378:

on the talk page, editors have a chance of it being brought to their attention. And do we really need to encourage the creation of more unwatched pages? I believe that the potential damage to the project exceeds any benefit that keeping these pages may have.

1388:

in my above post is stick-in-the-mud: I provided helpful and positive suggestions, and wish to ensure that good faith and often useful contributions to the encyclopedia are not deleted "at some point" without discussion or consideration of better options.

1204:

The assessment may not be obvious. For example, if it's listed as Start for quite a long article, you might wonder why if you just glanced at the article. A brief comment like "needs better refs" can be very helpful when looking over a table of article

2089: 1907:

For the projects that choose to use a comments parameter, on each page (if the size of the /Comments page is less than 1kB) substitute the contents of the page into the template code. Compile a list of pages which were "oversized" for each project to

2215:

at the village pump, with no response there yet. I think it's realism rather than defeatism. Basically these pages represent hundreds or even thousands of editor-hours and for that reason there is no way you're going to get rid of them. — Martin

2096:, although I think the additional page is probably unnecessarily bureaucratic. An inline comment would work just as well, and I'm sure a bot wouldn't have a problem to read the contents of the parameter if lists of these are required. — Martin 1766:

I don't think so, it looks good to me. And it's true that there's no deployment schedule for the extension yet, but it is being beta-tested on one of the testing wikis, so it's probably a good bet we'll see it enabled here within six months.

110:

As this is a change that will affect some of our most used templates, like WPBiography, some discussion is needed before implementation of this. A list of all templates that produce such /comments links would be useful as well of course...

1229:

CBM will be upgrading the WP1.0 bot in 2-3 months' time; we could see if it's possible to limit comments to only those projects that use comments actively. We could also have /Comments edits listed in the WP1.0 Bot logs that WikiProjects

1208:

We used to use such comments as a pointer to the main work to be done, to raise the article to the "next level". For example, someone might see "needs better refs" in the comments column of the table, and work to fix that problem in that

2497:

Stop WPBM from encouraging creation of new /Comments subpages - this would probably only be a temporary measure until cleanup on existing subpages is finished; individual projects which still want the functionality would have to weigh in

687:

2446:

What's the most orderly way to do it, then? It seems to me the best bet is first to make the template stop encouraging the creation of new /comment pages, but I'm not sure if it should also stop linking to existing pages... Thoughts?

1824:

I don't think that the former method would be appropriate in all cases, because there are quite of lot of these pages which contain nothing but a signature and date - hardly worth pasting into a new thread on the talk page. — Martin

606:

I assume you are referring to GA review pages (/GA1 etc.). They are not for comments, but for GAN reviews and individual reassessments. Separate pages are needed for transparency and permanent linking to reviews from ArticleHistory.

532:

Please give a specific example of when a /comments page was used like this and why the talk page could not be used. I assume you mean WP:Mathematics as one of the projects that uses them, but the Mathematics banner says "Please also

632:

I agree with Geometry guy that it would be difficult, and impractical to put GA reviews on the talk page, it's similar to FAs, except generally only one person reviews, and it's probably why they aren't centralized. There's a list

1804:

Yes, I suppose you are right. I was thinking that, (for the second approach above, at least) the display would not be any longer and so would not cause any problems. However, if it was any more than a short paragraph of text, it

2918:

Once the project has decided to proceed, I added a new section to every talk page affected called Assessment Comments that contained an explaination and used {{subst:/Comments}} to move all of the comments to the talk page. See

2347:

Not unless the editor who blanked them is the only editor of the page. Anyway, I altered the code recently so that blank pages are treated the same as non-existent pages, so I don't think it's worth worrying about. — Martin

638: 634: 2527:

All of this, of course, is pursuant to a consensus to actually take large-scale action on /Comments subpages, and is open to adjustment or refinement before being deployed. Thoughts? (will cross-post to VPP in a minute)

361:

Also, the general banner text of "Please add to or update the comments to suggest improvements to the article" clearly does not elucidate the purpose of the field. "Please add WikiProject X comments" might be better.

2957:

Thanks that is helpful. Maybe you could create a new section on the subject page about removing comments on a per-project basis. And if you could give me a hand we can probably get this thing moving again? — Martin

927: 919: 2975:

I would like to see this move forward. I am about to head out of town and will have limited time over the weekend to do anything at WP, but will revisit this next week. I completed the WPNJ pages today due to a

176: 3910:

If there is a decision to delete them or do any other changes to all redirects concerned by this page, it would be useful to have them at one place. What exactly do you mean by the monitoring of the category?

2740:

Perhaps we need a hook so that projects can continue to use these pages (at least until they've sorted out what they're going to do with them all) when they are disabled by default in the template? — Martin

3177:

with details of how the process will work. I have a bot operator ready and willing to deploy. Could people just confirm that they support this task? I'm pinging anyone whose username appears on this page:

3149: 2782:

So all /Comments subpages left over from WP:COMICS can simply be deleted (if there are any left, and assuming the WP:COMICS banner is the only one on the article talk page which supported the subpages)?

1084: 923: 717:

2977: 995: 3879:

their categories for nearly 12 years, so I like to be certain that the project benefits when a new rcat is created. What exactly do you see as the benefits of tracking this specific type of redirect?

3453:

of /Comments subpages was for explaining assessments, a large number were actually used for general article improvement comments not related to assessment, such as (for an actor) "He also appeared in

4261:. Gentle reminder that it doesn't matter what was actually moved to where nor does it matter that after that page move, it wasn't yet a redirect. What matters is that the "Talk:Ams AG/Comments" page 175:

Stop encouraging the creation of new ones, and then start working through the existing ones. Many may have valid comments, but some are utter nonsense - for example, back in April, I stumbled across

286:

Do I read correctly that you are taking substantial action on an issue after only 3 days of discussion on the Village Pump page? Has this been discussed elsewhere? What notifications have been made?

2504:

Review remaining subpages, substituting or simply deleting where appropriate (maybe this should happen after the next step, so that unwanted subpages don't require a second run to find and delete)

694:

Review remaining subpages, substituting or simply deleting where appropriate (maybe this should happen after the next step, so that unwanted subpages don't require a second run to find and delete)

618:

Reviews and assessments sound like the same thing as comments for improvement of the article, just in different words. But my GA experience is a bit limited so I'll wait for others to weigh in.

129:. Nothing strange, but when you use the "show" button in the Wikiproject banner, you get a text that doesn't really belong anywhere, but gives the appearance of coming from the project team. On 2806:

I should think they need to be put on the talk page of the article first, and then deleted, if that's the way people go. I see more harm in deleting them than in retaining them as they are.

4123:

For now, I've tagged all the redirects except for the ones that had rcat templates on them already. There are still about two thousand to go, but I don't think I am going to do them today.

229:. Long overdue. I've had to try and get attention on those comments subpages before, and it's mostly futile. The regular article talk page should be used instead. There's no reason not to. 4517: 3282:, looks sensible. One of the annoying things of the old system is that the /Comments subpages would not show up on watchlists, and we never really figured out a way of dealing with that. 2093: 1404:

My suggestion would be that a system of "inline" comments be developed so that, for WikiProjects who wish to use comments, the contents of each /Comments page may be substituted into a

4512:

I noticed there are more than a hundred comments subpages that were not redirected to the talk page when they were discontinued. After redirecting four instances of them, two of them,

2176:

But with thousands of these subpages in existence, you'll never get rid of them now. The best we can do is encourage new projects not to use them, and/or to propose the removal of the

1197:

I was involved in the setting up of the bot-assisted assessment scheme back in 2006, and so I was asked for feedback. Sorry I was slow in responding! In our early assessment work at

750:

things? It's the same argument that was had before over whether the rating should be same or different between WikiProjects. Anyway, I suggest that someone tries to find out where the

203:

Support as well. Burying these comments on a subpage reduces their effectiveness. An important step in avoiding more of these being created might be to have the function removed from

2912: 2006: 1088: 3086:

Make a request for bot to redirect these pages to the relevant talk page, substituting any content on the talk page (and linking to the history for attribution purposes). — Martin

4480: 4419: 4355: 4321: 4298: 4240: 4212: 4169: 4132: 4110: 4074: 4028: 3991: 3968: 3920: 3897: 3863: 3831: 3790: 3757: 3701: 3672: 64: 888: 440: 4513: 642: 3001:

was requested for 14 of the 38 subpages and the remainder were subst'ed and CFD-G6'ed. All 38 subpages were eventually merged and deleted. Details of my efforts can be found

1347:

option); these may also contain useful information. Drawing attention to relevant WikiProjects of broken links would be a much more helpful approach than deleting the pages.

3002: 1899:

If a project really wants to continue using separate pages, then it is possible to use subpages of their WikiProject (but I don't think this approach should be encouraged).

3052: 1819:

parameter on every WikiProject banner template on the talk page. (If a particular project decides not to use comments, then the contents of this parameter can be ignored.)

1071:. Editors interested in WikiProject Mathematics' use of comments subpages need not go to the trouble of finding random samples of 50 pages to check. Instead you can visit 2926:

At this point, the |COMMENT= and |COMMENT_FORCE= parameters should be removed from the WikiProject banner to avoid transcluding the deletion tags to all of the talk pages

1353: 1097: 523: 4007: 2465: 2233:

It was only proposed 24 hours ago ;) (and thanks for the link). We don't need to get rid of old ones, just stop transcluding them everywhere and stop creating new ones.

2024: 1143: 1076: 740: 68: 1284:

of the unwatched subpages, and would allow for direct discussion, all in one fell swoop (it's actually such a Good Idea™, I'm amazed no one else mentioned it earlier).

951: 802: 767: 627: 613: 92: 2735: 811:

To get things started I did a random (more or less) sample of 50 pages that use the "maths tag" template; there are about 7000 such pages total. Here are the results:

783: 601: 339: 137:, you can access the subpage through two different links in two banners, but it is a comment that should have been placed directly on the talk page, not on a subpage. 3442: 3422: 1302: 3320:, as should be obvious from my comments above, back when this was first being discussed. These pages are years overdue for going away; let's make it happen already. 2861: 1884: 939: 560: 547: 416: 2815: 2801: 1009: 968: 654: 2905: 1395: 1375: 1176: 1128: 1116: 1080: 1059: 998:

in the listings. Due to technical reasons, they are now being linked instead of being transcluded, but the transclusion capability is slated to be re-enabled with

983: 882: 867: 852: 325: 299: 3338: 2988: 2970: 2546: 2514:

All /Comments subpages get created as subpages of projects, instead of article talk pages - allows each project to maintain its own comments standards or whatever

2489: 2441: 2384: 2342: 2328: 2304: 2192: 2171: 1799: 1785: 1761: 1743: 1421: 704:

All /Comments subpages get created as subpages of projects, instead of article talk pages - allows each project to maintain its own comments standards or whatever

677: 386: 219: 198: 2012:

1.0 system is not intended to be a top-down ratings system, it is intended to be a bottom-up system in which each WikiProject does what it feels is best. — Carl

1992: 1974: 1934: 1875: 900: 370: 3577: 3560: 3486: 3469: 2873: 2753: 428: 238: 2847: 2829: 1248: 508: 452: 3355: 3310: 3289: 3033: 2777: 2418: 2150: 1048: 1018:(to pick one) is utterly lost on me; as far as I'm concerned, comments such as these belong on the talk page. But if these pages are primarily being used by 1014:

What these pages were originally intended for and what they are actually being used for are not necessarily the same thing, but I'm afraid the usefulness of

577: 405: 293:- why not fix the problem locally? Other projects may (and do) value the /Comments page as a mechanism to provide long term comments on article assessments. 4089:

yes, they look very good and I've marked both the rcat and the cat as "patrolled". Thank you for your work on this and on redirect categorization in general

1709: 170: 80: 3530: 3393: 3372: 3270: 3168: 2609: 2517:

An editnotice gets displayed every time a /Comments page is created, advising that it may be better to add the comments directly to the article's talk page

2360: 2280: 2266: 2242: 2228: 2206: 2070:

Well, yes, but the issue here is whether or not we should have shared comments pages to begin with, and concensus so far seems to be leaning towards "no".

1955: 1837: 707:

An editnotice gets displayed every time a /Comments page is created, advising that it may be better to add the comments directly to the article's talk page

264: 160: 3156:

for example. The next step is to redirect the /Comments subpage to the article talk page, but I haven't figured out how to do that with AWB yet. — Martin

2108: 2079: 2065: 2044: 1547: 280: 146: 120: 554:

It could be clarified: improvements are within the context of an article assessment - here editors have found even a signature and date to be helpful.

3378: 2951: 2706: 1030: 4550: 2212: 1340: 4010:

sometimes. If you think that things are ready, then I'd say go for it, since there does not seem to be any opposition to the idea at this point.

1072: 4446: 3618: 3174: 2197:

That sounds a little defeatist. :) We could seek concensus to deprecate their usage, and/or stop banners from transcluding the subpage at all.

3014: 1809:

make the template syntax rather difficult to follow. So, on reflection, perhaps our approach should depend on the size of the /Comments page:

839:

I didn't keep a tally of the number of different contributors but my impression is there were 2 or 3 users that accounted for most of content.

3512: 3124: 2035:

If coments were moved into project space, they could be specific to each WikiProject, and I'll bet they would be better mainatined as well.

1699: 1578: 1363:

not the best way of doing things. I recommend helping to work out the best way forward rather than the stick-in-the-mud approach. — Martin

719: 464:

parameter in WPBannerMeta). This means that, when no comments are present, the banner will not display a redlinked message asking for them

3544: 3844:

Before it's too late, maybe we should create an extra rcat for these pages? That would make the list easier to maintain. We already have

3045: 1725:

Since I came to the realization of its potential applicability to this, I'm still pulling for exploiting LiquidThreads in some capacity.

935: 1537: 2053:

share the comments page, but wants to have their own page, all they have to do is change their template to use their own page. — Carl

1681: 4062: 3848: 3076: 125:

And if people wonder "what is the problem with those pages", apart from the things explained above: take a look at talk pages like

3139: 3119: 3098: 1448: 3937: 2940: 2126: 107:. The chances of anyone noticing such comments are very small, and once the article is assessed, there are no more links to it. 4536:

deleter). For the first one, I guess this is not a problem, as the page itself does not exist any more, but in the second case,

2939:

around the CSD tag is to prevent other project banners that still have the |COMMENT= parameter from including the talk page in

1917:

Perhaps after a year, it may be assumed that any useful information has served its purpose and deletion of the pages can start.

1866:

And that's it. Possibly protecting the redirects to prevent future resurrection of this system without wide-ranging consensus.

1657: 3734: 2997:

of editors' comments on the Comments subpage would be lost and that they should be preserved if possible. With this in mind,

415:

Depreciation seems like a useful first step. Also, some banners currently support comments but don't actually use them. (See

207:

which many wikiprojects use. Once that is done, I am sure a bot could detect the presense of the subpages, and subst them as

2860:

Should look at switching off comments on banners that don't even use them and the remove the comments category as well, see

2900:

and thought I would mention some key points to make the process easier for others who are moving forward with the process.

1880:

That's a useful reply and might be a good route forwards. Here is a possible refinement of your proposal with more detail:

1495: 4398: 2122:

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

1519: 831: 4394: 1318: 3810: 34: 3716:. The relatively few that don't have the predictable target might for example be the result of a page rename, such as 4184:

yes, I agree that both of those pages should be tagged with the /Comments rcat. They both should also be tagged with

3634:

parameter in case editors need an explanation. These are qualified subpages and redirects and so should be sorted to

3331: 2794: 2539: 2458: 2377: 1778: 1736: 1648: 1606: 1359: 1295: 999: 733: 645:

s which create problems similar to comments subpages, I think those should be embedded directly into the talk pages.

191: 246:

this proposal as well. These things are half baked and poorly implemented, and it's time to get rid. Talk pages are

3806: 3635: 2897: 827: 2768:. That's one issue off your plate. Furthermore, I deprecated comments back in August, so we don't even use them. 4055: 2683: 1883:

Find a bot that can deliver a message to all the projects which maintain a category for articles with comments. (

1486: 1437: 4257: 1943:

to post on WikiProject talk pages. Any help in copy-editing or making it clearer would be appreciated. — Martin

492:

linear fit. Empirically, I'd say that the system ceased to be actively implemented wiki-wide around that time.

4006:

it can be a battle sometimes to justify why an old rcat exists or why a new one has been created. Some editors

3950:

navbar, both of which help editors know what is available and decreases the possibility of miscategorizations.

3775: 1380:

I encourage you to ensure that your thinking is shared by Happy melon, who seemed poised to act and move on to

1053:

Even a signature and a date indicates that the rating has been revisited at least that recently, and by whom.

3706:

Bot might get tricky. While the vast majority won't need it, some of these redirects will require the use of

1911:

Redirect all /Comments pages to the talk page. Leave a note on each talk page, as Carcharoth describes above.

2943:. I did not do this when I did the 102 pages from WPNJ, and all of the talk pages showed as CSD candidates. 1890:

In the message, the project is informed that the comments functionality is changing and is given an option:

304:

Wrong. The above examples are not all WP:BIOGRAPHY, and this isn't a local problem. If you actually look at

4146: 3145: 3104: 2920: 2646: 1691: 1529: 1239:

three clear months of copious free time before I propose such a thing.....! Thanks for a great discussion,

3805:

yes, that's a lot of redirects to cover, and a bot would at least get them categorized to two categories,

4546: 4442: 4317: 4236: 4165: 4128: 4070: 3987: 3916: 3859: 3786: 3712: 3697: 3614: 2586: 1896:

Continue using comments as an inline parameter. Support for this can then be added to the project banner.

1015: 820:

34%-Page consisted of a short single comment (at most one line). A typical comment was "Needs references"

4194:, as well, since their page histories show that they are both redirects that resulted from a page move. 1280: 152:

Support deprecation, I'd suggest subst'ing the comments subpage to the talk page and then deleting it. –

3642: 2669: 2128: 1812:

if the size is 1kB or more then the contents are substituted on the talk page under a suitable heading

255:

interested in keeping comments in their banners, then a better way of doing things needs to be found.

4477: 4416: 4352: 4295: 4209: 4107: 4025: 3965: 3944: 3894: 3828: 3754: 3669: 3416: 457:

I definitely support the deprecation of this godawful feature. I propose the following first steps:

2930:{{db-g6|rationale=Deprecated page per ]; comments already substed to talk page.}}</noinclude: --> 3474:

Yes, they've been used for all sorts of purposes, and some probably never read by anyone. — Martin

3107:, which could be substituted onto article talk pages, and provides a link to the history. — Martin 2551:

You should also note that there are other non-WPBannerMeta banners that should be changed as well:

1624: 1600: 475: 3449:

One thing I've noticed with all these substitutions over the last day or two is that although the

1656:

on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

1494:

on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

3603: 3057: 2558: 1940: 100: 3626: 3153: 2494:

Since I've had some time to think about this, I think the following is a decent plan of action:

2286: 990:

These pages were created with the intention of adding a small "assessor's note" to pages within

684:

Since I've had some time to think about this, I think the following is a decent plan of action:

468: 4542: 4537: 4438: 4331: 4313: 4250: 4232: 4179: 4161: 4124: 4084: 4066: 4001: 3983: 3930: 3912: 3873: 3855: 3800: 3782: 3718: 3693: 3649: 3610: 3494: 2891: 2256: 1391: 1349: 1124: 1093: 1055: 609: 556: 519: 295: 4227: 4152: 330:

I agree it needs further discussion, but Wikiprojects should comply with community decisions.

2623: 2434: 2321: 2297: 2164: 1333: 1104: 754:

discussion was that led to these comments pages being created. I suspect it was somewhere in

501: 482: 204: 60: 25: 4465: 4432: 4404: 4340: 4306: 4283: 4220: 4197: 4188: 4139: 4118: 4095: 4036: 4013: 3976: 3953: 3905: 3882: 3839: 3816: 3765: 3742: 3726: 3680: 3657: 3594: 3413: 2141:

Personally I'd rather see /comments subpages deprecated, or at least better implemented...

1970: 1871: 1201:

we often found it useful in our tables to list what the main problems were for two reasons

1139: 979: 947: 863: 798: 763: 366: 3430:

The discussion above was very broad (I count at least 21 editors who commented). — Martin

8: 3982:

idea why anyone would remove the redirect category later on once the redirect is tagged.

3556: 3465: 2998: 2869: 2762: 2731: 2572: 779: 623: 597: 424: 290: 234: 134: 126: 2508:

also link to the category for existing subpages with a count of how many currently exist

1592:

Of course, we could keep the current appearance (but without the navigation links), e.g.

698:

also link to the category for existing subpages with a count of how many currently exist

1640: 1244: 1223: 896: 650: 448: 335: 76: 17: 4065:. Does that look good? I will start tagging the redirects if I get a positive answer. 2929:

When tagging the /Comments pages for deletion, the syntax should be <noinclude: -->

758:. And those that participated in those discussions should be notified about this one. 2838:

I've gone through my contribs and sorted those out, let me know of any outstanding.

2820:

Is there a list about? I could work through it, I can't imagine it would be large.

1324:(empty, unlinked and ancient). Is there a more general plan to proceed from there? 3351: 3323: 3211: 3203: 3191: 3010: 2982: 2945: 2843: 2825: 2811: 2786: 2773: 2531: 2450: 2426: 2369: 2313: 2289: 2156: 1770: 1728: 1478: 1325: 1287: 964: 878: 848: 755: 725: 543: 493: 401: 380: 213: 183: 4523: 4507: 3219: 3183: 3081: 1966: 1867: 1653: 1135: 991: 975: 943: 934:

UPDATE: Have notified the five main participants in those discussions, as listed

859: 794: 759: 362: 305: 130: 2309:

I only get 25,114 /Comments and 11 /comments, for a total of 25,125. Progress?

1914:

Remove default support for /Comments subpages from WikiProject banner templates.

3572: 3549: 3525: 3507: 3481: 3458: 3437: 3388: 3368: 3305: 3265: 3247: 3195: 3163: 3134: 3114: 3093: 3071: 3028: 2965: 2865: 2748: 2727: 2485: 2414: 2355: 2338: 2276: 2264: 2238: 2223: 2202: 2187: 2146: 2103: 2075: 2040: 1987: 1950: 1929: 1832: 1795: 1756: 1573: 1416: 1370: 1198: 1172: 1112: 1044: 775: 673: 619: 593: 573: 420: 321: 276: 260: 230: 158: 142: 116: 104: 59:- The use of comments subpages is deprecated. Template:WPBannerMeta, including 4520:, were deleted, as I did not notice the main talk page did not exist (pinging 4255:

the "Talk:Ams AG/Comments" is a redirect with a page move in its history: see

994:. Originally, the comment subpages were directly transcluded on pages such as 3587: 3251: 3215: 3187: 3039: 2060: 2019: 1240: 1019: 892: 646: 444: 331: 72: 1085:

Knowledge:WikiProject_Mathematics/Wikipedia_1.0/A-Class_mathematics_articles

4531: 1790:

It's not going to be ideal for any comments of substantial length, though.

1634: 1277:

focused specifically on comments, allowing much closer review and response.

996:

Knowledge:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Tropical cyclone articles by quality/1

2864:

for a list of the comments categories and the number of pages in each. --

1893:

Remove all functionality. (This will be the default if there is no reply.)

4157: 3689: 3685: 3347: 3283: 3243: 3239: 3235: 3227: 3207: 3006: 2839: 2821: 2807: 2769: 1003: 960: 874: 844: 539: 397: 353: 2520:

A preload template is offered for new subpages (not so sure on this one)

1462: 1431: 1233:

Maybe we should have an expiry date on comments, perhaps after one year?

774:

If changes are made, they should be done to non-WPBM banners as well --

710:

A preload template is offered for new subpages (not so sure on this one)

3231: 3048:

we now have two lists of edits to /Comments subpages in the past year:

3003:

Knowledge talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 109#VG comments subpages

180:

actually a lot more of these comment subpages that aren't much better.

167: 3518:

And with the last few cleaned up, this task is now complete. — Martin

1963:"it may be assumed that any useful information has served its purpose" 3568: 3537: 3521: 3503: 3477: 3433: 3384: 3364: 3301: 3261: 3255: 3223: 3199: 3159: 3130: 3110: 3089: 3067: 3024: 2961: 2744: 2481: 2410: 2351: 2334: 2272: 2259: 2234: 2219: 2198: 2183: 2142: 2099: 2071: 2036: 1983: 1946: 1925: 1828: 1791: 1752: 1569: 1491: 1412: 1366: 1168: 1108: 1040: 669: 569: 317: 272: 256: 208: 153: 138: 112: 3179: 2155:

Concur fully. Horrible idea, no idea why it ever gained traction.

2056: 2015: 1556: 3548:- have a look at the previous version to see the error message. -- 2271:

Would it be possible to find out if any of those are empty pages?

2090:

Knowledge talk:WikiProject Mathematics/Comments/Parseval's theorem

4225:

It's clear that the first redirect is an R from move, but how is

1089:

Knowledge:WikiProject_Mathematics/Wikipedia_1.0/Frequently_viewed

419:

for a list of the comments categories and their page counts.) --

251:

comments are seldom specific to any one project. If any projects

3688:

seems to be the list of all these redirects, although there are

3500:

WikiProject banners would not have been detected yet.) — Martin

3148:

has been adjusted and is now working well. I used it to process

2915:) at the project talk page to alert other editors of the process 2908:

that transcluded the contents of all /Comments pages for review.

2501:

Delete those subpages outlined by Happy-melon on VPP (bot work?)

826:

4%-Page consisted of multiple threaded comments. The pages were

691:

Delete those subpages outlined by Happy-melon on VPP (bot work?)

4472: 4411: 4347: 4290: 4204: 4102: 4020: 3960: 3889: 3823: 3749: 3664: 1815:

if the size is under 1kB then the contents are placed inside a

485:

comment subpages which have not been edited since January 2007.

891:

is a list of all of them (at the latest search index update).

720:

Template talk:WPBannerMeta#TOC and comments transclusion issue

356:

banners) in a transparent fashion. However, /Comments pages

308:

you'll see that the comments subpage is being transcluded by

3457:

on The Bar Network last year - that should be mentioned". --

3346:

not around much but it looks like a good idea long overdue.

3053:

User:Mr. Stradivarius/Comments pages edited in the last year

2425:

probably to deprecate this functionality in an orderly way.

3738:). Real nice "can o' worms" you found here my friend !: --> 2896:

I have just completed the deprecation/deletion process for

2333:

Pity. Would those 470 not be eligible for speedy deletion?

2084:

You could always adjust the banner to display a subpage in

1077:

Knowledge:WikiProject_Mathematics/Wikipedia_1.0/Algebra/Top

3152:

and substitute each comment on the article talk page. See

1273:

Aah, you raise a few points I hadn't considered, Walkerma!

817:

28%-Page consisted of a single signature with no comments.

4456:

Thank you so very much and Happy New Year, January 1, 202

4280:. This has been clarified in the template documentation. 3722:. The page histories of some of those might suggest that 3381:. Any input from editors above would be valued. — Martin 478:

comment subpages which are not transcluded onto any pages

2906:

Knowledge:WikiProject New Jersey/Deprecation of comments

1081:

Knowledge:WikiProject_Mathematics/Wikipedia_1.0/Analysis

1961:

suggest deleting some of the oldest talk pages because

3690:

a couple dozens that don't have the predictable target

938:. Also left a note for the Version 1.0 Editorial Team 3401:

the content should be migrated respecting chronology.

2511:

Functionality in the banner gets updated as follows:

701:

Functionality in the banner gets updated as follows:

1652:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 1630: 1490:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 1468: 1226:(though I don't want to create a forked discussion!) 460:

Removal of the 'forced comments' functionality (the

49:

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

3735:

Talk:Croatian parliamentary election, 2007/Comments

3692:. Maybe it would make sense to open a bot request? 3781:and use that, while this is impossible with AWB. 3379:Knowledge:Bots/Requests for approval/JJMC89 bot 4 1022:, then I would suggest moving the lot of them to 1215:had anticipated, and therefore much less useful. 4499:just one of many such discussions I've attended 4160:still should have the new rcat on them, right? 1566:This article needs better references. — Martin 1073:Knowledge:WikiProject_Mathematics/Wikipedia_1.0 3648:also applies. Thank you very much for asking, 312:banners, and the comments aren't relevant to 52:A summary of the conclusions reached follows. 2007:Ratings are meant to be WikiProject-specific 352:particular WikiProject banner (such as with 3732:would also be an appropriate rcat tag (see 3150:Category:Agriculture articles with comments 823:8%-Page consisted of a single long comment. 271:I found that pointed out a hoax article). 4063:Category:Redirects from comment subpages 2616:Comments used but new pages not prompted 3938:Knowledge:Template index/Redirect pages 3710:, for example, a person's name such as 3404:a broader set of opinions be canvassed. 3377:Some discussion is taking place now at 2941:Category:Candidates for speedy deletion 3398:I support this, with the caveats that 3363:the above plan, this is long overdue. 71:should be revised to reflect this. -- 3599:Should the redirects be tagged with 3298:annoying things I think ;) — Martin 1646:This article is within the scope of 1484:This article is within the scope of 918:- I found the old discussions here: 43:The following discussion is closed. 4008:fail to understand their importance 2255:FYI there are 25,192 such subpages 832:talk:Differential equation/Comments 13: 4543:𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 4518:Talk:Hindenburg (airship)/Comments 4439:𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 4314:𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 4233:𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 4162:𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 4125:𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 4067:𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 3984:𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 3913:𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 3856:𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 3783:𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 3694:𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 3611:𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 2980:that reminded me of this process. 2758:We don't transclude comments with 1555: 93:Knowledge:Village pump (proposals) 14: 4561: 4147:Talk:Austriamicrosystems/Comments 3854:, and this one would be similar. 2480:project banners on a given page. 2049:If a particular project wants to 1666:Knowledge:WikiProject Middle Ages 1409:even just a signature). — Martin 592:discussions occur there as well? 4042: 3636:Category:Redirects from subpages 3630:. That's how I do it. I use the 3154:Talk:Forestry#Assessment comment 2898:Knowledge:WikiProject New Jersey 2714: 2691: 2654: 2631: 2594: 2366:the proper way to handle them). 2118:The discussion above is closed. 2094:Talk:Parseval's theorem/Comments 1887:has been compiled by WOSlinker.) 1669:Template:WikiProject Middle Ages 1633: 1623: 1599: 1471: 1461: 1447: 1430: 828:talk:Standard deviation/Comments 3849:R because of 2018 NCGAL changes 3713:Talk:Benjamin Franklin/Comments 1704:This article has been rated as 1686:This article has been rated as 1542:This article has been rated as 1524:This article has been rated as 1504:Knowledge:WikiProject Lithuania 103:, linked through the banner at 4493: 3103:I've made a possible template 2476:that should be transcluded in 1507:Template:WikiProject Lithuania 65:Template:WPBannerMeta/comments 1: 4481:01:02, 30 December 2020 (UTC) 4447:22:12, 29 December 2020 (UTC) 4356:01:02, 30 December 2020 (UTC) 4322:14:25, 29 December 2020 (UTC) 4299:17:21, 28 December 2020 (UTC) 4241:12:14, 28 December 2020 (UTC) 4213:04:12, 28 December 2020 (UTC) 4170:21:39, 26 December 2020 (UTC) 4133:20:27, 25 December 2020 (UTC) 4111:18:55, 24 December 2020 (UTC) 4075:18:42, 24 December 2020 (UTC) 4029:01:19, 23 December 2020 (UTC) 3992:00:05, 23 December 2020 (UTC) 3969:15:55, 21 December 2020 (UTC) 3921:14:40, 21 December 2020 (UTC) 3898:14:35, 21 December 2020 (UTC) 3864:19:34, 16 December 2020 (UTC) 2989:19:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC) 2971:19:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC) 2952:19:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC) 1660:and see a list of open tasks. 1498:and see a list of open tasks. 1122:them, that would be helpful. 1026:, and transcluding them from 289:The initial examples are all 81:14:26, 7 September 2013 (UTC) 4551:15:39, 27 January 2021 (UTC) 4514:Talk:Honey K Balani/Comments 4420:17:00, 6 December 2020 (UTC) 4144:Just to be sure, pages like 3832:07:57, 8 December 2020 (UTC) 3791:19:05, 6 December 2020 (UTC) 3758:16:43, 6 December 2020 (UTC) 3702:16:10, 6 December 2020 (UTC) 3673:15:49, 6 December 2020 (UTC) 3619:09:30, 6 December 2020 (UTC) 3578:20:55, 11 October 2016 (UTC) 3561:20:14, 11 October 2016 (UTC) 3531:08:38, 11 October 2016 (UTC) 3146:Template:Substituted comment 3105:Template:Substituted comment 2921:Talk:West Orange, New Jersey 2911:I started a discussion (now 2874:18:16, 20 October 2009 (UTC) 2848:21:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC) 2830:20:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC) 2816:20:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC) 2802:18:05, 20 October 2009 (UTC) 2778:15:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC) 2754:10:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC) 2736:17:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC) 2547:17:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC) 2490:23:03, 16 October 2009 (UTC) 2466:18:25, 16 October 2009 (UTC) 2442:13:31, 16 October 2009 (UTC) 2419:13:00, 16 October 2009 (UTC) 2385:16:35, 15 October 2009 (UTC) 2361:10:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC) 2343:10:39, 15 October 2009 (UTC) 2329:08:43, 15 October 2009 (UTC) 2305:08:39, 15 October 2009 (UTC) 2281:22:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC) 2267:12:56, 14 October 2009 (UTC) 2243:12:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC) 2229:12:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC) 2109:22:45, 1 November 2009 (UTC) 2080:23:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC) 2066:14:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC) 2045:14:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC) 2025:00:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC) 1993:16:20, 6 November 2009 (UTC) 1975:00:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC) 1956:19:25, 4 November 2009 (UTC) 1935:23:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC) 1876:08:23, 31 October 2009 (UTC) 1838:14:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC) 1800:10:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC) 1786:19:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC) 1762:18:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC) 1749:dealing with this? — Martin 1744:18:35, 26 October 2009 (UTC) 1579:12:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC) 1422:12:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC) 1396:22:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC) 1376:14:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC) 1354:23:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC) 1341:11:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC) 1303:22:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC) 1249:21:39, 23 October 2009 (UTC) 1177:15:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC) 1144:00:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC) 1129:23:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC) 1117:23:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC) 1098:23:14, 20 October 2009 (UTC) 1060:23:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC) 1049:22:43, 20 October 2009 (UTC) 1010:21:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC) 984:21:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC) 969:20:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC) 952:19:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC) 932:18:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC) 901:16:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC) 883:22:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC) 868:18:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC) 853:17:47, 20 October 2009 (UTC) 803:14:13, 20 October 2009 (UTC) 784:18:04, 19 October 2009 (UTC) 768:18:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC) 741:17:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC) 678:07:04, 19 October 2009 (UTC) 655:20:06, 18 October 2009 (UTC) 641:and so on. But there's also 628:19:58, 17 October 2009 (UTC) 614:19:55, 17 October 2009 (UTC) 602:19:48, 17 October 2009 (UTC) 578:06:54, 18 October 2009 (UTC) 568:in their own project space. 561:23:14, 20 October 2009 (UTC) 548:05:50, 18 October 2009 (UTC) 524:19:38, 17 October 2009 (UTC) 509:19:20, 17 October 2009 (UTC) 453:16:10, 17 October 2009 (UTC) 429:15:23, 17 October 2009 (UTC) 406:14:50, 17 October 2009 (UTC) 387:15:20, 17 October 2009 (UTC) 371:01:36, 17 October 2009 (UTC) 340:16:09, 17 October 2009 (UTC) 326:15:00, 17 October 2009 (UTC) 300:22:32, 16 October 2009 (UTC) 281:12:41, 16 October 2009 (UTC) 265:11:24, 15 October 2009 (UTC) 239:21:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC) 220:21:32, 14 October 2009 (UTC) 199:19:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC) 171:13:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC) 161:12:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC) 147:11:45, 13 October 2009 (UTC) 121:09:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC) 7: 4393:I've notified the folks at 3034:17:45, 7 January 2015 (UTC) 3015:13:28, 7 January 2015 (UTC) 2207:16:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC) 2193:11:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC) 2172:15:34, 6 October 2009 (UTC) 2151:17:51, 5 October 2009 (UTC) 1016:Talk:Eye (cyclone)/Comments 10: 4566: 4401:to get more eyes on this. 3470:09:41, 30 April 2016 (UTC) 3394:23:54, 29 March 2016 (UTC) 3373:23:48, 24 March 2016 (UTC) 3356:22:33, 22 March 2016 (UTC) 3339:22:33, 21 March 2016 (UTC) 3311:21:53, 21 March 2016 (UTC) 3290:21:15, 21 March 2016 (UTC) 3271:19:53, 21 March 2016 (UTC) 3169:22:17, 20 March 2016 (UTC) 3140:09:47, 16 March 2016 (UTC) 3120:09:34, 16 March 2016 (UTC) 3099:09:19, 16 March 2016 (UTC) 3077:09:19, 16 March 2016 (UTC) 2931:or some similar rationale. 2129:Template talk:WPBannerMeta 1710:project's importance scale 1548:project's importance scale 35:Talk page Comments subpage 15: 4437:This should now be done. 4150:that were first moved to 3811:Redirects for convenience 3443:09:13, 4 April 2016 (UTC) 3423:00:29, 3 April 2016 (UTC) 2285:Only 470, unfortunately: 1703: 1685: 1618: 1563: 1541: 1523: 1456: 1222:Solicit comments over at 1075:and its subpages such as 69:Template:WPBannerMeta/doc 3127:has been made. — Martin 2120:Please do not modify it. 471:empty comments subpages. 46:Please do not modify it. 4156:and then redirected to 3807:Redirects from subpages 3513:08:24, 6 May 2016 (UTC) 3487:08:14, 6 May 2016 (UTC) 3058:User:Edgars2007/sandbox 3044:Following a request on 2862:User:WOSlinker/comments 2258:(caution: 1 mb page). – 1649:WikiProject Middle Ages 1360:Miscellany for deletion 814:26%-Page did not exist. 417:User:WOSlinker/comments 101:Talk:Roc Raida/Comments 4538:Talk:LZ 129 Hindenburg 4056:R from comment subpage 3627:Talk:Forestry/Comments 3064:have a plan. — Martin 2684:U.S. Roads WikiProject 1560: 3940:and sometimes to the 3776:WikiProject Biography 3719:Talk:1 Ceres/Comments 1559: 1487:WikiProject Lithuania 1105:Talk:Pierre de Fermat 205:Template:WPBannerMeta 61:Template:WPBannerMeta 4228:Talk:Ams AG/Comments 4153:Talk:Ams AG/Comments 2211:I see this was also 2180:parameter. — Martin 1980:important. — Martin 1672:Middle Ages articles 3545:one that you missed 3173:I have updated the 2647:WikiProject Systems 135:Talk:Randhir Kapoor 127:Talk:Parboiled rice 2587:WikiProject Horror 2030:Ratings generally 1692:content assessment 1641:Middle Ages portal 1561: 1530:content assessment 1510:Lithuania articles 4483: 4422: 4358: 4332:1234qwer1234qwer4 4329: 4301: 4251:1234qwer1234qwer4 4248: 4215: 4180:1234qwer1234qwer4 4177: 4113: 4085:1234qwer1234qwer4 4082: 4031: 4002:1234qwer1234qwer4 3999: 3971: 3931:1234qwer1234qwer4 3928: 3900: 3874:1234qwer1234qwer4 3871: 3834: 3801:1234qwer1234qwer4 3798: 3760: 3675: 3650:1234qwer1234qwer4 3643:R for convenience 3624:For example, see 3576: 3529: 3511: 3485: 3441: 3426: 3392: 3354: 3309: 3269: 3167: 3138: 3118: 3097: 3075: 3032: 2969: 2904:I made a list at 2846: 2828: 2814: 2776: 2752: 2676:Converted to WPBM 2670:TrainsWikiProject 2579:Comments not used 2565:Converted to WPBM 2359: 2227: 2191: 2107: 2064: 2023: 1991: 1954: 1939:I have drafted a 1933: 1836: 1760: 1720: 1719: 1716: 1715: 1589: 1588: 1585: 1584: 1577: 1564:Review comments: 1420: 1374: 933: 211:suggested above. 4557: 4535: 4527: 4500: 4497: 4479: 4475: 4468: 4460: 4436: 4418: 4414: 4407: 4354: 4350: 4343: 4335: 4327: 4310: 4297: 4293: 4286: 4260: 4254: 4246: 4230: 4224: 4211: 4207: 4200: 4193: 4187: 4183: 4175: 4155: 4149: 4143: 4122: 4109: 4105: 4098: 4088: 4080: 4060: 4054: 4050: 4046: 4045: 4040: 4027: 4023: 4016: 4005: 3997: 3980: 3967: 3963: 3956: 3949: 3945:R template index 3943: 3934: 3926: 3909: 3896: 3892: 3885: 3877: 3869: 3853: 3847: 3843: 3830: 3826: 3819: 3804: 3796: 3780: 3774: 3769: 3756: 3752: 3745: 3737: 3731: 3725: 3721: 3715: 3709: 3708:{{DEFAULTSORT:}} 3684: 3671: 3667: 3660: 3647: 3641: 3633: 3629: 3608: 3602: 3598: 3566: 3565:Thanks — Martin 3552: 3547: 3541: 3519: 3501: 3475: 3461: 3431: 3421: 3382: 3350: 3337: 3334: 3329: 3326: 3299: 3287: 3259: 3212:User:JimMillerJr 3204:User:Happy-melon 3192:User:Dinoguy1000 3157: 3128: 3108: 3087: 3065: 3022: 2985: 2959: 2948: 2842: 2824: 2810: 2800: 2797: 2792: 2789: 2772: 2767: 2761: 2742: 2722: 2718: 2717: 2711: 2705: 2699: 2695: 2694: 2688: 2682: 2674: 2668: 2662: 2658: 2657: 2651: 2645: 2639: 2635: 2634: 2628: 2622: 2614: 2608: 2602: 2598: 2597: 2591: 2585: 2577: 2571: 2563: 2557: 2545: 2542: 2537: 2534: 2474: 2464: 2461: 2456: 2453: 2439: 2431: 2383: 2380: 2375: 2372: 2349: 2326: 2318: 2312: 2302: 2294: 2217: 2181: 2179: 2178:|COMMENTS_FORCE= 2169: 2161: 2097: 2054: 2013: 1981: 1944: 1923: 1826: 1784: 1781: 1776: 1773: 1750: 1742: 1739: 1734: 1731: 1674: 1673: 1670: 1667: 1664: 1643: 1638: 1637: 1627: 1620: 1619: 1614: 1611: 1603: 1596: 1595: 1567: 1512: 1511: 1508: 1505: 1502: 1481: 1479:Lithuania portal 1476: 1475: 1474: 1465: 1458: 1457: 1452: 1451: 1450: 1445: 1442: 1434: 1427: 1426: 1410: 1364: 1338: 1330: 1301: 1298: 1293: 1290: 1162:Assessments are 1035: 1029: 1025: 1007: 931: 739: 736: 731: 728: 506: 498: 481:Deletion of the 474:Deletion of the 467:Deletion of the 463: 383: 216: 197: 194: 189: 186: 48: 28: 4565: 4564: 4560: 4559: 4558: 4556: 4555: 4554: 4529: 4521: 4510: 4505: 4504: 4503: 4498: 4494: 4473: 4466: 4458: 4433:Paine Ellsworth 4430: 4412: 4405: 4348: 4341: 4326: 4307:Paine Ellsworth 4304: 4291: 4284: 4256: 4245: 4226: 4221:Paine Ellsworth 4218: 4205: 4198: 4191: 4185: 4174: 4151: 4145: 4140:Paine Ellsworth 4137: 4119:Paine Ellsworth 4116: 4103: 4096: 4079: 4058: 4052: 4043: 4041: 4037:Paine Ellsworth 4034: 4021: 4014: 3996: 3977:Paine Ellsworth 3974: 3961: 3954: 3947: 3941: 3925: 3906:Paine Ellsworth 3903: 3890: 3883: 3868: 3851: 3845: 3840:Paine Ellsworth 3837: 3824: 3817: 3795: 3778: 3772: 3766:Paine Ellsworth 3763: 3750: 3743: 3733: 3729: 3723: 3717: 3711: 3707: 3681:Paine Ellsworth 3678: 3665: 3658: 3645: 3639: 3631: 3625: 3606: 3600: 3595:Paine Ellsworth 3592: 3590: 3550: 3543: 3535: 3497: 3459: 3332: 3327: 3324: 3321: 3285: 3220:User:Le Docteur 3184:User:Carcharoth 3084: 3042: 2983: 2946: 2923:for an example. 2894: 2795: 2790: 2787: 2784: 2765: 2759: 2715: 2713: 2709: 2703: 2692: 2690: 2686: 2680: 2672: 2666: 2655: 2653: 2649: 2643: 2632: 2630: 2626: 2620: 2612: 2606: 2595: 2593: 2589: 2583: 2575: 2569: 2561: 2555: 2540: 2535: 2532: 2529: 2472: 2459: 2454: 2451: 2448: 2435: 2427: 2378: 2373: 2370: 2367: 2322: 2314: 2310: 2298: 2290: 2177: 2165: 2157: 2132: 2124: 2123: 2009: 1779: 1774: 1771: 1768: 1737: 1732: 1729: 1726: 1690:on Knowledge's 1671: 1668: 1665: 1662: 1661: 1654:the Middle Ages 1639: 1632: 1612: 1609: 1528:on Knowledge's 1509: 1506: 1503: 1500: 1499: 1477: 1472: 1470: 1446: 1443: 1440: 1334: 1326: 1321: 1296: 1291: 1288: 1285: 1033: 1027: 1023: 1005: 916:Old discussions 734: 729: 726: 723: 502: 494: 462:|COMMENT_FORCE= 461: 381: 306:Talk:Judy Feder 214: 192: 187: 184: 181: 131:Talk:Judy Feder 88: 44: 37: 32: 31: 24: 20: 12: 11: 5: 4563: 4528:nominator and 4509: 4506: 4502: 4501: 4491: 4490: 4486: 4485: 4484: 4467:P.I. Ellsworth 4428: 4427: 4426: 4425: 4424: 4423: 4406:P.I. Ellsworth 4391: 4390: 4389: 4388: 4387: 4386: 4385: 4384: 4383: 4382: 4381: 4380: 4379: 4378: 4377: 4376: 4375: 4374: 4373: 4372: 4371: 4370: 4369: 4368: 4367: 4366: 4365: 4364: 4363: 4362: 4361: 4360: 4359: 4342:P.I. Ellsworth 4285:P.I. Ellsworth 4275:logged on its 4199:P.I. Ellsworth 4135: 4097:P.I. Ellsworth 4015:P.I. Ellsworth 3955:P.I. Ellsworth 3884:P.I. Ellsworth 3818:P.I. Ellsworth 3744:P.I. Ellsworth 3659:P.I. Ellsworth 3604:R from subpage 3589: 3586: 3585: 3584: 3583: 3582: 3581: 3580: 3496: 3495:Task completed 3493: 3492: 3491: 3490: 3489: 3447: 3446: 3445: 3427: 3411:All the best: 3408: 3407: 3406: 3405: 3402: 3396: 3375: 3358: 3341: 3315: 3314: 3313: 3276: 3275: 3274: 3273: 3248:User:WOSlinker 3196:User:Equazcion 3083: 3080: 3061: 3060: 3055: 3041: 3038: 3037: 3036: 2994: 2993: 2992: 2991: 2978:CfD discussion 2933: 2932: 2927: 2924: 2916: 2909: 2893: 2892:Implementation 2890: 2889: 2888: 2887: 2886: 2885: 2884: 2883: 2882: 2881: 2880: 2879: 2878: 2877: 2876: 2858: 2857: 2856: 2855: 2854: 2853: 2852: 2851: 2850: 2833: 2832: 2725: 2724: 2723: 2700: 2677: 2663: 2640: 2617: 2603: 2580: 2566: 2559:Christianmusic 2525: 2524: 2523: 2522: 2521: 2518: 2515: 2509: 2505: 2502: 2499: 2406: 2405: 2404: 2403: 2402: 2401: 2400: 2399: 2398: 2397: 2396: 2395: 2394: 2393: 2392: 2391: 2390: 2389: 2388: 2387: 2307: 2253: 2252: 2251: 2250: 2249: 2248: 2247: 2246: 2245: 2131: 2125: 2117: 2116: 2115: 2114: 2113: 2112: 2111: 2082: 2008: 2005: 2004: 2003: 2002: 2001: 2000: 1999: 1998: 1997: 1996: 1995: 1920: 1919: 1918: 1915: 1912: 1909: 1905: 1902: 1901: 1900: 1897: 1894: 1888: 1864: 1863: 1862: 1859: 1851: 1850: 1849: 1848: 1847: 1846: 1845: 1844: 1843: 1842: 1841: 1840: 1822: 1821: 1820: 1813: 1718: 1717: 1714: 1713: 1706:Low-importance 1702: 1696: 1695: 1684: 1678: 1677: 1675: 1658:the discussion 1645: 1644: 1628: 1616: 1615: 1613:Low‑importance 1604: 1594: 1593: 1587: 1586: 1583: 1582: 1562: 1552: 1551: 1544:Mid-importance 1540: 1534: 1533: 1522: 1516: 1515: 1513: 1496:the discussion 1483: 1482: 1466: 1454: 1453: 1444:Mid‑importance 1435: 1425: 1424: 1402: 1401: 1400: 1399: 1398: 1382:the next stage 1320: 1317: 1316: 1315: 1314: 1313: 1312: 1311: 1310: 1309: 1308: 1307: 1306: 1305: 1278: 1274: 1260: 1259: 1258: 1257: 1256: 1255: 1254: 1253: 1252: 1251: 1236: 1235: 1234: 1231: 1227: 1216: 1212: 1211: 1210: 1206: 1186: 1185: 1184: 1183: 1182: 1181: 1180: 1179: 1153: 1152: 1151: 1150: 1149: 1148: 1147: 1146: 1066: 1065: 1064: 1063: 1062: 988: 987: 986: 954: 912: 911: 910: 909: 908: 907: 906: 905: 904: 903: 840: 837: 836: 835: 824: 821: 818: 815: 806: 805: 787: 786: 772: 771: 770: 744: 743: 715: 714: 713: 712: 711: 708: 705: 699: 695: 692: 689: 681: 680: 664: 663: 662: 661: 660: 659: 658: 657: 585: 584: 583: 582: 581: 580: 565: 564: 563: 527: 526: 489: 488: 487: 486: 479: 472: 465: 455: 432: 431: 409: 408: 390: 389: 374: 373: 345: 344: 343: 342: 328: 287: 268: 267: 241: 223: 222: 201: 173: 163: 105:Talk:Roc Raida 96: 95: 87: 86: 85: 84: 83: 39: 38: 36: 33: 30: 29: 21: 16: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 4562: 4553: 4552: 4548: 4544: 4539: 4533: 4525: 4519: 4515: 4496: 4492: 4489: 4482: 4478: 4476: 4471: 4470: 4469: 4462: 4455: 4451: 4450: 4449: 4448: 4444: 4440: 4434: 4421: 4417: 4415: 4410: 4409: 4408: 4400: 4396: 4392: 4357: 4353: 4351: 4346: 4345: 4344: 4333: 4325: 4324: 4323: 4319: 4315: 4308: 4303: 4302: 4300: 4296: 4294: 4289: 4288: 4287: 4279: 4278: 4274: 4270: 4266: 4259: 4252: 4244: 4243: 4242: 4238: 4234: 4229: 4222: 4217: 4216: 4214: 4210: 4208: 4203: 4202: 4201: 4190: 4181: 4173: 4172: 4171: 4167: 4163: 4159: 4154: 4148: 4141: 4136: 4134: 4130: 4126: 4120: 4115: 4114: 4112: 4108: 4106: 4101: 4100: 4099: 4092: 4086: 4078: 4077: 4076: 4072: 4068: 4064: 4057: 4049: 4038: 4033: 4032: 4030: 4026: 4024: 4019: 4018: 4017: 4009: 4003: 3995: 3994: 3993: 3989: 3985: 3978: 3973: 3972: 3970: 3966: 3964: 3959: 3958: 3957: 3946: 3939: 3932: 3924: 3923: 3922: 3918: 3914: 3907: 3902: 3901: 3899: 3895: 3893: 3888: 3887: 3886: 3875: 3867: 3866: 3865: 3861: 3857: 3850: 3841: 3836: 3835: 3833: 3829: 3827: 3822: 3821: 3820: 3812: 3808: 3802: 3794: 3793: 3792: 3788: 3784: 3777: 3771:parameter of 3767: 3762: 3761: 3759: 3755: 3753: 3748: 3747: 3746: 3736: 3728: 3720: 3714: 3705: 3704: 3703: 3699: 3695: 3691: 3687: 3682: 3677: 3676: 3674: 3670: 3668: 3663: 3662: 3661: 3654: 3651: 3644: 3637: 3628: 3623: 3622: 3621: 3620: 3616: 3612: 3605: 3596: 3579: 3574: 3570: 3564: 3563: 3562: 3558: 3554: 3546: 3539: 3534: 3533: 3532: 3527: 3523: 3517: 3516: 3515: 3514: 3509: 3505: 3488: 3483: 3479: 3473: 3472: 3471: 3467: 3463: 3456: 3452: 3448: 3444: 3439: 3435: 3429: 3428: 3424: 3419: 3418: 3415: 3410: 3409: 3403: 3400: 3399: 3397: 3395: 3390: 3386: 3380: 3376: 3374: 3370: 3366: 3362: 3359: 3357: 3353: 3349: 3345: 3342: 3340: 3335: 3330: 3319: 3316: 3312: 3307: 3303: 3297: 3293: 3292: 3291: 3288: 3281: 3278: 3277: 3272: 3267: 3263: 3257: 3253: 3252:User:Walkerma 3249: 3245: 3241: 3237: 3233: 3229: 3225: 3221: 3217: 3216:User:Jreferee 3213: 3209: 3205: 3201: 3197: 3193: 3189: 3188:User:Cenarium 3185: 3181: 3176: 3172: 3171: 3170: 3165: 3161: 3155: 3151: 3147: 3144: 3143: 3142: 3141: 3136: 3132: 3126: 3122: 3121: 3116: 3112: 3106: 3101: 3100: 3095: 3091: 3079: 3078: 3073: 3069: 3059: 3056: 3054: 3051: 3050: 3049: 3047: 3035: 3030: 3026: 3019: 3018: 3017: 3016: 3012: 3008: 3004: 3000: 2990: 2987: 2986: 2979: 2974: 2973: 2972: 2967: 2963: 2956: 2955: 2954: 2953: 2950: 2949: 2942: 2938: 2928: 2925: 2922: 2917: 2914: 2910: 2907: 2903: 2902: 2901: 2899: 2875: 2871: 2867: 2863: 2859: 2849: 2845: 2841: 2837: 2836: 2835: 2834: 2831: 2827: 2823: 2819: 2818: 2817: 2813: 2809: 2805: 2804: 2803: 2798: 2793: 2781: 2780: 2779: 2775: 2771: 2764: 2757: 2756: 2755: 2750: 2746: 2739: 2738: 2737: 2733: 2729: 2726: 2721: 2712: 2708: 2701: 2698: 2689: 2685: 2678: 2675: 2671: 2664: 2661: 2652: 2648: 2641: 2638: 2629: 2625: 2618: 2615: 2611: 2604: 2601: 2592: 2588: 2581: 2578: 2574: 2567: 2564: 2560: 2553: 2552: 2550: 2549: 2548: 2543: 2538: 2526: 2519: 2516: 2513: 2512: 2510: 2506: 2503: 2500: 2496: 2495: 2493: 2492: 2491: 2487: 2483: 2479: 2469: 2468: 2467: 2462: 2457: 2445: 2444: 2443: 2440: 2438: 2432: 2430: 2423: 2422: 2421: 2420: 2416: 2412: 2386: 2381: 2376: 2364: 2363: 2362: 2357: 2353: 2346: 2345: 2344: 2340: 2336: 2332: 2331: 2330: 2327: 2325: 2319: 2317: 2308: 2306: 2303: 2301: 2295: 2293: 2287: 2284: 2283: 2282: 2278: 2274: 2270: 2269: 2268: 2265: 2263: 2262: 2257: 2254: 2244: 2240: 2236: 2232: 2231: 2230: 2225: 2221: 2214: 2210: 2209: 2208: 2204: 2200: 2196: 2195: 2194: 2189: 2185: 2175: 2174: 2173: 2170: 2168: 2162: 2160: 2154: 2153: 2152: 2148: 2144: 2140: 2139: 2138: 2137: 2136: 2135: 2134: 2133: 2130: 2121: 2110: 2105: 2101: 2095: 2091: 2087: 2086:project space 2083: 2081: 2077: 2073: 2069: 2068: 2067: 2062: 2058: 2052: 2048: 2047: 2046: 2042: 2038: 2033: 2029: 2028: 2027: 2026: 2021: 2017: 1994: 1989: 1985: 1978: 1977: 1976: 1972: 1968: 1964: 1959: 1958: 1957: 1952: 1948: 1942: 1938: 1937: 1936: 1931: 1927: 1921: 1916: 1913: 1910: 1906: 1904:Wait a month. 1903: 1898: 1895: 1892: 1891: 1889: 1886: 1882: 1881: 1879: 1878: 1877: 1873: 1869: 1865: 1860: 1857: 1856: 1853: 1852: 1839: 1834: 1830: 1823: 1818: 1814: 1811: 1810: 1808: 1803: 1802: 1801: 1797: 1793: 1789: 1788: 1787: 1782: 1777: 1765: 1764: 1763: 1758: 1754: 1747: 1746: 1745: 1740: 1735: 1724: 1723: 1722: 1721: 1711: 1707: 1701: 1698: 1697: 1693: 1689: 1683: 1680: 1679: 1676: 1659: 1655: 1651: 1650: 1642: 1636: 1631: 1629: 1626: 1622: 1621: 1617: 1608: 1605: 1602: 1598: 1597: 1591: 1590: 1581: 1580: 1575: 1571: 1558: 1554: 1553: 1549: 1545: 1539: 1536: 1535: 1531: 1527: 1521: 1518: 1517: 1514: 1497: 1493: 1489: 1488: 1480: 1469: 1467: 1464: 1460: 1459: 1455: 1439: 1436: 1433: 1429: 1428: 1423: 1418: 1414: 1407: 1403: 1397: 1394: 1393: 1387: 1383: 1379: 1378: 1377: 1372: 1368: 1361: 1357: 1356: 1355: 1352: 1351: 1345: 1344: 1343: 1342: 1339: 1337: 1331: 1329: 1319:Section break 1304: 1299: 1294: 1282: 1281:LiquidThreads 1279: 1275: 1272: 1271: 1270: 1269: 1268: 1267: 1266: 1265: 1264: 1263: 1262: 1261: 1250: 1246: 1242: 1237: 1232: 1228: 1225: 1221: 1220: 1217: 1213: 1207: 1203: 1202: 1200: 1196: 1195: 1194: 1193: 1192: 1191: 1190: 1189: 1188: 1187: 1178: 1174: 1170: 1165: 1161: 1160: 1159: 1158: 1157: 1156: 1155: 1154: 1145: 1141: 1137: 1132: 1131: 1130: 1127: 1126: 1120: 1119: 1118: 1114: 1110: 1106: 1101: 1100: 1099: 1096: 1095: 1090: 1086: 1082: 1078: 1074: 1070: 1067: 1061: 1058: 1057: 1052: 1051: 1050: 1046: 1042: 1038: 1032: 1021: 1017: 1013: 1012: 1011: 1008: 1001: 997: 993: 989: 985: 981: 977: 972: 971: 970: 966: 962: 958: 955: 953: 949: 945: 941: 937: 929: 925: 921: 917: 914: 913: 902: 898: 894: 890: 886: 885: 884: 880: 876: 871: 870: 869: 865: 861: 856: 855: 854: 850: 846: 841: 838: 833: 829: 825: 822: 819: 816: 813: 812: 810: 809: 808: 807: 804: 800: 796: 792: 789: 788: 785: 781: 777: 773: 769: 765: 761: 757: 753: 748: 747: 746: 745: 742: 737: 732: 721: 716: 709: 706: 703: 702: 700: 696: 693: 690: 686: 685: 683: 682: 679: 675: 671: 666: 665: 656: 652: 648: 644: 640: 636: 631: 630: 629: 625: 621: 617: 616: 615: 612: 611: 605: 604: 603: 599: 595: 590: 587: 586: 579: 575: 571: 566: 562: 559: 558: 553: 552: 551: 550: 549: 545: 541: 536: 531: 530: 529: 528: 525: 522: 521: 516: 513: 512: 511: 510: 507: 505: 499: 497: 484: 480: 477: 473: 470: 466: 459: 458: 456: 454: 450: 446: 442: 441:see them here 437: 434: 433: 430: 426: 422: 418: 414: 411: 410: 407: 403: 399: 395: 392: 391: 388: 385: 384: 376: 375: 372: 368: 364: 359: 355: 350: 347: 346: 341: 337: 333: 329: 327: 323: 319: 315: 311: 307: 303: 302: 301: 298: 297: 292: 288: 285: 284: 283: 282: 278: 274: 266: 262: 258: 254: 249: 245: 242: 240: 236: 232: 228: 225: 224: 221: 218: 217: 210: 206: 202: 200: 195: 190: 178: 174: 172: 169: 164: 162: 159: 157: 156: 151: 150: 149: 148: 144: 140: 136: 132: 128: 123: 122: 118: 114: 108: 106: 102: 94: 90: 89: 82: 78: 74: 70: 66: 62: 58: 55: 54: 53: 50: 47: 41: 40: 27: 23: 22: 19: 4511: 4495: 4487: 4464: 4463: 4457: 4453: 4429: 4403: 4402: 4339: 4338: 4282: 4281: 4277:history page 4276: 4272: 4268: 4264: 4262: 4196: 4195: 4094: 4093: 4090: 4047: 4012: 4011: 3952: 3951: 3881: 3880: 3815: 3814: 3741: 3740: 3656: 3655: 3652: 3591: 3498: 3454: 3450: 3412: 3360: 3343: 3317: 3295: 3279: 3175:subject page 3123: 3102: 3085: 3062: 3043: 2999:WP:HISTMERGE 2995: 2981: 2944: 2936: 2934: 2895: 2719: 2702: 2696: 2679: 2665: 2659: 2642: 2636: 2624:Maths rating 2619: 2605: 2599: 2582: 2568: 2554: 2477: 2436: 2428: 2407: 2323: 2315: 2299: 2291: 2260: 2166: 2158: 2119: 2085: 2050: 2031: 2010: 1962: 1816: 1806: 1705: 1687: 1647: 1565: 1543: 1525: 1485: 1405: 1392:Geometry guy 1390: 1385: 1381: 1350:Geometry guy 1348: 1335: 1327: 1322: 1205:assessments. 1163: 1125:Geometry guy 1123: 1094:Geometry guy 1092: 1068: 1056:Geometry guy 1054: 1036: 956: 915: 790: 751: 610:Geometry guy 608: 588: 557:Geometry guy 555: 535:add comments 534: 520:Geometry guy 518: 514: 503: 495: 490: 435: 412: 393: 379: 357: 348: 313: 309: 296:Geometry guy 294: 291:WP:Biography 269: 252: 247: 243: 226: 212: 154: 124: 109: 97: 56: 51: 45: 42: 4189:R from move 4158:Talk:Ams AG 3727:R from move 3294:One of the 3244:User:Titoxd 3240:User:Thibbs 3236:User:Risker 3228:User:RDBury 3208:User:Hiding 3125:Bot request 2935:The use of 2092:instead of 1688:Start-class 1663:Middle Ages 1610:Start‑class 1607:Middle Ages 887:See above, 4524:Nathan2055 4488:References 3417:Farmbrough 3232:User:Rd232 2984:Jim Miller 2947:Jim Miller 2763:Comicsproj 2573:Comicsproj 1967:Carcharoth 1868:Carcharoth 1136:Carcharoth 976:Carcharoth 944:Carcharoth 860:Carcharoth 795:Carcharoth 760:Carcharoth 382:Jim Miller 363:Le Docteur 215:Jim Miller 4452:Excellent 4273:page move 4258:this edit 3451:intention 3344:yeah sure 3258:— Martin 3256:User:Xeno 3224:User:PC78 3200:User:Fram 2937:noinclude 2866:WOSlinker 2728:WOSlinker 2610:Hurricane 2498:somewhere 2473:|comment= 1922:— Martin 1885:This list 1501:Lithuania 1492:Lithuania 1438:Lithuania 1358:True, an 776:WOSlinker 756:WP:WP 1.0 688:somewhere 620:Equazcion 594:Equazcion 421:WOSlinker 316:project. 231:Equazcion 209:User:Xeno 4547:𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠 4443:𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠 4318:𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠 4269:redirect 4237:𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠 4166:𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠 4129:𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠 4071:𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠 3988:𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠 3917:𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠 3860:𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠 3787:𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠 3698:𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠 3615:𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠 3542:I found 3180:User:CBM 2913:archived 2213:proposed 1817:comments 1406:comments 1241:Walkerma 1209:article. 992:WP:1.0/I 893:Cenarium 647:Cenarium 445:Cenarium 349:Comment. 332:Cenarium 166:either. 73:Jreferee 18:Shortcut 4532:Fastily 4508:Process 4330:editor 4271:with a 4249:editor 4178:editor 4083:editor 4000:editor 3929:editor 3872:editor 3799:editor 3361:Support 3318:Support 3280:Support 2088:, e.g. 1941:message 1908:review. 1708:on the 1546:on the 1526:C-class 1441:C‑class 1386:Nothing 1230:review. 1199:WP:Chem 1069:Comment 957:Comment 791:Comment 752:initial 637:, also 589:comment 436:Support 413:Comment 394:Support 244:Support 227:Support 3553:rose64 3462:rose64 3348:Hiding 3007:Thibbs 2840:Hiding 2822:Hiding 2808:Hiding 2770:Hiding 1694:scale. 1532:scale. 1224:WT:1.0 1020:WP:1.0 1000:wp10v2 961:Risker 875:RDBury 845:RDBury 540:RDBury 515:Oppose 398:RDBury 314:either 67:, and 26:WT:DCS 4399:WT:RE 4231:one? 3588:Rcats 3040:Notes 2707:WP1.0 2437:melon 2429:Happy 2324:melon 2316:Happy 2300:melon 2292:Happy 2167:melon 2159:Happy 2127:From 1807:would 1682:Start 1336:melon 1328:Happy 1164:meant 1031:WP1.0 843:it.-- 643:to do 538:it.-- 504:melon 496:Happy 168:Rd232 91:From 57:CLOSE 4516:and 4397:and 4395:WT:R 4048:Done 3809:and 3686:This 3573:talk 3569:MSGJ 3557:talk 3538:MSGJ 3526:talk 3522:MSGJ 3508:talk 3504:MSGJ 3482:talk 3478:MSGJ 3466:talk 3438:talk 3434:MSGJ 3414:Rich 3389:talk 3385:MSGJ 3369:talk 3365:PC78 3306:talk 3302:MSGJ 3296:many 3284:Tito 3266:talk 3262:MSGJ 3164:talk 3160:MSGJ 3135:talk 3131:MSGJ 3115:talk 3111:MSGJ 3094:talk 3090:MSGJ 3082:Plan 3072:talk 3068:MSGJ 3029:talk 3025:MSGJ 3011:talk 2966:talk 2962:MSGJ 2870:talk 2749:talk 2745:MSGJ 2732:talk 2720:Done 2697:Done 2660:Done 2637:Done 2600:Done 2486:talk 2482:PC78 2415:talk 2411:Fram 2356:talk 2352:MSGJ 2339:talk 2335:PC78 2277:talk 2273:PC78 2261:xeno 2239:talk 2235:PC78 2224:talk 2220:MSGJ 2203:talk 2199:PC78 2188:talk 2184:MSGJ 2147:talk 2143:PC78 2104:talk 2100:MSGJ 2076:talk 2072:PC78 2061:talk 2041:talk 2037:PC78 2020:talk 1988:talk 1984:MSGJ 1971:talk 1951:talk 1947:MSGJ 1930:talk 1926:MSGJ 1872:talk 1833:talk 1829:MSGJ 1796:talk 1792:PC78 1757:talk 1753:MSGJ 1574:talk 1570:MSGJ 1417:talk 1413:MSGJ 1371:talk 1367:MSGJ 1245:talk 1173:talk 1169:PC78 1140:talk 1113:talk 1109:PC78 1087:and 1045:talk 1041:PC78 1037:only 1004:Tito 980:talk 965:talk 948:talk 940:here 936:here 897:talk 889:here 879:talk 864:talk 849:talk 830:and 799:talk 780:talk 764:talk 674:talk 670:Fram 651:talk 635:here 624:talk 598:talk 574:talk 570:PC78 544:talk 483:2859 476:2544 449:talk 425:talk 402:talk 367:talk 358:must 354:WP:M 336:talk 322:talk 318:PC78 277:talk 273:Fram 261:talk 257:PC78 235:talk 155:xeno 143:talk 139:Fram 117:talk 113:Fram 77:talk 4474:ed. 4413:ed. 4349:ed. 4292:ed. 4265:now 4263:is 4206:ed. 4104:ed. 4051:!: 4022:ed. 3962:ed. 3891:ed. 3825:ed. 3751:ed. 3666:ed. 3632:|h= 3551:Red 3460:Red 3455:Foo 3333:千？！ 3325:ディノ 3046:VPT 3005:. - 2796:千？！ 2788:ダイノ 2541:千？！ 2533:ダイノ 2478:all 2460:千？！ 2452:ダイノ 2379:千？！ 2371:ダイノ 2057:CBM 2051:not 2032:are 2016:CBM 1780:千？！ 1772:ダイノ 1738:千？！ 1730:ダイノ 1700:Low 1538:Mid 1297:千？！ 1289:ダイノ 735:千？！ 727:ダイノ 639:GA2 469:470 310:two 253:are 248:for 193:千？！ 185:ダイノ 177:one 133:or 4549:) 4445:) 4328:To 4320:) 4267:a 4247:To 4239:) 4192:}} 4186:{{ 4176:To 4168:) 4131:) 4081:To 4073:) 4061:, 4059:}} 4053:{{ 3998:To 3990:) 3948:}} 3942:{{ 3927:To 3919:) 3870:To 3862:) 3852:}} 3846:{{ 3797:To 3789:) 3779:}} 3773:{{ 3739:) 3730:}} 3724:{{ 3700:) 3646:}} 3640:{{ 3638:. 3617:) 3609:? 3607:}} 3601:{{ 3571:· 3559:) 3524:· 3506:· 3480:· 3468:) 3436:· 3387:· 3371:) 3304:· 3286:xd 3264:· 3254:, 3250:, 3246:, 3242:, 3238:, 3234:, 3230:, 3226:, 3222:, 3218:, 3214:, 3210:, 3206:, 3202:, 3198:, 3194:, 3190:, 3186:, 3182:, 3162:· 3133:· 3113:· 3092:· 3070:· 3027:· 3013:) 2964:· 2872:) 2791:ガイ 2766:}} 2760:{{ 2747:· 2734:) 2710:}} 2704:{{ 2687:}} 2681:{{ 2673:}} 2667:{{ 2650:}} 2644:{{ 2627:}} 2621:{{ 2613:}} 2607:{{ 2590:}} 2584:{{ 2576:}} 2570:{{ 2562:}} 2556:{{ 2536:ガイ 2488:) 2455:ガイ 2417:) 2374:ガイ 2354:· 2341:) 2311::D 2288:. 2279:) 2241:) 2222:· 2205:) 2186:· 2149:) 2102:· 2078:) 2059:· 2043:) 2018:· 1986:· 1973:) 1949:· 1928:· 1874:) 1831:· 1798:) 1775:ガイ 1755:· 1733:ガイ 1572:· 1415:· 1384:. 1369:· 1292:ガイ 1247:) 1175:) 1142:) 1115:) 1091:. 1083:, 1079:, 1047:) 1039:. 1034:}} 1028:{{ 1006:xd 1002:. 982:) 967:) 950:) 942:. 926:, 922:, 899:) 881:) 866:) 851:) 801:) 782:) 766:) 730:ガイ 722:) 676:) 653:) 626:) 600:) 576:) 546:) 451:) 443:. 427:) 404:) 369:) 338:) 324:) 279:) 263:) 237:) 188:ガイ 145:) 119:) 79:) 63:, 4545:( 4534:: 4530:@ 4526:: 4522:@ 4461:! 4459:1 4454:! 4441:( 4435:: 4431:@ 4334:: 4316:( 4309:: 4305:@ 4253:: 4235:( 4223:: 4219:@ 4182:: 4164:( 4142:: 4138:@ 4127:( 4121:: 4117:@ 4091:! 4087:: 4069:( 4039:: 4035:@ 4004:: 3986:( 3979:: 3975:@ 3933:: 3915:( 3908:: 3904:@ 3876:: 3858:( 3842:: 3838:@ 3803:: 3785:( 3768:: 3764:@ 3696:( 3683:: 3679:@ 3653:! 3613:( 3597:: 3593:@ 3575:) 3567:( 3555:( 3540:: 3536:@ 3528:) 3520:( 3510:) 3502:( 3484:) 3476:( 3464:( 3440:) 3432:( 3425:. 3420:, 3391:) 3383:( 3367:( 3352:T 3336:」 3328:奴 3322:「 3308:) 3300:( 3268:) 3260:( 3166:) 3158:( 3137:) 3129:( 3117:) 3109:( 3096:) 3088:( 3074:) 3066:( 3031:) 3023:( 3009:( 2968:) 2960:( 2868:( 2844:T 2826:T 2812:T 2799:」 2785:「 2774:T 2751:) 2743:( 2730:( 2544:」 2530:「 2484:( 2463:」 2449:「 2433:‑ 2413:( 2382:」 2368:「 2358:) 2350:( 2337:( 2320:‑ 2296:‑ 2275:( 2237:( 2226:) 2218:( 2201:( 2190:) 2182:( 2163:‑ 2145:( 2106:) 2098:( 2074:( 2063:) 2055:( 2039:( 2022:) 2014:( 1990:) 1982:( 1969:( 1953:) 1945:( 1932:) 1924:( 1870:( 1835:) 1827:( 1794:( 1783:」 1769:「 1759:) 1751:( 1741:」 1727:「 1712:. 1576:) 1568:( 1550:. 1520:C 1419:) 1411:( 1373:) 1365:( 1332:‑ 1300:」 1286:「 1243:( 1171:( 1138:( 1111:( 1043:( 1024:] 978:( 963:( 946:( 928:3 924:2 920:1 895:( 877:( 862:( 847:( 834:. 797:( 778:( 762:( 738:」 724:「 672:( 649:( 622:( 596:( 572:( 542:( 500:‑ 447:( 423:( 400:( 365:( 334:( 320:( 275:( 259:( 233:( 196:」 182:「 141:( 115:( 75:(

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

Knowledge

talk:Discontinuation of comments subpages - Knowledge

Index