38:
516:
a characters article+ 2 chars that have their own article, and a music of FF8 article. It does not include the parent Final
Fantasy series page, nor does it include Square Enix, the publisher/developer, nor Hironobu Sakaguchi, the executive producer. They certainly are relevent to the topic, in the way that Gwen Stefani is relevant to a topic about one of her albums, but they are not sub-articles of the topic and are thus not included. --
990:. This would involve setting a deadline of January 2008 for the bringing of all the legacy FTs up to full compliance with criteria, as well as the automatic delisting of an FT after one quarter-year due to no longer meeting criteria in all its articles (leaving sufficient leeway to bring such articles back up to status). I think we should include a line in the criteria formalizing this as our practice.--
1197:, but this would go against categorization conventions. It seems odd to state that albums and the songs on them can't be featured topics since it sounds like a legitimate topic to me, so would it be a good idea to move the common category part to the recommendations section or change "common category" to "category or supercategory"? Oh, and I'm going to shamelessly ask anyone who hasn't !voted at
1601:
1522:
1441:
1163:
1052:
972:
753:
592:
300:
183:
1680:
With the example of US wildcats, I think that the topic is too arbitrary a grouping to make a lead article, so the topic could not be featured. However, if you proposed "new world cats" as a topic, you might be able to write a lead article about their evolutionary history, the difference between old
1000:
Yes. I like what you've written on the criteria to that effect. Although possibly too strict - rather than "3 months", shouldn't it just be "after a suitable period" to allow for discretion. I don't like it when we take responsibility away from ourselves and place it on an arbitrary rule - especially
829:
Well, the first part is pretty obvious. Featured pictures are the visual equivalent to featured articles, just as featured sounds are the audio equivalent of featured pictures. All that means is that the selection processes are similar, not that articles, pictures, sounds, etc. are all equivalent.
444:
I don't believe that the creator of the work should be included. Putting the creator as part of the series about a work implies that the creator is a subtopic and that the article about the creator contains more detail than the main article, which should be summarizing the others. For the articles in
1211:
I agree with your second recommendation, the Love Angel Music Baby FTC has shown that sometimes sharing a supercategory makes more sense than sharing a category. I disagree with moving categorization to the recommended section; all articles should be categorized, and a topic is lacking if it doesn't
946:
Which I think is the main problem with this proposal- if you wanted to add in the featured picture of saffron to the saffron topic, you'd have to add in every picture about saffron to the topic. I think featured topics should be limited to articles/lists. Also, while there's no requirement anywhere
634:
I don't know if it should be a requirement, as the requirements are already pretty tight. While it would be nice, I don't think having the lead article be a GA as opposed to a FA should prevent the topic from passing (if that's the only objection). That said, some GA's are better than others. If the
515:
I don't think it should be included. A featured topic as defined is a main article and all of it's sub-articles. Gwen
Stefani is not a sub-article of Love.Angel.Music.Baby, even though she is obviously related in some way. To extend the argument, Final Fantasy 8, a current FT, has the game (FF8),
1364:
Sorry to join the discussion late, but I don't think there should be any set standard for how many FA's there are. I think what should matter is if the articles cover the topic well or not. Some people prefer not to do the FA process, and so if the GA articles are FA quality without the FA star, it
912:
Yes, but it is not known that the picture is featured in the article. Furthermore, the FP can really be seen only with it's true resolution (with that resolution it wouldn't have been featured), not the little pic shown on articles, and featured portals are only linked by name. the pic/portal/sound
1242:
Indeed, this determining of whether the nomination is "whole" is the primary deliberating point at FTC. FA and GA looks at the quality of individual articles so we don't need to do that, our task here is to work out whether the Topic is complete. To set this in stone would be to take away from the
1232:
I think because of the variety of subjects (and Topics) that we could have on FTC it would be impossible to clearly delineate a universal rule for what "linked together" means. Rather, it should be seen on a case by case basis with reference to relevant extant systems - i.e. templates, categories,
1674:
I think that if a topic does not have a lead articles it is almost defiantly going to have a problem with 1b: a well-defined topical scope. If the subjects are a topic together, than there is going to be something article-worthy to say about them as a group. If it is not possible to make a lead
1502:
I strongly disagree. What if the topic only features 3-4 articles? Two or more is much more reasonable, and allows for a wider range of topics to be featured here. We also have a couple excellent topics that only contain 2 FAs; removing them because of a number issue would be bad for the project.
1071:, which by their limited subject matter cannot achieve GA or FA – but I believe this special case has now been satisfactorily dealt with by means of the "individual audit". This is not to prevent any WikiProjects from rating 'A' class articles – but it is saying that if you do that, it should be
1034:
Fair enough. I had sort of hoped to avoid future debates about the grace period by giving it a definite length (especially if we're working with the objective criteria of whether articles have been demoted from FA or GA or not), but it's alright either way. I'm going to inform the legacy topics
1412:
Well, the problem is there's just no reasonable and fair way to determine if something is of "featured quality" without actually sending it to FAC. Of course that process is not perfect, but it is after all the central quality-rating process of
Knowledge, and we can hardly afford to just ignore
1536:
As the Final
Fantasy Titles featured topic is currently in jeopardy, I feel this would be a good time to spell out how long those parties concerned have to work on articles that have been demoted. So here it is; I propose a one month deadline, during which time the article must return to either
651:
I sort of agree with
Hurricanehink. I would support something stating that the lead article should be comprehensive so that the topic itself is properly covered (since GAs only have to be broad in their coverage). I think having the lead as a featured article is unnecessary though. I have a
404:
A further point is raised as to what happens when several artistic works (such as multiple albums by the same band) are
Featured Topics - would the band's article need be in each Featured Topic set? This question grew out of a debate at the discussion of the candidacy for Gewn Stefani's Album
1466:
Three seems too much, especially since the minimum topic size is three articles. I think two FAs or a 25 percent minimum are probably more realistic. I think there's general agreement that it doesn't mean 3+, especially since the FF8 FT just recently passed after the criteria were forged. —
1326:
OK, how about something modest for a start: for topics with three members (minimum size) at least 2 FAs, with nine members at least 3 FAs, with twenty-seven members at least 4 FAs. This conveniently grandfathers in all current FTs, while setting some sort of objective standard for future
731:
I don't think it should be a requirement, not should it "recommended". To be part of a
Featured Topic *all* articles must be A-Class, GAs or better. I don't think the lead article should be any different. Yes, it introduces the topic, but it is already required to be of high quality.
794:
We're an encyclopedia first and foremost. Images, sounds, etc. are important parts, but they only exist to improve the quality of articles. If we have featured media related to a topic, any information conveyed should be included by adding the media to relevant articles.
1395:
I don't know; I personally don't see it imperative that there has to have any featured articles. If the articles are of featured quality without the FA star, I don't mind calling it a featured topic, as long as the entire topic is addressed in full and there are no gaps.
652:
question too. I was looking at how the featured topics line up with the critieria, one of which requires that the non-FA articles "must be all Good
Articles or A class except where achieving such a class is impossible". Is there a reason why most of the articles in the
525:
I think I'm going to have to go with ShadowHalo's point that the main article should summarize any relevant information about its own parent articles, and that including the parent article in the topic would be repetitive. So I'll say that we should
309:
1066:
I suggest we take all mention of the 'A' class out of the criteria. The reason is, that this essentially duplicates GA class, only GA class is more universally defined. I understand 'A' class was originally included to deal with articles like
1455:
Currently the criteria require that "several articles are of featured class", but how many is "several"? I've always understood that means at least three, but the issue has come up, and I believe it should be clarified. Is three a reasonable
1145:
idiosyncratic—anyone can give any article any mark without a second opinion even. That's a good system for doing rough evaluations cheaply and quickly, but it just fails when there's any incentive to give your own article a higher
335:
1013:
I have to disagree with your making the process separate from the FTRC process. The entire point of the removal process is to bring bad topics to the attention of the community and allowing others to weigh in on the demotion.
416:
1185:, preferably using a template, and share a common category." This seems somewhat ambiguous to me, and it'd be good to clarify the meaning. What do we consider a common category? In this case, the songs are all contained in
1707:
I don't know if this has been discussed or decided already, but can we please list the Star Wars article, so that people know its not GA and so it can be more widely known and fixed? It seems like a very logical idea to me.
777:
That is a very interesting idea. I don't see why it shouldn't, either, and I'm in full support of including those other featured materials in the event that occurs. I don't think we've run into that situation, however.
197:
Should criteria #1 be expanded to say that the grouping should not arbitrarily exclude items? I'm thinking that we want to stop any very specific topic groupings that weasel their way around making a gap.
612:
In cases where there is a larger number of articles in the set then this is not so important, but the smaller the set the more important it is that at least the Lead article is a FA. An example would be
1085:
I support that. I don't like the idea that an article could be A class without passing a GA review. If the A class article couldn't pass the GA review, then it shouldn't be A class in the first place.
717:
So why not codify that in "recommended" - that the larger the
Featured set, the more lenient we can be on the overall percentage of FAs (and vice versa) especially with regards to the lead article.
135:
That sounds about right, and I'm in favour of making that criteria #6 (or #2, bumping the rest down one). However, it would make the Star Wars movies fail, and that's one of our best topics. --
876:
I agree with ShadowHalo. A featured article is our final product, which must necisarily include both text and media. Having the media both in the topic and in the article is redundant. --
1503:
Also, part of the reason I think that wording was left vague was for this exact reason: the number should really be a case-by-case basis, depending on the strength of the overall topic. —
1194:
767:
why "topic" is limited to "collection of articles" (including lists)? what about pictures, portals and sounds which also "represents
Knowledge's best work in covering a given subject"?
155:
I'm adding this as a requirement. I've nominated a main article for the Star Wars topic. If that nomination fails, the topic will either be grandfathered in or listed for a FTRC. --
1634:
1564:
Agreed, a month is too little time, it would also waste peoples time constantly doing promotion/demotion nominations and such, just give it a bunch of time and let it get sorted out.
478:
I don't think it is needed. The main article is already the higher-level article of that specific topic, and I don't think there should be an even higher level than the main article.
247:
The articles should have a clear similarity with each other, should be in the same category, and should be grouped under one collective name that does not arbitrarily exclude items.
1733:
1588:
23:
1641:
is not GA), I think some discussion. Is there anything to do when the topic is very well defined, but there is no possibility of having a lead article? Here the two options were
1568:
1559:
287:
170:
867:
799:
660:
646:
489:
1489:
1289:
1250:
1227:
1029:
907:
891:
724:
712:
684:
583:
557:
545:
473:
437:
1309:
1198:
1178:
1128:
926:
Remember that since you can't cherrypick the items to put in a FT, you would have to include all images related to the topic, not just the one that you want to show off. --
850:
789:
693:
I don't think it should be a requirement either, but I like Witty Lama's idea to put it in the "recommended" section as opposed to the "required" section. The main article
449:
406:
318:
The scope of this discussion may not only apply to music. There has been talk about whether to include the main article on scouting in the FTC of the boy scouts of America.
1696:
1432:
1417:
1407:
1390:
1331:
1113:
1096:
941:
1039:
951:
921:
834:
824:
267:
239:
150:
130:
1124:
Problem is that the GA evaluators sometimes go beyond the GA bounds, and the acception/rejection or articles is far more idiosyncratic than opinions expressed in a FAC.
1008:
618:
1476:
1354:
1345:
744:
520:
510:
343:
In the event of artistic works being nominated for Featured Topic status, should the creator of that work also be included in the topic? Examples of this could include
1460:
1150:
1712:
83:
78:
73:
1541:
1079:
213:
1537:
featured article or good article nomination, or procedures can begin to defeature the article. If it fails that nomination, the removal procedure can also begin.
100:
628:
396:
The artist's page may not deal with the subject of the Featured Topic in any great detail, and if it does the information might be repetitive/circular (per
1294:
I agree that it should be case by case. There should probably alway be two, and more for topics that are big and/or about a very widely known subject. --
987:
771:
1376:
1275:
1508:
1681:
and new world cats, and how cats fit into the ecosystem of the Americas. If that would be a viable article, than the topic might also be viable. --
1623:
1212:
have its own category. We need to think of some way of phrasing it that makes sure that the categories are at least closely related and logical. --
1205:
994:
422:
That last one is a good point, it would be a bit silly for an overarching article to be in tonnes of FTs. I'll have to sleep on this question. --
1668:
896:
Precisely. If there is a FT on any given topic then one of its articles would by definition include the media that is a FP or FS. In the case of
445:
a featured topic to be at least good article level, they should already address any information about the creator that is relevant to the topic.
54:
17:
1718:
To be included in the topic it would have to pass a nomination, which it would now fail. As of 2008, that entire topic will be up for FTRC. --
1573:
A month is too little time, though seven was a bit much. I'd suggest two or three months, though maybe a bit shorter in the case of lists. --
669:. My argument is that they are good enough for our purposes, and if they were to be put in the backloged review procedure they would pass. --
1075:
to seeking a GA status. (Yes, yes, I know the two systems really should be merged, but that's quite outside the scope of this sub-project.)--
830:
And you're right that the image of saffron contains things that text can't; that's why articles combine text, images, and sometimes audio.
635:
lead article isn't good (or was passed without a thorough look at the article), then it could be delisted and thus prevent it from passing.
1001:
one that we ourselves made up. Otherwise, Great. oh, by the way, have we informed the people responsible for the legacy pages about this?
222:
The articles should be grouped under one collective name and be in the same category. The topic name should not arbitrarily exclude items.
1061:
568:
parent articles in topics. However, if anyone finds a topic which they think is a special case, feel free to reopen this discussion. --
1450:
393:
No Featured Topics to date have a "higher level"/overarching article within the set (except the Featured Topic's heading article);
1271:
I agree that a hard number maybe be too difficult for certain topics. I'd much prefer a percent of the total number of articles.
614:
1181:, but I think this would be a better place to discuss. As it reads now, criterion 4 states that "All articles in a series are
348:
1646:
272:
I'm adding this as the new wording, but if anyone wants to suggest any amendments this wording is not yet set in stone. --
1649:, both of which are too wide-ranging. Another example is found on the criteria page itself: how good are the chances of a
809:
617:
series which only includes 3 articles - this would not have passed if the lead was not a FA. On the other extreme is the
1728:
1691:
1583:
1304:
1222:
1024:
936:
886:
707:
679:
578:
540:
464:
432:
330:
282:
262:
208:
165:
145:
609:
That the Lead article should be an FA. The smaller the featured set, the more strongly the recommendation be imposed.
1616:
1068:
1350:
And the idea in future maybe would be 2 for 3, 3 for 6, and 4 for 9... but I realize that's a ways down the line.--
468:
356:
244:
I think that the term "clear similarity" is the key goal of criteria #1, and we shouldn't take it out. How about:
192:
1702:
839:
In the case of the saffron featured pic, I think that should be included to the topic if someone nominates it.
91:
1531:
813:
118:
I don't think anything more than that is needed... it can always be expanded later, depending how things go.
1190:
1186:
1109:, our last 'A'-class non-GA, had been promoted, so this will have no significant effect on current FTs.--
805:
947:
for a featured picture to get used in a related featured topic, there's no way it's not going to be. --
1485:
Three is fine to me - two seems too little. Three or more related articles as an FT sounds cool to me.
762:
601:
45:
96:
Should we have a criteria about what the main article is and how it relates to the other articles? --
653:
106:
I feel that the criteria should explicitly include a requirement for a lead article. Something like:
494:
If the topic os on an artistic work (or collection thereof), then the article on the creator should
1654:
1610:
1402:
1371:
1091:
845:
784:
641:
484:
397:
1724:
1687:
1579:
1300:
1218:
1020:
981:
932:
882:
703:
675:
574:
536:
460:
428:
364:
326:
278:
258:
204:
161:
141:
381:
An understanding of an artistic work is not complete without an understanding of its creator.
1280:
Yeah, or just a case-by-case basis (especially if the GAs are good enough to be A-class). —
1709:
1565:
1538:
1247:
1005:
904:
721:
625:
554:
413:
8:
1675:
article, than the "topic" is nothing more than a few articles on vaguely smiler subjects.
1628:
1555:
1472:
1341:
1285:
1172:
498:
be included. The reason is the work is a subset of the creator, not the other way round.
1486:
1397:
1366:
1272:
1086:
860:
840:
817:
779:
636:
479:
1550:
was given roughly seven months; I think a similar time period would be appropriate. —
1719:
1682:
1574:
1428:
OK, I've now added my proposed "how many?" standard to the front side of this page.--
1295:
1213:
1015:
927:
877:
698:
670:
569:
531:
455:
423:
321:
273:
253:
199:
156:
136:
97:
917:
in an article, like the other articles/lists of the topic. They do not appear in it
1650:
808:"images... the visual equivalent to featured articles" and it is well known that
310:"higher-level" articles within topics (or: Creator of an artistic work in the FT?)
1244:
1202:
1002:
901:
864:
831:
796:
740:
718:
657:
622:
551:
506:
454:
I believe the creator should be included to complete the depiction of the topic.
446:
410:
235:
126:
1382:
Well, I think it's pretty well-established that a featured topic has to include
53:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
1552:
1505:
1469:
1338:
1282:
666:
1201:
to please do so; it's been over a month, and there still aren't four !votes.
1638:
1105:
OK, I've now removed mention of 'A' class from the criteria. I waited until
352:
1665:
1125:
986:
I suggest we establish a perfunctory review process, per the discussion at
918:
821:
768:
697:, in most cases be FA, but there are cases where it doesn't need to be. --
360:
1386:
featured articles. The question we're addressing here is just how many.--
988:
Wikipedia_talk:Featured_topics#Suggestion_to_get_all_articles_to_GA_status
1620:
1457:
1429:
1414:
1387:
1351:
1328:
1147:
1141:
And the problem with the standard article rating scale is that it's just
1110:
1106:
1076:
1036:
991:
344:
621:
series which probably would have passed even if the lead was not an FA.
948:
733:
517:
499:
228:
119:
378:
A artist's creation is not just a "sub-category" of the artist's page;
1243:
dynamic process and make it much more of a pre-determined formula.
900:
for example the FP of saffron is already included in the articles.
1635:
Knowledge:Featured topic candidates/Wild cats of the United States
1642:
897:
856:
606:
Could we discuss the addition to the "recommended" section....
1199:
Knowledge:Featured topic candidates/Love. Angel. Music. Baby.
1179:
Knowledge:Featured topic candidates/Love. Angel. Music. Baby.
530:
include parent articles of the main article in a topic. --
1660:
Is it any reasonable to amend the criterion to "The topic
219:
I agree.... OK, maybe change #1 to something like:
1615:This should probably eventually be spun off into a
855:That seems pretty redundant since it's part of the
1664:has an introductory and summary lead article."Â ?
24:Knowledge talk:Featured topic criteria/Archive 1
18:Knowledge talk:Featured and good topic criteria
820:- this is an example of a current situation)
113:, which introduces and summarizes the topic.
227:(This also removes some superfluous text).
564:It looks like the general consensus is to
812:. i don't think that the featured pic of
14:
1633:In the light of the recent failure of
665:Michigan U is being discussed over at
51:Do not edit the contents of this page.
1647:List of mammals of the United States
32:
1193:. The solution would be to create
1177:This issue was first brought up at
810:A picture is worth a thousand words
30:
1195:Category:Love. Angel. Music. Baby.
31:
1745:
1617:Knowledge:Featured article advice
1069:List of Nunavut general elections
1637:(although it was doomed because
1599:
1520:
1439:
1161:
1050:
970:
816:can be fully conveyed by text. (
751:
590:
298:
181:
36:
357:Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy
1713:20:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
1697:03:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
1669:02:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
1569:20:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
1062:Take 'A' class out of criteria
13:
1:
1624:19:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
1560:21:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
288:20:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
268:01:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
240:01:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
171:20:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
151:01:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
131:01:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
1734:00:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
1589:00:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
1191:Category:Gwen Stefani albums
214:01:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
101:15:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
7:
1542:03:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
1189:but the main article is in
1187:Category:Gwen Stefani songs
806:Knowledge:Featured pictures
10:
1750:
952:18:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
942:16:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
922:08:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
908:03:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
892:03:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
619:Canadian Election Timeline
584:03:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
1490:19:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
1477:03:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
1461:03:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
1433:04:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
1418:05:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
1408:19:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
1391:19:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
1377:19:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
1355:05:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
1346:19:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
1332:18:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
1310:17:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
1290:23:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
1276:16:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
1260:19:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
1151:17:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
1129:16:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
1114:13:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
1097:02:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
1080:02:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
868:23:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
851:23:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
835:23:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
825:22:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
800:16:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
790:14:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
772:14:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
745:10:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
725:06:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
713:22:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
685:22:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
661:21:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
654:Michigan State University
647:21:12, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
629:19:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
558:19:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
546:16:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
521:00:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
511:16:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
490:14:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
474:14:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
450:05:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
438:05:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
417:04:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
336:05:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
1655:List of Star Trek movies
1233:lists etc. as it is now.
1040:03:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
1030:01:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
1009:23:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
995:04:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
405:"Love.Angel.Music.Baby"
109:The topic should have a
1251:22:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
1228:13:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
1206:04:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
398:Knowledge:Summary style
193:non-arbitrary groupings
1703:Star Wars lead article
1451:"Several" is how many?
550:OK, that's cool then.
365:Sistine Chapel ceiling
92:Main article criteria?
1662:, if at all possible,
1532:Suitable grace period
1336:Sounds good to me. —
656:series are unrated?
49:of past discussions.
1365:shouldn't matter.
861:History of saffron
763:why only articles?
602:Lead article a FA?
359:were nominated or
1732:
1695:
1587:
1405:
1374:
1308:
1226:
1094:
1035:people shortly.--
1028:
940:
890:
848:
787:
737:
711:
683:
644:
582:
544:
503:
487:
472:
436:
389:arguments being:
374:arguments being:
334:
286:
266:
232:
212:
169:
149:
123:
89:
88:
61:
60:
55:current talk page
22:(Redirected from
1741:
1722:
1685:
1651:Star Trek movies
1619:-type article.--
1607:
1603:
1602:
1577:
1528:
1524:
1523:
1509:User talk:Deckil
1447:
1443:
1442:
1401:
1370:
1298:
1216:
1169:
1165:
1164:
1090:
1058:
1054:
1053:
1018:
978:
974:
973:
930:
880:
844:
783:
759:
755:
754:
735:
701:
673:
640:
598:
594:
593:
572:
534:
501:
483:
458:
426:
367:were nominated.
351:were nominated,
324:
306:
302:
301:
276:
256:
230:
202:
189:
185:
184:
159:
139:
121:
70:
63:
62:
40:
39:
33:
27:
1749:
1748:
1744:
1743:
1742:
1740:
1739:
1738:
1710:Judgesurreal777
1705:
1631:
1613:
1611:Recommendations
1600:
1598:
1566:Judgesurreal777
1539:Judgesurreal777
1534:
1521:
1519:
1453:
1440:
1438:
1183:linked together
1175:
1162:
1160:
1064:
1051:
1049:
984:
971:
969:
765:
752:
750:
604:
591:
589:
312:
299:
297:
195:
182:
180:
94:
66:
37:
29:
28:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1747:
1737:
1736:
1704:
1701:
1700:
1699:
1677:
1676:
1630:
1627:
1612:
1609:
1596:
1595:
1594:
1593:
1592:
1591:
1533:
1530:
1517:
1516:
1515:
1514:
1513:
1512:
1495:
1494:
1493:
1492:
1480:
1479:
1452:
1449:
1436:
1435:
1425:
1424:
1423:
1422:
1421:
1420:
1362:
1361:
1360:
1359:
1358:
1357:
1323:
1322:
1321:
1320:
1319:
1318:
1317:
1316:
1315:
1314:
1313:
1312:
1256:
1255:
1254:
1253:
1237:
1236:
1235:
1234:
1174:
1171:
1158:
1157:
1156:
1155:
1154:
1153:
1134:
1133:
1132:
1131:
1119:
1118:
1117:
1116:
1100:
1099:
1063:
1060:
1047:
1046:
1045:
1044:
1043:
1042:
983:
982:Review process
980:
967:
966:
965:
964:
963:
962:
961:
960:
959:
958:
957:
956:
955:
954:
874:
873:
872:
871:
870:
837:
764:
761:
748:
747:
729:
728:
727:
691:
690:
689:
688:
687:
603:
600:
587:
586:
562:
561:
560:
523:
513:
492:
476:
452:
441:
440:
402:
401:
394:
385:The principal
383:
382:
379:
370:The principal
341:
340:
339:
338:
311:
308:
295:
294:
293:
292:
291:
290:
250:
249:
248:
225:
224:
223:
194:
191:
178:
177:
176:
175:
174:
173:
116:
115:
114:
93:
90:
87:
86:
81:
76:
71:
59:
58:
41:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1746:
1735:
1730:
1726:
1721:
1717:
1716:
1715:
1714:
1711:
1698:
1693:
1689:
1684:
1679:
1678:
1673:
1672:
1671:
1670:
1667:
1663:
1658:
1656:
1652:
1648:
1644:
1640:
1639:Canadian Lynx
1636:
1626:
1625:
1622:
1618:
1608:
1606:
1590:
1585:
1581:
1576:
1572:
1571:
1570:
1567:
1563:
1562:
1561:
1558:
1557:
1554:
1549:
1546:
1545:
1544:
1543:
1540:
1529:
1527:
1511:
1510:
1507:
1501:
1500:
1499:
1498:
1497:
1496:
1491:
1488:
1487:LuciferMorgan
1484:
1483:
1482:
1481:
1478:
1475:
1474:
1471:
1465:
1464:
1463:
1462:
1459:
1448:
1446:
1434:
1431:
1427:
1426:
1419:
1416:
1411:
1410:
1409:
1404:
1399:
1398:Hurricanehink
1394:
1393:
1392:
1389:
1385:
1381:
1380:
1379:
1378:
1373:
1368:
1367:Hurricanehink
1356:
1353:
1349:
1348:
1347:
1344:
1343:
1340:
1335:
1334:
1333:
1330:
1327:candidates.--
1325:
1324:
1311:
1306:
1302:
1297:
1293:
1292:
1291:
1288:
1287:
1284:
1279:
1278:
1277:
1274:
1273:Axem Titanium
1270:
1269:
1268:
1267:
1266:
1265:
1264:
1263:
1262:
1261:
1252:
1249:
1246:
1241:
1240:
1239:
1238:
1231:
1230:
1229:
1224:
1220:
1215:
1210:
1209:
1208:
1207:
1204:
1200:
1196:
1192:
1188:
1184:
1180:
1170:
1168:
1152:
1149:
1144:
1140:
1139:
1138:
1137:
1136:
1135:
1130:
1127:
1123:
1122:
1121:
1120:
1115:
1112:
1108:
1104:
1103:
1102:
1101:
1098:
1093:
1088:
1087:Hurricanehink
1084:
1083:
1082:
1081:
1078:
1074:
1070:
1059:
1057:
1041:
1038:
1033:
1032:
1031:
1026:
1022:
1017:
1012:
1011:
1010:
1007:
1004:
999:
998:
997:
996:
993:
989:
979:
977:
953:
950:
945:
944:
943:
938:
934:
929:
925:
924:
923:
920:
916:
911:
910:
909:
906:
903:
899:
895:
894:
893:
888:
884:
879:
875:
869:
866:
862:
858:
854:
853:
852:
847:
842:
841:Hurricanehink
838:
836:
833:
828:
827:
826:
823:
819:
818:Hurricanehink
815:
811:
807:
804:According to
803:
802:
801:
798:
793:
792:
791:
786:
781:
780:Hurricanehink
776:
775:
774:
773:
770:
760:
758:
746:
742:
738:
730:
726:
723:
720:
716:
715:
714:
709:
705:
700:
696:
692:
686:
681:
677:
672:
668:
664:
663:
662:
659:
655:
650:
649:
648:
643:
638:
637:Hurricanehink
633:
632:
631:
630:
627:
624:
620:
616:
610:
607:
599:
597:
585:
580:
576:
571:
567:
563:
559:
556:
553:
549:
548:
547:
542:
538:
533:
529:
524:
522:
519:
514:
512:
508:
504:
497:
493:
491:
486:
481:
480:Hurricanehink
477:
475:
470:
466:
462:
457:
453:
451:
448:
443:
442:
439:
434:
430:
425:
421:
420:
419:
418:
415:
412:
408:
399:
395:
392:
391:
390:
388:
380:
377:
376:
375:
373:
368:
366:
362:
358:
354:
353:Douglas Adams
350:
349:Sgt. Pepper's
346:
337:
332:
328:
323:
319:
316:
315:
314:
313:
307:
305:
289:
284:
280:
275:
271:
270:
269:
264:
260:
255:
251:
246:
245:
243:
242:
241:
237:
233:
226:
221:
220:
218:
217:
216:
215:
210:
206:
201:
190:
188:
172:
167:
163:
158:
154:
153:
152:
147:
143:
138:
134:
133:
132:
128:
124:
117:
112:
108:
107:
105:
104:
103:
102:
99:
85:
82:
80:
77:
75:
72:
69:
65:
64:
56:
52:
48:
47:
42:
35:
34:
25:
19:
1720:Arctic Gnome
1706:
1683:Arctic Gnome
1661:
1659:
1632:
1614:
1604:
1597:
1575:Arctic Gnome
1551:
1547:
1535:
1525:
1518:
1504:
1468:
1454:
1444:
1437:
1383:
1363:
1337:
1296:Arctic Gnome
1281:
1259:
1257:
1214:Arctic Gnome
1182:
1176:
1166:
1159:
1142:
1072:
1065:
1055:
1048:
1016:Arctic Gnome
985:
975:
968:
928:Arctic Gnome
914:
878:Arctic Gnome
766:
756:
749:
699:Arctic Gnome
694:
671:Arctic Gnome
611:
608:
605:
595:
588:
570:Arctic Gnome
565:
532:Arctic Gnome
527:
495:
456:TonyTheTiger
424:Arctic Gnome
403:
386:
384:
371:
369:
361:Michelangelo
342:
322:Arctic Gnome
317:
303:
296:
274:Arctic Gnome
254:Arctic Gnome
200:Arctic Gnome
196:
186:
179:
157:Arctic Gnome
137:Arctic Gnome
111:lead article
110:
98:Arctic Gnome
95:
67:
50:
44:
1629:Criterion 2
1173:Criterion 4
1107:Kuiper belt
1073:in addition
915:only linked
863:articles.
566:not include
345:The Beatles
43:This is an
1203:ShadowHalo
1143:completely
865:ShadowHalo
832:ShadowHalo
797:ShadowHalo
658:ShadowHalo
447:ShadowHalo
1657:article?
1548:Star Wars
1456:number?--
84:Archive 4
79:Archive 3
74:Archive 2
68:Archive 1
1729:contribs
1692:contribs
1584:contribs
1305:contribs
1258:ler|er]]
1223:contribs
1025:contribs
937:contribs
887:contribs
708:contribs
680:contribs
579:contribs
541:contribs
433:contribs
331:contribs
283:contribs
263:contribs
209:contribs
166:contribs
146:contribs
1666:Circeus
1643:Felidae
1553:Deckill
1506:Deckill
1470:Deckill
1339:Deckill
1283:Deckill
1146:mark.--
1126:Circeus
919:Amit il
898:Saffron
857:Saffron
822:Amit il
814:saffron
769:Amit il
667:WP:FTRC
615:Saffron
46:archive
1621:Pharos
1458:Pharos
1430:Pharos
1415:Pharos
1388:Pharos
1352:Pharos
1329:Pharos
1148:Pharos
1111:Pharos
1077:Pharos
1037:Pharos
992:Pharos
695:should
1413:it.--
1245:Witty
1003:Witty
949:PresN
902:Witty
719:Witty
623:Witty
552:Witty
518:PresN
411:Witty
16:<
1725:talk
1688:talk
1605:Done
1580:talk
1526:Done
1445:Done
1403:talk
1384:some
1372:talk
1301:talk
1248:Lama
1219:talk
1167:Done
1092:talk
1056:Done
1021:talk
1006:Lama
976:Done
933:talk
913:are
905:lama
883:talk
859:and
846:talk
785:talk
757:Done
741:talk
722:lama
704:talk
676:talk
642:talk
626:lama
596:Done
575:talk
555:lama
537:talk
507:talk
485:talk
465:cont
461:talk
429:talk
414:lama
407:here
327:talk
304:Done
279:talk
259:talk
236:talk
205:talk
187:Done
162:talk
142:talk
127:talk
1653:or
1645:or
734:Tom
528:not
500:Tom
496:not
469:bio
409:.
387:con
372:pro
363:if
355:if
347:if
229:Tom
120:Tom
1727:•
1690:•
1582:•
1556:er
1473:er
1406:)
1375:)
1342:er
1303:•
1286:er
1221:•
1095:)
1023:•
1014:--
935:•
885:•
849:)
788:)
743:)
736:pw
706:•
678:•
645:)
577:•
539:•
509:)
502:pw
488:)
431:•
400:).
329:•
320:--
281:•
261:•
252:--
238:)
231:pw
207:•
198:--
164:•
144:•
129:)
122:pw
1731:)
1723:(
1694:)
1686:(
1586:)
1578:(
1400:(
1369:(
1307:)
1299:(
1225:)
1217:(
1089:(
1027:)
1019:(
939:)
931:(
889:)
881:(
843:(
782:(
739:(
710:)
702:(
682:)
674:(
639:(
581:)
573:(
543:)
535:(
505:(
482:(
471:)
467:/
463:/
459:(
435:)
427:(
333:)
325:(
285:)
277:(
265:)
257:(
234:(
211:)
203:(
168:)
160:(
148:)
140:(
125:(
57:.
26:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.