Knowledge talk:Featured topics/Archive 2

343:. My main conclusion is that vertical looks better when you have only a few articles (with short article names), particularly when the associated image is large. Of the four exmaples on my userpage, I think the Star Wars works a lot better on horizontal (it avoid the line breaks in the middle of article names); the Final Fantasy works well in both modes; the Halloween looks terrible in horizontal due to huge amount of whitespace (greenspace?); and the Solar system works better in horizontal mode when the image is small enough to keep everything on one line, as there's too much greenspace on the vertical. 196:, and the other wikiprojects for the various EU countries to all work together and try and get all of the countires in the EU as FA's. Or even all the countries then also all the articles linked as "Main article" from those articles. The same could be done for countries in Africa. Basically, this wikiprject is really redundant if it only works with or on one wikiproject at a time. We should work on ways of finding where active groups of editors who are not coordinating are working on related topics and try and get them to focus on a small grup of related articles. 1032:

territory is so new. By meeting all of the FL requirements, that list would easily be GA or A if such rankings were allowed for lists. I think similar arguments could be made for all topics with the possible exception of FFX and Halloween. That being said, I wouldn't mind adding the qualifier "most if not all" to the requirement, but the existing requirement was a compromise with the people who wanted all member articles to be FA. I don't think that crowd would be happy with a lowering of the requirements. --

1004:

Because of this, a topic's most important articles can technically languish in GA status while editors struggle to get minor parts of the topic up to GA to make it a Featured topic. Wouldn't it be better if we linked the required state of the article directly to its importance? Perrhaps it's just in my particular area of expertise (ancient history), but it seems that in every topic, there will be articles with so little data on them that it's impractical to make them GA's, but the topic itself won't suffer.

31: 2684: 2524: 2514: 2063: 2051: 2038: 1985: 1973: 1958: 1946: 1934: 1238: 1227: 1213: 1202: 1116: 2657: 2568: 2544: 2534: 2075: 1908: 1252: 1122: 2667: 1920: 472:

there is something in the way (such as an infobox), the topic is too big (e.g. any topic coverign all states of the US) or the articles' names too long (Star Wars). For (4), I would say go for a portal style sub-page.... a bit introducing / explaining the topic, the articles included in the Featured Topic (using either the vertical or horizonta box), plus potentially links to related material.

1053:"good list" criteria, it would fail with the one non-FL. Halloween is missing Halloween Film Series, Star Wars is missing Episode 6, and Final Fantasy Titles is missing 2,3,11 and 12. There's a mismatch between the existing standards as written and as as used, and I think the solution is, if not to lower the standards, then to at least allow some more flexibility into the process. -- 560:, and if you look there, you'll see the various options. (The page doesn't include the GA or FA icons; this is just me not including them to see what it would look like without, not me proposing they be abolished). It may that the image thing is a bad idea, in which case it can easily dropped or made optional. 3244:

We could break in into the broad groupings of "entertainment" (6 topics), "science" (5 topics), and "social studies" (2 topics). However, I don't think that it will be necessary until we have a few more topics, maybe around 25. You can find an experiment of mine with categories way back in the edit

2699:

In that case, perhaps we could just change the wording to "every article in the topic is a featured article or featured list (with any limited subject matter items audited individually)" or something to that effect (or perhaps this could go in a footnote). This would be in keeping with the exemption

2286:

Top-level topics like "scouting" are tricky. If you included all of the articles that branch off of the section headings in the main article you should be fine. However, you might find it easier to nominate a few smaller topics, such as "national scouting organizations" or "levels of the Boy Scouts

1411:

That wasn't my point... there are GAs on many wikiprojects (e.g. Maths) that wouldn't get A-Class, because they hold A-Class as being a higher standard than GA. (Though I expect some are the other way round). Anyway, I feel it is imnportant to indicate that articles which aren't GA or FA are still of

1031:

I think you are underestimating the quality of the articles without a star or disk; many of them are GA or A quality. The Canadian Elections topic, for example, is only missing Nunavut from being all featured. The Nunavut article meets all of the FL requirements, but is too short simply because the

630:

I like it. I also like just having the stars on fully featured topics rather than having FA stars all over the place. The images are nice, though not a big deal. I would also like the article counts to be included (maybe on the far-left of the header), because without them it would be a big hassle

426:

and put something like these box designs on each category page to indicate which articles in the category are part of the featured topic. If we went that route I might even suggest changing the name to 'featured categories'... while anyone could still add new pages to a category the 'featured' box on

96:

The topics that would be most useful as featured topics are all ones that probably have wikiprojects dedicated to them. I could imagine Featured topics such as all articles on currently functioning governments "The government of ....", or "The constitution of .....". Like with the Knowledge 0.5 and

3283:

is broken for the newer featured lists as they do not have redirects from the old "boxes" link schema. I've gone ahead and made the change and removed "boxes" from the link. Have all the pages been moved to their new locations? Are there any other spots that might need fixed up that anyone knows of?

2085:

I did not check the GA's but I suspect there are enough Scoutning related GAs that it woudl make an impressive addition but again we come back to the "obvious gap" problem. So what is the standard for relatedness and should we just aim for getting smaller batches of featured topics for now and wait

1760:

I've thought a bit about that myself. If you wanted to break something into subtopics, you would have to do so in a way that was not arbitrary, and that made your subtopic a unified subject that would be worth researching on its own as a group. A good rule of thumb would be to ask yourself whether

2752:

So far we have only one item that meets this criterion, so it's hard to make general statements, but more information becoming available would be quite a long-term process (consider Nunavut, which I don't think is holding another election till 2009). The short article checkmark should of course be

2453:

Because the Featured Topic is a somewhat nebulous concept, we currently don't have individual project pages where one can specifically discuss, say, how to make ensure that the topic stays featured, how to make additions to the topic, how to improve the GAs to FAs etc. I suggest that we start such

1995:

In both of these cases there are a lot of related articles that could be included. With the mini several of the other modles mentioned in the table at the bottom all redirect to the same place. Should they all have individual articles before FT is a option? How related does an article have to be

1608:

There is thechnically no lower bound on article length for FA status, it just have to be comprehensive. As to the naming Objects in a system are named starting with a for the star and then proceeding based on when they are discovered (not based on proximity to the star). In a binary system one of

1598:

For the same reason there's no planet b, c, or d- the star is Upsilon a, and the planets are Upsilons b, c, and d, as in objects in the Upsilon system a, b, c, and d. I guess everything gets lettered before they figure out what's a star and what's not. I could be wrong though, I'm not an astonomer

1577:

I almost submitted this one, before realizing that it fails the criteria 5, i.e. that at least some of the articles are FA class. All 4 are GA though, so if anyone feels like pumping one up (probably the main article, no?) I think the topic would pass. I'm going to talk to WP Astronomy about it.

1125:

stars were removed. Is this part of the new layout decision, or was it just someone couldn't be bothered to add them back in? Please let me know if there is any rationale not to have them, otherwise if I don't hear from anyone I'll add them back in. I find them extremely important to have because a

1021:

I propose that we change the reqs to say that "most, if not all" articles should be GAs or FAs, especially the most important articles in the series. Especially since we actually only have 2 topics that fulfill the current requirement. Even the Canada Elections one would fail, and it has 14 FAs!

581:

It looks nice, but there's a problem. We can't use fair use images outside of the article itself. There might be some free use images hidden in those film and game articles, but we certainly can't use the logos. Also, shouldn't it be in alphabitical order? It seems odd to have the FF series and the

471:

For (1), I think horizontal is the way to go (in a full-width version). For (2), either could work, depending exactly how things are laid out. (Vertical in a column under Portals would work, as would horizontal under pictures or lists. For (3), I would say the default should be the vertical, unless

235:

In some cases a B-class can be acceptable, such as in cases where a member article is on too narrow a subject to ever get featured. Most of the time, however, you’re right, B’s shouldn’t be here. Most of the featured topics passed before B-class articles became less acceptable. In time they will

2934:

Some have expressed reservation that the Simpsons topic had one non-GA article, but now it is taken care of. However, Topics: Solar System, Michigan State University and Canadian Elections all have an article that are below standard, so I suggest that those topics be given until 1 January, 2008 to

2307:

I agree though I think in such a case (espcially this one scouting) even if the topic nominated is the boy scouts of america as the lead the article on scouting shoudl be in the topic. There is no reas that an article cant be in multiple topics even if it coudl eventually be the lead article in a

1052:

I completely understand why the reqs are the way they are, I was there at the time, but my concern is that the way that the requirement is written, technically the only FTs we have that meet the criteria are Saffron and Retired Pacific Hurricanes. Canada elections has 14 Fls, but since there's no

3170:

Maybe we should come up with some standards of in what order articles appear in the topic boxes. Right now we have a few different standards: alphabetical, release date, track number, distance from the Sun. There could be more even more; for example, most list of Canadian provinces, like in the

1742:

was a featured topic would it be wrong to just propose the first 10, or the 10 most recent, and clarify that in the nomination? We haven't run into this problem, yet, but I thought I'd bring it up. If we do it that way, it wouldn't lower the criteria any. Supplementary nominations could simply be

1011:

and thus even having a good B article makes our comprehensiveness better than the best professional encyclopedias already. Thus, I believe the less important corners of a topic don't necesarrily need to be GA's to be comprehensive. Now, on the flip side, Hatshepsut, Akhenaten, and Tutankhamun are

2680:

Yes, I do agree that it looks a little strange with the "-" next to the nunavut timeline, especially given it's an "A class" article. But the point still remains that the whole set is NOT FA's. Is there absolutely no way that we can get the remaining article to FA?? I don't think we should just

2180:

With regard to the ratings... it is not required that evry article has FA or GA status. However, any articles that don't must have A-class status, including proper referncing, and they will checked by the reviwers. However, it is easier to find an approprate wikiproject and let them sort it out.

1450:

I disagree with putting in the "A" picture- while some projects use it as higher than GA, many projects don't use it at all, and technically you don't need to be GA-class first before A-class. As a result, A-class means something different on every single article. As there is no wikipedia-wide

1156:

I think there should be some way of looking at the completeness of each topic, but I'm opposed to putting back the stars like they were before. The new layout is very neat, and I think those stars would make it too cluttered. Maybe we can think of another way of showing the number of FAs. For

1006:

For example, if I tried to get my pet project, the 18th dynasty of ancient Egypt, to be a featured topic, I would just have to shape up Thutmose II, III, IV, and Amenhotep II and II, and Aye to be GA's, and a few of them FAs. However, even the most exhaustive of specialist encyclopedias on Egypt

2983:

January 2008 seems quite reasonable (perhaps even more than reasonable). At some point we're gonna need a standard for when good/featured articles are demoted too, and in that case one would think the allotted restoration time should probably be something less than a year (probably more like a

1493:

Yes, well, that's a ranking page. GA and FA are used by that system, however they are both also independant of it. And if there's been uproar about how easily an article can get GA, think how bad it would be if we started using a ranking that someone can just go and tag on without any criteria

1078:

Can you think of a way to phrase that as official criteria that we can quote in FTC debates? You argument makes a lot of sense, but it seems like it would be hard to make a policy out of it. Everyone would have a different idea about how important a given article is relative to its quality.

1003:

and not merely a collection of articles, the topic's more trivial corners don't necesarrily need to have exemplary articles, just sufficient articles such that the comprehensiveness of data on the topic does not suffer. Currently, a featured topic only needs GA's and some FA's indiscriminatly.

752:

observation is that it might be easier to have templates for each topic's box and just make the tag on the talk page something like {{FTbox|Saffron}} with the word "Saffron" refering to {{Knowledge:Featured topics/boxes/Saffron}}. Such templates could also have other uses at some point.

2166:

If someone who knows a bit about the topic in question can point out a gap after less than five seconds thought, then the gap is an obvious one. That's rather subjective though... I think the most useful thing is to go through the topics main article and ensure any article linked using

179:

Mostly I was thinking that this project might server as a way to start a drive for some topics by finding a topic that overlaps several wikiprojects then trying to get them to coordinate for a week or a month on a small set of overlaping articles. We could for example try and get

2606:

Would there be any opposition to my moving the FTs from Knowledge:Featured topics/boxes/X to Knowledge:Featured topics/X and setting them up as little projects on the talk pages? I think these projects have to develop some sort of "working definition" of the scope of each topic,

1012:

currently GA's, and under current rules, that's just fine. However, it would be an atrocity if these, among the most important of all figures during the dynasty, were not required to be FA's. Basically, we should link importance more explicitly with required classification.

1588:

The articles are well-referenced and well-written, and they share a common format. However, the main article is way too short; for an article about two stars and a system, you should be able to make it long enough to be featured. By the way, why is there no planet "a"?

255:

There have been a lot of users arguing that FTs need minimum standards. Many were arguing for all member articles to be featured, which seems like a bit too much IMO. As a compromise, we have to say that B-class articles are not good enough without a reasonable excuse.

329:

I didn't have nav-boxes in mind when designing them, I was thinking more along the lines of the boxes used in Portals and the WP:FC page. I guess I could make a horizontal variant, but I figured that vertical would be better since the items in the boxes form lists.

3210:

Forgive me if this has been brought up before, but perhaps we finally have enough featured topics to create headings of specific subjects to place them under so that the list is more organized? What would probably work best is simple headings like on the list at

2949:

is concerned, it is an "A Class" article which is technically above GA status, so it certainly shouldn't be seen as a liability. The only reason that it isn't an FA is that there are no sources for it and it is too short (due to recent existance of the topic).

1737:

recommends to break it up into smaller lists, but for items in a series it should be the entire series. However, that becomes impractical and quite difficult to get all of them ready. However, what if the series could get broken up by number? For example, if

3407:

How did something with articles on one album and two songs become from a band become FT? FTs should not have obvious gaps. What about their (Slayer's) musicology, band membership, other albums, etc? What a joke. Even limiting it to one album is a stretch.

245:

Don't get me wrong, I'm fine with it. But I think the rules need to be tweaked a little. Perfection across the board is very hard to reach. I think any given topic of less than 20 articles that has at least three featured has done an impressive amount of

3418:

If the topic is "The album 'Christ Illusion' and associated singles", then what are the obvious gaps? If there are any please say so, but everything you've listed here is outside of the given topic- the topic isn't "everything associated with Slayer".

3392:

The reason I ask is because while those are all of Wilco's studio albums, it doesn't include their live album, EPs, singles, or collaborations with other artists. Would I have to get another album to FA and submit the topic as Category:Wilco albums?

1068:

I'll suggest it again, we should directly tie required quality to topical importance. That'll allow the kind of flexability required to make comprehensive topics. I'm not sure how that would look, but I believe that is the right road to travel down.

2962:

The FT criteria allow articles that are not GA or FA in special circumstances, but I think the Canadian elections topic is the only one that can take advantage of it right now. Getting the other ones to GA status by 2008 sounds reasonable.

1761:

a main article could be written about the nominated group. In the case of US Presidents, I don't think that "the first 10" would work; it's too arbitrary and we wouldn't make a main article just about those ten individuals as a group. You

591:

You're absolutely right about the images. If the proposal gets implemented, then non fair use ones would have to be used (or no image at all). The order on the page was just the order I create things... I have re-ordered it alphabetically.

141:

is a very strong, active Project, with a gazillion FAs and a strong internal review process - have you approached them to inquire if they have any groupings of articles that might form a featured topic? And how about all of the FAs

3316:

Yeah, I took care of all the talk page templates when we did the changeover. Sorry the Knowledge:Featured content didn't occur to me, but it works by a mechanism rather thank directly linking, so it didn't show up in 'What links

1834:

I'm putting together a couple of possible candidates for FT for the Scouting WikiProject, and come up with a question that I can't find the answer to at the moment - are categories allowed in FT, or is it just articles and lists?

3192:

Eh, each topic is so different that it would be hard to come up with one rule for all of them. I'm fine with just ordering them in whatever way makes sense, and if anyone disagrees, discussing it on the associated talk page.

1503:

Yeah, if that page counts as a Knowledge-wide A-class rating system, then it also counts as a GA-class and FA-class ranking system. it's just a guideline telling you what it should look like, there's no reviewing involved.

946:

I don't know if anyone brought it up, but maybe the criteria could be that all articles covered in a topic must be GA or better. That way people will start looking at groups and bringing them up to a well defined level of

921:? It needs a bit of work, but it might do the job. Then again, it would probably be better to just scrap the template-in-template idea and design a nice tan template from scratch. We can leave the boxes for portals. -- 1901:

So I have found a few small clusters of FAs that I think will eventually end up here but I was wonering what the standard for completness was when trying to decide what articles belong in a topic? Several examples are:

792:

I agree the orange and green look bloody hideous togther, but I think we're stuck with it (short of changing the FT colour). I like the idea of using a sub-page... will work on it. I'll also try assemble a small verion.

1336:

I have added the FA/GAstar templates back in and implemented the layout I suggested above. — (As an aside, I am disappointed with Final Fantasy X — with so many of them not even GA, how can the topic be featured?) —

998:

I'm not sure that GA or better is necesarrily the way to go... As I have said before, there is an extreme disparity between B class and GA class articles. B is anything better than just a start. If we're featuring a

436:

I also thought about sub pages as a main link. I don't think we could use categories as the main link because new users would add articles to the category without knowing that the pages have to be nominated first.

3457:) but it does not say that this has to be FA status. Rule 3 states that there should be about a 1/3 of articles which are FA, and the rest GA. So as long as List of Final Fantasy media is GA status then it is fine. 3006:

Remember that lists can't become Good Articles. I think that it should not be an absolute requirement that all articles be GA/FA/FL. However, I support the idea that it should be an exception, rather than the norm.

2664:) is not featurable due to limited subject matter. Perhaps we could adjust the requirements for the "all-featured" status to take this into account. Maybe we could even give the certified-complete short articles 822:, to match the color scheme in use throughout most of the top level pages. I'll try to make it a more concise proposal, and submit it for approval to each of the sub-featured pages. Pls reply in that thread. — 1429:

I agree with User:Thanatosimii. An A-class article is one that is almost ready to be nominated for FA status; by definition it must therefore be a GA and can get a GA disk quickly and without any trouble.

1401:

Not necesarrily... GA is absorbed into the grading scheme used by many wikiprojects, but it quite predates that. GA articles which are rated as A class can still use the GA symbol, since they still are GA.

3234:

One day we will, and the page will be very pretty, but I'm at a loss as how to categorize 13 FT's into sections that are all but 2 single-FT sections. If anyone has any suggestions I'm all ears, though.

2492:

Yeah, that would be good for me, but I'm not sure why we would want to classify a page with "/boxes" in the title, if the content is going to be more project-oriented. Perhaps we could move those pages.--

2007:

but it did not really give that insight on how to go about deciding on comprehensivness. I would think in this case we would need to improve the following all to A class articles before it could be a FT:

362:

I agree. The horizontal ones can all be the same size, so they would be good for the WP:FC page. Even on the small topics the wide ones look okay. The tall ones we can keep as an option for portals.

91: 895:

On second thought, might it be a bad idea to make a talk page tag that is a different colour from all the other tags in use? I like the design, but can we justify being different from the standard? --

2649: 3171:

election timelines, normally go from one coast to the other rather than alphabetically. We could either make all topics alphabetical or come up with a few standard models for them to follow. --

1896: 2732:

My worry is that as time goes by and more information becomes available on a short article, how do we decide whether to make a topic loose its topic-star until the small article is promoted? --

1812: 529:, that isn't a bad idea, but I'm not sure if there will always be someone to write the mini-portal for each topic. It might be better to keep the gateways as just the list of articles. For 1126:"featured topic" should have an active drive towards getting all its contained articles to featured article status, and this is easiest if you can see at a glance which ones are missing. — 1743:

tacked on. Keeping the example of Presidents of the United States, the first 10 could be a featured topic, then once the next 10 are ready they could be added to the same topic. Comments?

2705: 1647:

The topic will probably still be featured status, they don't all have to be featured; but if the change has significantly lowered the status of the overall topic, it should be listed at

1518: 3150:

I've now created a project page for each of the current FTs. You can easily access these by clicking on the asterisk now in the header of each FT box. For example, the first one is

414:

to a similar question on the FC talk page. I really think we need to find a way to have a single link to a consistently designed page for each featured topic - for use on things like

105: 97:

1.0 efforts it strikes me that working through the other wikiprojects and using this page as a stagging point track who has the most momentum or potential is probably the best idea.

1378:

My only concern isthat it makes A-Class articles appear inferior to the other articles in the topic, when in fact A-Class is generally considered superior to GA... I suggest putting

156:) has put through recently in the realm of Biology and Enzymes - perhaps some of them form a group - if they don't, I'll bet he'll make one - he turns out a couple of FAs a month. 2779: 2094: 418:. Note that this now shows FTs by linking to just the 'top article'... which does nothing to define the scope of the topic. In the comment linked above I suggested sub-pages like 2704:#6 in that, despite a list that is unfeaturable due to length only, this should still be considered a "perfect" featured topic, and deserves recognition as such. If you look at 1871:

The one category that is presently part of a topic is from one of the older topics and has be grandfathered in. Eventually, it will have to find a main article or face FTRC. --

2674: 3443:. The topic thus doesn't meet the FT criteria anymore. How much time do we have to improve the main article back to Featured List status before the topic risks being demoted? 1145:

Also, is there some way to fix the boxes so that the text is centered regardless of whether there's a picture or not? The Saffron topic in particular looks off balanced. --

3554: 3151: 2830: 1187: 847: 2985: 1706: 850:- includes small-style support, backwards compatavility (so the FT box is included by default). The FT box itself stored on a subpage. I think all bases have been covered. 3558: 509: 979:

A few got in before that requirement was nailed down. They'll be taken off/fixed eventually, but right now we'd like to at least have something on the page, you know? --

3662:

I said I'd do it when we got to 25, and now we have (though four of them will soon be up for FTRC). I've divided it into entertainment, science, and social studies. --

3549: 2939: 501:, we don't need to put this in the member pages since as a requirement of being featured, they already have to be well-linked together. It could, however, be useful in 2917:

I was thinking like Indian Independence movement and include the main players like Gandhi, Jinnah and the movement and resultant countries. atleast half a dozen there.

3105: 1674: 1527: 448:

I agree that categories aren't the way forward, and that there is a need for a page for the topic itself. So, there are several seperate requirements going on here:

519: 2611: 2462: 3677: 2957: 1796: 1780: 3070: 2601: 1327: 1094: 168: 132: 3447: 1720: 918: 834: 441: 431: 312:

Nice work :-) However, I'm not sure if the vertical box look is the way to go... I'm more inclined towards a horizontal style nav-box that goes at the bottom.

3288: 2978: 2246:

The ratings criteria has the caveat "except where achieving such a class is impossible." However, I agree that its odd that three of the five articles in the

674:

is a Curious Cat..." :-) anyway, done. For good mesaure, I've made sure the title is centre aligned, regardless of whether or not there's an FT star present.

640:

I've simplified how the title is done, so that one can have anything you want. The Star Wars cat link is now done along the same lines as the exsisting page.

260: 250: 240: 3481: 3001: 2448: 493:

I agree, full-width horizontal. Although we have to have a separate discussion about whether it's a good idea to change from the existing list-format. For

236:

have to be either listed for review or improved, but I think most editors have been allowing small inconsistencies while this project takes time to grow. --

3026: 2883: 1666: 783: 3490: 3309: 2851: 770: 3733: 3125: 3115: 2992: 2906: 2765: 2747: 2641: 2496: 2487: 2409: 1819: 1073: 1016: 974: 3423: 3260: 3197: 3046: 2929: 2418: 1886: 1754: 1603: 1593: 1508: 1498: 1488: 1455: 1445: 1424: 1406: 1396: 1365: 1341: 1161: 1057: 1047: 1026: 925: 912: 899: 841: 757: 686: 665: 652: 635: 537: 484: 399: 390: 367: 357: 334: 324: 3135: 2869: 2727: 2712: 2694: 2340: 2316: 2302: 2120: 965: 229: 115: 3718:

As impressive as a full series of featured portals is, I think that featured topics is for encyclopedia content (as opposed to navigational tools). --

3532: 3514: 3215:, but perhaps "topics of topics" could be created to encourage the improvement of general articles and coordination between related featured topics. — 604: 586: 277: 2593:

All that is a way of saying "yea I think starting a project for each topic is a good idea". It sure would give these sorts of things a proper place.

1866: 1318: 710: 575: 3431: 3321: 3128:). The problem however, is that it has recently been delisted as a GA. So, we don't need to find a lead article, it just has to get up to standard. 2997:

I would say, 3-4 months like you said, a quarter should be more than enough time, even if there are edit wars and other things to take into account.

2921: 2269: 2153: 2136: 890: 873: 826: 3084: 3270: 3239: 2859: 2823: 2621: 983: 951: 722:

Should the FT box used on this page be included on the talk page of the topic's articles? (specifically, within the FT messagebox). Have a look at

3186: 1149: 1140: 862: 805: 621: 3656: 2222: 2193: 1949: 1617: 1473: 3631: 2112: 1157:

example, we could make the parameter that adds the FT icon to the upper left corner optionally add a regular FA icon with the number of FAs. --

204: 3440: 1961: 1130: 3077: 2458:

etc., so that we can better maintain and improve our FTs. We could link to these project pages from an asterisk in the FT box, for example.--

2372: 2104:

topic except the two FA's seem to be unassessed. Is this allowed? It would make creating a scoutning featured topic pretty easy to justify.

631:

to double-check the totals on WP:FT. I would also kind of like the Star Wars category to not be linked in the same way that articles are. --

1844: 193: 3712: 2469: 1256: 212: 3412: 3158: 3565: 3228: 2836:

If you're up to it, the lead article would have to be improved to GA status, as would Maldives and Sri Lanka. The topic should be called

2078: 1854:, "A featured topic is a collection of articles". Categoriesare not articles, so are not eligable. (Lists are a special type of article) 1808: 738: 3245:

history, but when we have enough topics to make categories worth while we'll come to a consensus about how to lay out the new page. --

2394:

The topic covers the history, usage, and biology of the plant. What else would you like to know about it to make it more complete? --

1683:. This way if we change one, we won't forget to change the other. As templates, we can use the boxes in other places, such as on the 1231: 1217: 547: 221:

states? They all contain B class or lower articles in them, which the guidelines specifically state aren't allowed (This includes the

3453:

If you actually read the criteria, Rule 2 states "The topic has an introductory and summary lead article." (which in your case it is

2935:

get those articles into GA status, therefore giving them time to work, but also finally closing this last quality gap for the topic.

415: 3622: 3397: 3610: 1267: 941: 306: 81: 76: 71: 59: 2441: 2414:

Yeah, go look, there's not anything else out there having to do with saffron. It's just not the most complicated topic ever. --

2253: 2181:(Everything still gets checked, but its good to have an independent, knowledgable group or person say the article is top-notch). 1283: 1206: 1582: 2455: 2388: 2322: 2013: 1641: 878:

Thank-you :-) Though most of the ideas (and especially the colour scheme) were Arctic Gnome's... anyone opposed to using this?

138: 748:

jumped out when seeing your demos was the colour contrast between FC orange and TF green. They look pretty bad together. My

1728: 2003:

has 36 articles and 13 sub-categories, what is the correct method for selecting a sub-topic in such a situation? I read the

3473: 671: 395:

That would be interesting. It would make this page a bit more colourful than of the other FC projects. It might work. --

218: 185: 776: 411: 3645:

has its sounds divided with half of the number of Featured topics, what about organizing the topics into sub-sections? --

1937: 1108: 2761:

against the criteria and one day — perhaps January 2008 —this will be thoroughly enforced for the legacy FTs as well).--

2708:, it really does seem that the issue is just that it's a new territory and there haven't been many elections held yet.-- 3728: 3672: 3304: 3255: 3181: 3100: 3041: 2973: 2742: 2636: 2482: 2404: 2367: 2335: 2297: 2066: 2028:). However, would that be enough? There are a lot of other articles that could be included under the main ariticle of 2021: 2009: 1925: 1881: 1775: 1701: 1661: 1440: 1360: 1313: 1089: 1042: 811: 3294:

I thought I found all of the pages and templates that linked to the /box pages, but I guess I missed at least one. --

111:

Turning their work into featured topics should be a goal for the wikiprojects. If only they knew that we existed. --

3063: 2946: 2701: 2661: 2017: 2004: 1851: 1734: 1684: 419: 2145:

Thanks, so I guess that is the answer to my question. Fine an approprate wikiproject and let them sort it out. :)

3616: 2210:

Regarding the ratings and your comments match wat is on the page decsribing the requirments, I have to ask why the

1242: 153: 3165: 2265: 299: 181: 345:

Anyway, I see no reason why we can't use both modes, according to which suits the particular topic list better.

3683: 3542: 2000: 189: 47: 17: 3636: 3591: 3145: 3021: 1829: 905: 3581: 3205: 2325:

we are now having a talk about whether to include "higher level" articles within a sub-article's topic. --

717: 3454: 3436: 2384:

How on earth can a topic with a whopping 3 articles be considered complete and without gaps? ie, saffron.

2352: 2124: 1295: 340: 609:

OK, template now supports having no image, and all fair use ones have been removed. Any other comments?

3280: 3272: 819: 726:

to get some idea of what it would look like. I'm not really sure if it's worth doing or not, in truth.

723: 553: 38: 3642: 2683: 2666: 2247: 2211: 2101: 2025: 1811:, a conventional periodization of American politics. Perhaps the main articles could be of the form 427:

the category page would define those which make up a consistent and well written 'featured' group. --

375: 657:

Oops, I meant to have article counts on the right and stars on the left. Switch those around and I

497:, I agree, either works. Leave that up to the people organizing the layout of the WP:FC page. For 3572: 3468: 533:, portals, we should leave the vertical versions open even if we don't use it here or on WP:FC. -- 3334:

Hey, I have a question about a featured topic candidate that I may be able to submit soon. All of

1167:

Well how about arranging the articles in a list rather than flowing text with bullets in between:

3651: 3402: 2846: 2523: 2513: 2062: 2050: 2037: 1984: 1972: 1957: 1945: 1933: 1791: 1749: 1237: 1226: 1212: 1201: 1115: 298:

pages. I'm not sure if we will ever need these, but I'd like to see what people think of them.

3439:

has recently been demoted from its Featured List status. However, it is the main article of the

908:, unfortunately, and this would be the only one on all of wikipedia that's a different color. -- 3724: 3668: 3329: 3300: 3251: 3177: 3096: 3037: 2969: 2738: 2632: 2478: 2400: 2363: 2331: 2293: 2054: 1877: 1771: 1697: 1657: 1436: 1356: 1309: 1085: 1038: 164: 128: 2029: 1911: 1765:

however, nominate a subtopic like "War-time US Presidents" or "Republican US Presidents". --

1717: 970:

Looking at the front side of this page, it doesn't seem that requirement is being followed.--

744:

I had the same idea for the talk pages, and I think it makes a lot of sense. The thing that

428: 2656: 2119:

This is related to a discussion which we are currently having in the Scouting WikiProject -

1384:

where the GA/FA star would go for A-Class. See Star Wars episodes box above for an example.

3526: 3508: 3132: 3090:

We should also give the Star Wars topic the same deadline to get itself a main article. --

2998: 2986:

Knowledge talk:Featured topics#'Canadian_election_timelines' deserves the all-featured icon

2954: 2936: 2879: 2866: 2753:

subject to review like everything else, perhaps on a regular (annual) basis or through the

2691: 2517: 2434: 1785:

Hmm, I had forgotten about the requirement for main article. Alright, that works, I guess.

1569: 1565: 1561: 1534: 147: 3344:, which is next on my list) have been improved to GA status, and their most recent album, 2468:

Right now, links in talk pages of FTs and on the FC page link to the topic's box, such as

8: 3461: 2261: 2132: 1840: 557: 3646: 2904: 2841: 2723:

If there are no objections, I'm going to try to implement this in the next day or so.--

2428: 2379: 1786: 1744: 1555: 904:

I oppose the color change as well for talk page templates- that bland tan color is the

3719: 3663: 3409: 3351: 3295: 3246: 3172: 3091: 3032: 3031:

This is why I label lists that are referenced and accurate but not FL as A-class. --

2964: 2733: 2627: 2473: 2395: 2358: 2326: 2288: 2123:- I think we are reaching a consensus on topics and which articles to be included... 1872: 1766: 1692: 1652: 1590: 1495: 1431: 1403: 1351: 1324: 1304: 1158: 1080: 1070: 1033: 1013: 962: 922: 896: 838: 767: 754: 662: 632: 534: 438: 396: 364: 331: 303: 257: 237: 157: 121: 112: 3222: 1629: 423: 289: 2032:. Even worse if we broaden things a little we get a few more FAs for the scouts: 1637:

What happens if one of the articles in a Featured topic loses FA or GA status? --

3521: 3503: 3129: 3015: 2951: 2875: 2863: 2688: 2189: 1862: 1484: 1420: 1392: 1291: 958: 886: 858: 801: 734: 706: 682: 648: 617: 600: 583: 571: 480: 386: 353: 320: 273: 247: 226: 143: 552:

Following the discussion in the previous section, I'm proposing somethign like

46:

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

3627: 3606: 2858:

Jumping jackrabbits batman! That sounds great. Let's see what there's to do at

2754: 2598: 2571: 2313: 2257: 2219: 2150: 2128: 2109: 2091: 2081:- from the talk page looks like someone is going to nominate this asa FAC soon. 1836: 1648: 1614: 1524: 201: 102: 2784:

I would just like to let people know that there's a great potential here with

2287:

of America" (which would include, scouts, cubs, and ventures as articles). --

3497: 2897: 2757:

process itself (after all, having a non-FA non-GA non-approved short article

2587: 2537: 2438: 2171: 1638: 870: 823: 780: 505:, the talk pages of member articles. Maybe a modified version could replace 2984:

quarter). As to Nunavut and similar sitautions, see my suggestion above at

2826:(of which these states constitute the membership), which is currently a B.-- 225:

series, as it is cherry picking). Is saffron the only real featured topic?--

3598: 3444: 3394: 3346: 3285: 3212: 2918: 2505: 1713: 1688: 458: 452: 295: 265:

I would strengthen "a reasonable excuse" to "a exceptioally good reason".

3706: 3340: 3318: 3217: 3155: 3112: 3081: 3067: 2989: 2827: 2811: 2762: 2724: 2709: 2671: 2608: 2561: 2493: 2459: 2385: 1816: 971: 3696:

already is, can that qualify as a featured topic? Or do they have to be

3486:

That's the point though- as a list, it can't be GA, it has to be FL. --

3062:

I suggest that we formalize this deadline for legacy FTs with a note on

698:

As there have been no further comments, I shall implement the proposal.

3597:, which simply states the number of topics an editor helped promote to 3487: 3420: 3236: 3194: 3008: 2793: 2618: 2576: 2415: 2182: 1855: 1600: 1579: 1505: 1477: 1452: 1413: 1385: 1338: 1287: 1146: 1137: 1127: 1054: 1023: 980: 909: 879: 851: 794: 727: 699: 675: 641: 610: 593: 564: 473: 379: 346: 313: 266: 2433:

Has anybody thought of using this project to help create wikireaders (

3689: 3602: 3562: 3121: 2819: 2594: 2309: 2215: 2146: 2105: 2087: 1988: 1610: 948: 197: 98: 2706:

Knowledge:Featured list candidates/List of Nunavut general elections

92:

Seems to me that this page should work with the various wikiprojects

2815: 2789: 2547: 2041: 3501:(the series page) brought up to GA and used for the main article. 3120:

Well, I think we've agreed that the main article should indeed be

2121:

Knowledge talk:WikiProject Scouting#Scouting Topics .26 Categories

1476:, and also lists can't get GA. Anyway, majority seems against me. 2838:

Countries in the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation

1919: 3587:, which only allows a user to specify a specific topic, here is 217:

Why do none of these featured topics actually qualify as far as

2801: 2654:

I believe the 'Canadian election timelines' topic deserves the

2590:

is a GA but would need a few other articles for its inclusion.

1451:

A-class rating system, it shouldn't be used in the template. --

1350:

Well done. This is getting to be a very nice-looking page. --

374:

Oh, and the horizontal would be suitable for listing topics on

2822:

is an unrated former FA candidate. The lead article would be

2214:

topic is included. It clearly does not meet the requirments.

294:

I made some FT boxes that one day could be used on portals or

3693: 3555:

Knowledge:List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations

3335: 3152:

Knowledge talk:Featured topics/2003 Atlantic hurricane season

2797: 2785: 2583:

could be added when the last article is brought up to snuff.

2527: 463:

Linking the components of topic together on its members pages

3559:

Knowledge:List of Wikipedians by featured portal nominations

2650:'Canadian election timelines' deserves the all-featured icon 3550:

Knowledge:List of Wikipedians by featured topic nominations

1976: 1523:

In the template. Gives an overview of the overall quality.

2874:

Wow! This is a great proposal. Let's work on it. Cheers.--

2100:

As a side note I noticed that all of the articles in the

2780:

Great potential for South Asian countries featured topic

2681:

pretend like it is an FA, that defeats the point of the

1113:

I notice that when the new layout was implemented, the

2508:

topic given as an example is there some reason that:

1897:

Guidelines for completness -- what is an "obvious gap"

3623:

Portal talk:Featured content#move to portal namespace

3078:

Wikipedia_talk:Featured_topic_criteria#Review_process

1679:

I changed the boxes on the main page to templates at

917:

Sigh. You're right. How about an all tan version:

120:oops, just saw this - just said same about whales. 2472:. We could use those talk pages, if we wanted. -- 1733:For lists that are over 20 articles in length, the 1323:Indeed. That is a much nicer looking presentation. 2660:symbol because the one item that is not featured ( 2250:topic don't seem to have been assessed at all... 1675:I changed the boxes on the main page to templates 3279:I noticed today that the featured topics box on 2860:South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation 2824:South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation 1538: 466:Having some sort of gateway for the topic itself 2177:are included, though this won't get everything. 1950:History of merit badges (Boy Scouts of America) 3441:Knowledge:Featured topics/Final Fantasy titles 1962:Boy Scouts of America membership controversies 3641:Seeing that it's been a few months, and that 3362:be upgraded to GA, could I submit this with: 2449:We need project pages for each Featured Topic 1519:Should be shown whether articles are FA or GA 2470:Knowledge:Featured topics/boxes/Solar System 1257:Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back 194:Knowledge:Romanian Wikipedians' notice board 2930:Suggestion to get all articles to GA status 2079:Robert Baden-Powell, 1st Baron Baden-Powell 1136:I agree with re-adding the FA/GA stars. -- 957:That already is a requirement. It's #5 on 661:implementing your set-up. Nicely done. -- 457:Presenting the topic and its components on 451:Presenting the topic and its components on 2840:, and looks pretty close to a nomination. 2044:- This would be the lead article obviously 1232:Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith 1218:Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones 1007:don't even have an article on Thutmose II 777:Knowledge:Talk page templates#Small option 3432:Featured Topic with a non-FA main article 1681:Knowledge:Featured topics/boxes/topicname 416:Template:Announcements/New featured pages 1712:For the record, these were added to the 1268:Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi 3692:states' portals were featured, and the 1207:Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace 14: 3080:, where I've formally proposed this.-- 2456:Knowledge:Featured topics/Solar System 2323:Knowledge talk:Featured topic criteria 2014:Varsity Scouts (Boy Scouts of America) 1609:the starts will be a and the other b. 139:Knowledge:WikiProject Military history 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 2896:You guys have my moral support. :) -- 1813:First Party System and the Presidency 818:change the Featured orange color, to 812:Knowledge talk:Featured content#Color 2567: 2543: 2533: 2074: 1907: 1687:, which will hopefuly end up on the 1474:wikipedia-wide A-class rating system 1251: 1121: 186:Knowledge:WikiProject European Union 25: 3519:And I see it's now a GA candidate. 1938:Eagle Scout (Boy Scouts of America) 219:Knowledge:What is a featured topic? 23: 2067:The Scout Association of Hong Kong 2022:Sea Scouts (Boy Scouts of America) 2010:Cub Scouts (Boy Scouts of America) 1996:before it is an "obvious gap"? 1926:Boy Scouts (Boy Scouts of America) 1918: 1807:I would suggest breaking it up by 548:Proposed new way of listing topics 341:User:Tompw/templates#FT_experiment 24: 3745: 3064:Knowledge:Featured topic criteria 2947:List of Nunavut general elections 2702:Knowledge:Featured topic criteria 2662:List of Nunavut general elections 2018:Venturing (Boy Scouts of America) 1852:Knowledge:Featured topic criteria 1649:Featured topic removal candidates 582:FFX series seperated like that.-- 422:. Another option might be to use 420:Knowledge:Featured topics/Saffron 3365:Wilco Discography (FL) (topic), 3354:is also a featured list. Should 2682: 2665: 2655: 2566: 2542: 2532: 2522: 2512: 2073: 2061: 2049: 2036: 1983: 1971: 1956: 1944: 1932: 1906: 1298:) 06:46, February 6, 2007 (UTC). 1250: 1243:Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope 1236: 1225: 1211: 1200: 1120: 1114: 942:Featured topic and good articles 29: 3495:Personally, I would rather see 2086:on the bigger ones till later? 1740:Presidents of the United States 1193: 339:I did some experimenting - see 300:Knowledge:Featured topics/boxes 213:Only one 'true' featured topic? 182:Knowledge:WikiProject Countries 3515:18:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC) 3491:17:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC) 3482:21:37, 22 September 2007 (UTC) 3448:12:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC) 3424:06:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC) 3413:23:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC) 2001:Category:Boy Scouts of America 190:Knowledge:WikiProject Bulgaria 18:Knowledge talk:Featured topics 13: 1: 3734:12:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC) 3713:09:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC) 3678:06:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC) 3657:22:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC) 3566:19:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC) 1999:As for the scouting articles 1729:Smaller nominations for lists 1721:19:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC) 1509:07:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC) 1499:01:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC) 1489:00:14, 10 February 2007 (UTC) 1195: 1095:21:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC) 1074:20:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC) 1058:17:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC) 1048:16:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC) 1027:06:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC) 1017:05:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC) 984:03:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC) 975:23:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC) 775:Give it a |small option (per 762:It sort of works. Check out 3632:12:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC) 3611:19:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC) 3533:17:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC) 1707:19:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC) 1667:17:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC) 1642:12:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC) 1618:02:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC) 1604:22:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC) 1594:19:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC) 1583:18:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC) 1528:13:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC) 1456:06:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC) 1446:01:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC) 1425:00:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC) 1407:00:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC) 1397:00:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC) 1366:19:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC) 1342:17:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC) 1328:19:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC) 1319:18:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC) 1169: 1162:21:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC) 1150:18:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC) 1141:18:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC) 1131:15:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC) 966:23:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC) 952:23:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC) 926:22:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC) 913:19:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC) 900:18:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC) 891:17:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC) 874:23:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC) 863:21:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC) 842:21:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC) 827:21:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC) 806:21:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC) 784:20:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC) 771:19:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC) 758:19:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC) 739:17:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC) 711:16:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC) 687:22:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC) 666:20:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC) 653:20:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC) 636:18:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC) 622:18:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC) 605:00:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC) 205:00:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC) 7: 3455:List of Final Fantasy media 3437:List of Final Fantasy media 2125:User:NThurston/sandbox/test 1109:FA and GA stars disappeared 848:User:Tompw/featured topics2 587:23:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC) 576:23:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC) 538:17:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC) 485:16:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC) 442:15:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC) 432:14:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC) 400:15:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC) 391:00:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC) 368:15:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC) 358:00:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC) 335:23:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC) 325:23:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC) 307:21:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC) 278:22:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC) 261:15:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC) 251:14:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC) 241:14:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC) 230:10:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC) 169:17:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC) 133:17:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC) 116:15:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC) 106:03:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC) 10: 3750: 3281:Knowledge:Featured content 3273:Knowledge:Featured content 2373:21:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC) 2317:07:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC) 2303:22:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC) 2270:09:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC) 2223:08:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC) 2194:00:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC) 2154:19:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC) 2137:12:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC) 2113:08:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC) 2095:08:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC) 1887:04:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC) 1867:23:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC) 1845:22:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC) 724:User:Tompw/featured topics 556:. The template used is at 554:User:Tompw/featured topics 3398:20:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC) 3338:'s studio albums (except 3322:04:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC) 3310:03:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC) 3289:03:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC) 3261:00:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC) 3240:23:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC) 3229:15:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC) 3198:19:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC) 3187:16:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC) 3159:06:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC) 3111:Yes, I agree with that.-- 2642:17:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC) 2622:16:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC) 2612:12:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC) 2341:05:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC) 2248:Michigan State University 2212:Michigan State University 2102:Michigan State University 1797:19:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC) 1781:19:23, 3 March 2007 (UTC) 1755:18:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC) 1172: 376:Knowledge:Featured topics 3688:If, say, all six of the 3617:move to portal namespace 3136:01:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC) 3116:19:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC) 3106:16:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC) 3085:04:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC) 3071:17:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC) 3047:15:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC) 3027:15:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC) 3002:05:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC) 2993:01:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC) 2979:00:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC) 2958:23:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC) 2940:18:23, 27 May 2007 (UTC) 2922:04:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC) 2907:05:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC) 2884:04:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC) 2870:03:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC) 2852:02:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC) 2831:02:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC) 2766:17:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC) 2748:15:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC) 2728:05:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC) 2713:01:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC) 2695:00:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC) 2675:06:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC) 2602:04:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC) 2497:05:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC) 2488:05:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC) 2463:05:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC) 2442:13:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC) 1820:05:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC) 1472:(&;lt--) There is a 959:what is a featured topic 3166:Article order in topics 2419:04:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC) 2410:03:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC) 2389:02:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC) 2005:featured topic criteria 1716:page a few days ago. -- 779:) and I'll like it :) — 3684:Can portals be a topic 3543:FYI, new list of users 2670:a little check-mark.-- 2579:- not good good enough 2055:Girl Scouts of the USA 1923: 1689:featured contents page 1685:random topic generator 1634:This is a great idea! 837:looks pretty good. -- 563:What do people think? 3637:Organizing the topics 3146:Project pages created 2617:I'm all for that. -- 2256:comment was added by 2030:Boy Scouts of America 1922: 1912:Boy Scouts of America 1830:Categories in Topics? 1599:by any standards. -- 1286:comment was added by 42:of past discussions. 3592:User Featured topics 3379:Yankee Hotel Foxtrot 3206:Categorize the list? 2553:are not included? 2518:Definition of planet 2435:Knowledge:WikiReader 1570:Upsilon Andromedae d 1566:Upsilon Andromedae c 1562:Upsilon Andromedae b 919:User:Arctic.gnome/FT 835:template-in-template 764:User:Arctic.gnome/FT 718:FT box on talk page? 3582:User Featured Topic 3475:(currently offline) 2353:10th featured topic 846:OK, have a look at 558:User:Tompw/sandbox7 137:Which reminds me - 2357:Whoot! Go us. -- 2024:(all of which are 1924: 1556:Upsilon Andromedae 810:I've suggested at 3732: 3676: 3654: 3479: 3352:Wilco discography 3308: 3259: 3185: 3104: 3045: 3025: 3012: 2977: 2849: 2746: 2640: 2486: 2408: 2371: 2339: 2301: 2273: 2186: 2135: 1885: 1859: 1843: 1794: 1779: 1752: 1705: 1665: 1575: 1574: 1481: 1444: 1417: 1389: 1364: 1317: 1299: 1279: 1278: 1275: 1274: 1176: 1093: 1046: 883: 855: 798: 731: 703: 679: 645: 614: 597: 568: 510:Featuredtopicmain 477: 383: 350: 317: 270: 87: 86: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 3741: 3722: 3709: 3666: 3650: 3596: 3590: 3586: 3580: 3573:FYI, new userbox 3553:, modeled after 3529: 3524: 3511: 3506: 3480: 3476: 3471: 3464: 3459: 3298: 3249: 3225: 3220: 3175: 3094: 3035: 3019: 3010: 2967: 2902: 2845: 2736: 2686: 2669: 2659: 2630: 2626:Makes sense. -- 2570: 2569: 2546: 2545: 2536: 2535: 2526: 2516: 2476: 2398: 2361: 2329: 2291: 2251: 2184: 2176: 2170: 2131: 2077: 2076: 2065: 2053: 2040: 2026:B-Class articles 1987: 1975: 1960: 1948: 1936: 1910: 1909: 1875: 1857: 1839: 1790: 1769: 1748: 1695: 1655: 1539: 1479: 1434: 1415: 1412:a high quality. 1387: 1383: 1354: 1307: 1281: 1265: 1254: 1253: 1240: 1229: 1215: 1204: 1196: 1174: 1170: 1124: 1123: 1118: 1083: 1036: 881: 869:Looks great :) — 853: 796: 729: 701: 677: 643: 612: 595: 566: 524: 518: 514: 508: 475: 424:Category:Saffron 381: 348: 315: 268: 161: 125: 68: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 3749: 3748: 3744: 3743: 3742: 3740: 3739: 3738: 3707: 3686: 3643:Featured Sounds 3639: 3619: 3594: 3588: 3584: 3578: 3577:In addition to 3575: 3545: 3527: 3522: 3509: 3504: 3474: 3469: 3462: 3458: 3434: 3405: 3403:Christ Illusion 3383:A Ghost Is Born 3332: 3277: 3223: 3218: 3208: 3168: 3148: 2999:Judgesurreal777 2945:Well as far as 2937:Judgesurreal777 2932: 2898: 2782: 2652: 2451: 2431: 2382: 2355: 2252:—The preceding 2174: 2168: 1899: 1832: 1731: 1677: 1632: 1537: 1521: 1379: 1282:—The preceding 1261: 1185: 1177: 1111: 944: 720: 550: 522: 516: 512: 506: 292: 215: 159: 123: 94: 64: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 3747: 3737: 3736: 3685: 3682: 3681: 3680: 3638: 3635: 3618: 3615: 3574: 3571: 3570: 3569: 3544: 3541: 3540: 3539: 3538: 3537: 3536: 3535: 3517: 3463:SpecialWindler 3433: 3430: 3427: 3426: 3404: 3401: 3331: 3328: 3325: 3324: 3313: 3312: 3276: 3269: 3266: 3265: 3264: 3263: 3207: 3204: 3201: 3200: 3167: 3164: 3147: 3144: 3141: 3140: 3139: 3138: 3088: 3087: 3060: 3059: 3058: 3057: 3056: 3055: 3054: 3053: 3052: 3051: 3050: 3049: 2931: 2928: 2925: 2924: 2914: 2913: 2912: 2911: 2910: 2909: 2889: 2888: 2887: 2886: 2855: 2854: 2781: 2778: 2775: 2774: 2773: 2772: 2771: 2770: 2769: 2768: 2718: 2717: 2716: 2715: 2651: 2648: 2645: 2644: 2624: 2581: 2580: 2574: 2572:Scattered disc 2564: 2556:Additionally: 2551: 2550: 2540: 2530: 2520: 2502: 2501: 2500: 2499: 2450: 2447: 2430: 2427: 2424: 2423: 2422: 2421: 2381: 2378: 2354: 2351: 2348: 2347: 2346: 2345: 2344: 2343: 2283: 2282: 2281: 2280: 2279: 2278: 2277: 2276: 2275: 2274: 2234: 2232: 2231: 2230: 2229: 2228: 2227: 2226: 2225: 2201: 2200: 2199: 2198: 2197: 2196: 2178: 2159: 2158: 2157: 2156: 2140: 2139: 2116: 2115: 2083: 2082: 2070: 2069: 2058: 2057: 2046: 2045: 1994: 1992: 1991: 1980: 1979: 1965: 1964: 1953: 1952: 1941: 1940: 1929: 1928: 1915: 1914: 1898: 1895: 1892: 1891: 1890: 1889: 1831: 1828: 1825: 1824: 1823: 1822: 1809:"Party System" 1802: 1801: 1800: 1799: 1730: 1727: 1724: 1723: 1682: 1676: 1673: 1670: 1669: 1631: 1628: 1625: 1624: 1623: 1622: 1621: 1620: 1573: 1572: 1559: 1551: 1550: 1545: 1536: 1533: 1520: 1517: 1516: 1515: 1514: 1513: 1512: 1511: 1470: 1469: 1468: 1467: 1466: 1465: 1464: 1463: 1462: 1461: 1460: 1459: 1458: 1371: 1370: 1369: 1368: 1345: 1344: 1333: 1332: 1331: 1330: 1277: 1276: 1273: 1272: 1260: 1247: 1235: 1222: 1210: 1192: 1191: 1178: 1173: 1165: 1164: 1154: 1153: 1152: 1110: 1107: 1104: 1103: 1102: 1101: 1100: 1099: 1098: 1097: 1066: 1065: 1064: 1063: 1062: 1061: 1060: 1005: 991: 990: 989: 988: 987: 986: 943: 940: 937: 936: 935: 934: 933: 932: 931: 930: 929: 928: 866: 865: 844: 831: 830: 829: 789: 788: 787: 786: 760: 719: 716: 696: 695: 694: 693: 692: 691: 690: 689: 672:Rum Tum Tugger 628: 627: 626: 625: 624: 549: 546: 543: 542: 541: 540: 469: 468: 467: 464: 461: 455: 446: 445: 444: 408: 407: 406: 405: 404: 403: 402: 372: 371: 370: 344: 291: 288: 285: 284: 283: 282: 281: 280: 263: 214: 211: 208: 207: 176: 175: 174: 173: 172: 171: 93: 90: 85: 84: 79: 74: 69: 62: 52: 51: 34: 15: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3746: 3735: 3730: 3726: 3721: 3717: 3716: 3715: 3714: 3711: 3710: 3703: 3699: 3695: 3691: 3679: 3674: 3670: 3665: 3661: 3660: 3659: 3658: 3653: 3648: 3647:Hurricanehink 3644: 3634: 3633: 3630: 3629: 3624: 3614: 3612: 3608: 3604: 3600: 3593: 3583: 3567: 3564: 3560: 3556: 3552: 3551: 3547: 3546: 3534: 3531: 3530: 3525: 3518: 3516: 3513: 3512: 3507: 3500: 3499: 3498:Final Fantasy 3494: 3493: 3492: 3489: 3485: 3484: 3483: 3478: 3477: 3472: 3466: 3465: 3456: 3452: 3451: 3450: 3449: 3446: 3442: 3438: 3429: 3425: 3422: 3417: 3416: 3415: 3414: 3411: 3400: 3399: 3396: 3390: 3388: 3384: 3380: 3376: 3372: 3368: 3363: 3361: 3358:pass FAC and 3357: 3353: 3350:, is at FAC. 3349: 3348: 3343: 3342: 3337: 3327: 3323: 3320: 3315: 3314: 3311: 3306: 3302: 3297: 3293: 3292: 3291: 3290: 3287: 3282: 3274: 3268: 3262: 3257: 3253: 3248: 3243: 3242: 3241: 3238: 3233: 3232: 3231: 3230: 3227: 3226: 3221: 3214: 3203: 3199: 3196: 3191: 3190: 3189: 3188: 3183: 3179: 3174: 3163: 3161: 3160: 3157: 3153: 3143: 3137: 3134: 3131: 3127: 3123: 3119: 3118: 3117: 3114: 3110: 3109: 3108: 3107: 3102: 3098: 3093: 3086: 3083: 3079: 3075: 3074: 3073: 3072: 3069: 3065: 3048: 3043: 3039: 3034: 3030: 3029: 3028: 3023: 3017: 3013: 3005: 3004: 3003: 3000: 2996: 2995: 2994: 2991: 2987: 2982: 2981: 2980: 2975: 2971: 2966: 2961: 2960: 2959: 2956: 2953: 2948: 2944: 2943: 2942: 2941: 2938: 2927: 2923: 2920: 2916: 2915: 2908: 2905: 2903: 2901: 2895: 2894: 2893: 2892: 2891: 2890: 2885: 2881: 2877: 2873: 2872: 2871: 2868: 2865: 2861: 2857: 2856: 2853: 2848: 2843: 2842:Hurricanehink 2839: 2835: 2834: 2833: 2832: 2829: 2825: 2821: 2817: 2813: 2809: 2808: 2803: 2799: 2795: 2791: 2787: 2777: 2767: 2764: 2760: 2756: 2751: 2750: 2749: 2744: 2740: 2735: 2731: 2730: 2729: 2726: 2722: 2721: 2720: 2719: 2714: 2711: 2707: 2703: 2698: 2697: 2696: 2693: 2690: 2685: 2679: 2678: 2677: 2676: 2673: 2668: 2663: 2658: 2647: 2643: 2638: 2634: 2629: 2625: 2623: 2620: 2616: 2615: 2614: 2613: 2610: 2604: 2603: 2600: 2596: 2591: 2589: 2588:Heliocentrism 2584: 2578: 2575: 2573: 2565: 2563: 2559: 2558: 2557: 2554: 2549: 2541: 2539: 2538:Asteroid belt 2531: 2529: 2525: 2521: 2519: 2515: 2511: 2510: 2509: 2507: 2498: 2495: 2491: 2490: 2489: 2484: 2480: 2475: 2471: 2467: 2466: 2465: 2464: 2461: 2457: 2446: 2444: 2443: 2440: 2436: 2426: 2420: 2417: 2413: 2412: 2411: 2406: 2402: 2397: 2393: 2392: 2391: 2390: 2387: 2377: 2375: 2374: 2369: 2365: 2360: 2350: 2342: 2337: 2333: 2328: 2324: 2320: 2319: 2318: 2315: 2311: 2306: 2305: 2304: 2299: 2295: 2290: 2285: 2284: 2271: 2267: 2263: 2259: 2255: 2249: 2245: 2244: 2243: 2242: 2241: 2240: 2239: 2238: 2237: 2236: 2235: 2224: 2221: 2217: 2213: 2209: 2208: 2207: 2206: 2205: 2204: 2203: 2202: 2195: 2191: 2187: 2179: 2173: 2165: 2164: 2163: 2162: 2161: 2160: 2155: 2152: 2148: 2144: 2143: 2142: 2141: 2138: 2134: 2130: 2126: 2122: 2118: 2117: 2114: 2111: 2107: 2103: 2099: 2098: 2097: 2096: 2093: 2089: 2080: 2072: 2071: 2068: 2064: 2060: 2059: 2056: 2052: 2048: 2047: 2043: 2039: 2035: 2034: 2033: 2031: 2027: 2023: 2019: 2015: 2011: 2006: 2002: 1997: 1990: 1986: 1982: 1981: 1978: 1974: 1970: 1969: 1968: 1963: 1959: 1955: 1954: 1951: 1947: 1943: 1942: 1939: 1935: 1931: 1930: 1927: 1921: 1917: 1916: 1913: 1905: 1904: 1903: 1894: 1888: 1883: 1879: 1874: 1870: 1869: 1868: 1864: 1860: 1853: 1850:According to 1849: 1848: 1847: 1846: 1842: 1838: 1827: 1821: 1818: 1814: 1810: 1806: 1805: 1804: 1803: 1798: 1793: 1788: 1787:Hurricanehink 1784: 1783: 1782: 1777: 1773: 1768: 1764: 1759: 1758: 1757: 1756: 1751: 1746: 1745:Hurricanehink 1741: 1736: 1735:criteria page 1726: 1722: 1719: 1715: 1711: 1710: 1709: 1708: 1703: 1699: 1694: 1690: 1686: 1680: 1672: 1668: 1663: 1659: 1654: 1650: 1646: 1645: 1644: 1643: 1640: 1635: 1627: 1619: 1616: 1612: 1607: 1606: 1605: 1602: 1597: 1596: 1595: 1592: 1587: 1586: 1585: 1584: 1581: 1571: 1567: 1563: 1560: 1558: 1557: 1553: 1552: 1549: 1546: 1544: 1541: 1540: 1532: 1530: 1529: 1526: 1510: 1507: 1502: 1501: 1500: 1497: 1492: 1491: 1490: 1486: 1482: 1475: 1471: 1457: 1454: 1449: 1448: 1447: 1442: 1438: 1433: 1428: 1427: 1426: 1422: 1418: 1410: 1409: 1408: 1405: 1400: 1399: 1398: 1394: 1390: 1382: 1377: 1376: 1375: 1374: 1373: 1372: 1367: 1362: 1358: 1353: 1349: 1348: 1347: 1346: 1343: 1340: 1335: 1334: 1329: 1326: 1322: 1321: 1320: 1315: 1311: 1306: 1303:I like it. -- 1302: 1301: 1300: 1297: 1293: 1289: 1285: 1271: 1270: 1269: 1264: 1259: 1258: 1248: 1246: 1245: 1244: 1239: 1234: 1233: 1228: 1223: 1221: 1220: 1219: 1214: 1209: 1208: 1203: 1198: 1197: 1194: 1189: 1184: 1182: 1171: 1168: 1163: 1160: 1155: 1151: 1148: 1144: 1143: 1142: 1139: 1135: 1134: 1133: 1132: 1129: 1117: 1106: 1096: 1091: 1087: 1082: 1077: 1076: 1075: 1072: 1067: 1059: 1056: 1051: 1050: 1049: 1044: 1040: 1035: 1030: 1029: 1028: 1025: 1020: 1019: 1018: 1015: 1010: 1002: 997: 996: 995: 994: 993: 992: 985: 982: 978: 977: 976: 973: 969: 968: 967: 964: 960: 956: 955: 954: 953: 950: 939: 927: 924: 920: 916: 915: 914: 911: 907: 903: 902: 901: 898: 894: 893: 892: 888: 884: 877: 876: 875: 872: 868: 867: 864: 860: 856: 849: 845: 843: 840: 836: 832: 828: 825: 821: 817: 813: 809: 808: 807: 803: 799: 791: 790: 785: 782: 778: 774: 773: 772: 769: 765: 761: 759: 756: 751: 747: 743: 742: 741: 740: 736: 732: 725: 715: 713: 712: 708: 704: 688: 684: 680: 673: 669: 668: 667: 664: 660: 656: 655: 654: 650: 646: 639: 638: 637: 634: 629: 623: 619: 615: 608: 607: 606: 602: 598: 590: 589: 588: 585: 580: 579: 578: 577: 573: 569: 561: 559: 555: 545: 539: 536: 532: 528: 521: 520:Featuredtopic 511: 504: 500: 496: 492: 488: 487: 486: 482: 478: 470: 465: 462: 460: 456: 454: 450: 449: 447: 443: 440: 435: 434: 433: 430: 425: 421: 417: 413: 409: 401: 398: 394: 393: 392: 388: 384: 377: 373: 369: 366: 361: 360: 359: 355: 351: 342: 338: 337: 336: 333: 328: 327: 326: 322: 318: 311: 310: 309: 308: 305: 301: 297: 287: 279: 275: 271: 264: 262: 259: 254: 253: 252: 249: 244: 243: 242: 239: 234: 233: 232: 231: 228: 224: 220: 210: 206: 203: 199: 195: 191: 187: 183: 178: 177: 170: 166: 162: 155: 152: 149: 145: 140: 136: 135: 134: 130: 126: 119: 118: 117: 114: 110: 109: 108: 107: 104: 100: 89: 83: 80: 78: 75: 73: 70: 67: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 3720:Arctic Gnome 3705: 3701: 3697: 3687: 3664:Arctic Gnome 3640: 3626: 3620: 3576: 3548: 3520: 3502: 3496: 3467: 3460: 3435: 3428: 3410:Sumoeagle179 3406: 3391: 3387:Sky Blue Sky 3386: 3382: 3378: 3374: 3370: 3366: 3364: 3359: 3356:Sky Blue Sky 3355: 3347:Sky Blue Sky 3345: 3339: 3333: 3330:Potential FT 3326: 3296:Arctic Gnome 3278: 3267: 3247:Arctic Gnome 3216: 3209: 3202: 3173:Arctic Gnome 3169: 3162: 3149: 3142: 3124:(discussion 3092:Arctic Gnome 3089: 3061: 3033:Arctic Gnome 2965:Arctic Gnome 2933: 2926: 2900:♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ 2899: 2837: 2818:is a B, and 2806: 2805: 2783: 2776: 2758: 2734:Arctic Gnome 2653: 2646: 2628:Arctic Gnome 2605: 2592: 2585: 2582: 2555: 2552: 2506:Solar System 2503: 2474:Arctic Gnome 2452: 2445: 2432: 2425: 2396:Arctic Gnome 2383: 2376: 2359:Arctic Gnome 2356: 2349: 2327:Arctic Gnome 2289:Arctic Gnome 2233: 2084: 1998: 1993: 1966: 1900: 1893: 1873:Arctic Gnome 1833: 1826: 1767:Arctic Gnome 1762: 1739: 1732: 1725: 1693:Arctic Gnome 1678: 1671: 1653:Arctic Gnome 1636: 1633: 1626: 1591:Arctic Gnome 1576: 1554: 1547: 1542: 1535:Potential FT 1531: 1522: 1496:Thanatosimii 1494:whatsoever. 1432:Arctic Gnome 1404:Thanatosimii 1380: 1352:Arctic Gnome 1325:Thanatosimii 1305:Arctic Gnome 1280: 1266: 1262: 1255: 1249: 1241: 1230: 1224: 1216: 1205: 1199: 1180: 1179: 1166: 1159:Arctic Gnome 1112: 1105: 1081:Arctic Gnome 1071:Thanatosimii 1034:Arctic Gnome 1014:Thanatosimii 1008: 1000: 963:Arctic Gnome 945: 938: 923:Arctic Gnome 897:Arctic Gnome 839:Arctic Gnome 815: 768:Arctic Gnome 763: 755:Arctic Gnome 749: 745: 721: 714: 697: 663:Arctic Gnome 658: 633:Arctic Gnome 562: 551: 544: 535:Arctic Gnome 530: 526: 502: 498: 494: 490: 439:Arctic Gnome 397:Arctic Gnome 365:Arctic Gnome 332:Arctic Gnome 304:Arctic Gnome 293: 286: 258:Arctic Gnome 238:Arctic Gnome 222: 216: 209: 150: 113:Arctic Gnome 95: 88: 65: 43: 37: 3561:. Cheers, 3375:Summerteeth 3371:Being There 3360:Summerteeth 3341:Summerteeth 2812:Afghanistan 2562:Kuiper belt 36:This is an 3690:Australian 2794:Bangladesh 2577:Oort cloud 2429:WikiReader 2380:3 articles 1175:6 articles 947:quality.-- 584:SeizureDog 248:SeizureDog 227:SeizureDog 144:TimVickers 3122:Star Wars 2876:Dwaipayan 2820:Sri Lanka 2814:is a GA, 2804:all FAs ( 2454:pages at 2258:Horus Kol 2129:Horus Kol 1989:Mini Moke 1837:Horus Kol 1543:Main page 1525:Sijo Ripa 1181:Star Wars 223:Halloween 82:Archive 5 77:Archive 4 72:Archive 3 66:Archive 2 60:Archive 1 3729:contribs 3698:articles 3694:main one 3673:contribs 3317:here'.-- 3305:contribs 3256:contribs 3182:contribs 3101:contribs 3076:OK, see 3042:contribs 2974:contribs 2816:Maldives 2790:Pakistan 2743:contribs 2687:symbol. 2637:contribs 2560:A-class 2548:Asteroid 2483:contribs 2439:Remember 2405:contribs 2368:contribs 2336:contribs 2321:Over at 2298:contribs 2266:contribs 2254:unsigned 2042:Scouting 1882:contribs 1776:contribs 1702:contribs 1662:contribs 1639:Ideogram 1630:Comments 1548:Articles 1441:contribs 1361:contribs 1314:contribs 1296:contribs 1284:unsigned 1188:Category 1183:episodes 1090:contribs 1043:contribs 871:Quiddity 833:Now the 824:Quiddity 814:that we 781:Quiddity 412:response 290:FT boxes 154:contribs 3445:Kariteh 3395:Teemu08 3286:RockMFR 3271:Box on 2919:Idleguy 2755:WP:FTRC 2586:Lastly 2308:topic. 1009:at all, 659:support 525:. For 410:See my 246:work.-- 160:Georgia 124:Georgia 39:archive 3708:Daniel 3385:(GA), 3381:(GA), 3377:(GA), 3373:(GA), 3369:(GA), 3319:Pharos 3275:broken 3156:Pharos 3113:Pharos 3082:Pharos 3068:Pharos 3022:review 2990:Pharos 2828:Pharos 2802:Bhutan 2763:Pharos 2725:Pharos 2710:Pharos 2672:Pharos 2609:Pharos 2607:too.-- 2494:Pharos 2460:Pharos 2386:Rlevse 1817:Pharos 1815:etc.-- 972:Pharos 816:should 750:second 3702:lists 3599:WP:FT 3528:shtak 3523:Pagra 3510:shtak 3505:Pagra 3488:PresN 3421:PresN 3389:(FA) 3336:Wilco 3237:PresN 3219:Pious 3213:WP:FA 3195:PresN 3130:Witty 2952:Witty 2864:Witty 2798:Nepal 2786:India 2689:Witty 2619:PresN 2528:Comet 2416:PresN 1763:could 1714:WP:FC 1691:. -- 1651:. -- 1601:PresN 1580:PresN 1506:PresN 1453:PresN 1339:Timwi 1288:Timwi 1147:PresN 1138:PresN 1128:Timwi 1055:PresN 1024:PresN 1001:topic 981:PresN 961:. -- 910:PresN 766:. -- 746:first 670:"The 503:(3.1) 459:WP:FC 453:WP:FT 296:WP:FC 158:Sandy 122:Sandy 16:< 3725:talk 3700:and 3669:talk 3652:talk 3628:Ruud 3621:See 3607:talk 3603:Cirt 3563:Cirt 3557:and 3470:talk 3367:A.M. 3301:talk 3284:--- 3252:talk 3178:talk 3133:Lama 3126:here 3097:talk 3038:talk 3016:talk 2970:talk 2955:Lama 2880:talk 2867:Lama 2847:talk 2810:). 2807:Wow! 2800:and 2739:talk 2692:Lama 2633:talk 2599:Talk 2595:Dalf 2504:The 2479:talk 2401:talk 2364:talk 2332:talk 2314:Talk 2310:Dalf 2294:talk 2262:talk 2220:Talk 2216:Dalf 2190:talk 2172:main 2151:Talk 2147:Dalf 2133:Talk 2110:Talk 2106:Dalf 2092:Talk 2088:Dalf 1977:Mini 1878:talk 1863:talk 1841:Talk 1792:talk 1772:talk 1750:talk 1698:talk 1658:talk 1615:Talk 1611:Dalf 1485:talk 1437:talk 1421:talk 1393:talk 1357:talk 1310:talk 1292:talk 1119:and 1086:talk 1039:talk 949:Rayc 887:talk 859:talk 820:blue 802:talk 735:talk 707:talk 683:talk 649:talk 618:talk 601:talk 572:talk 515:and 489:For 481:talk 387:talk 354:talk 321:talk 274:talk 202:Talk 198:Dalf 165:Talk 148:talk 129:Talk 103:Talk 99:Dalf 3625:. — 3601:. 3154:.-- 3066:.-- 3009:Tom 2988:.-- 2700:at 2437:)? 2183:Tom 2127:-- 1967:Or 1856:Tom 1718:CBD 1478:Tom 1414:Tom 1386:Tom 906:law 880:Tom 852:Tom 795:Tom 728:Tom 700:Tom 676:Tom 642:Tom 611:Tom 594:Tom 565:Tom 531:(5) 527:(4) 499:(3) 495:(2) 491:(1) 474:Tom 429:CBD 380:Tom 347:Tom 314:Tom 267:Tom 3727:• 3704:? 3671:• 3655:) 3613:. 3609:) 3595:}} 3589:{{ 3585:}} 3579:{{ 3419:-- 3303:• 3254:• 3235:-- 3193:-- 3180:• 3099:• 3040:• 3018:) 3011:pw 2972:• 2963:-- 2882:) 2862:. 2850:) 2796:, 2792:, 2788:, 2759:is 2741:• 2635:• 2597:| 2481:• 2403:• 2366:• 2334:• 2312:| 2296:• 2268:) 2264:• 2218:| 2192:) 2185:pw 2175:}} 2169:{{ 2149:| 2108:| 2090:| 2020:, 2016:, 2012:, 1880:• 1865:) 1858:pw 1795:) 1774:• 1753:) 1700:• 1660:• 1613:| 1589:-- 1578:-- 1568:- 1564:- 1504:-- 1487:) 1480:pw 1439:• 1430:-- 1423:) 1416:pw 1395:) 1388:pw 1359:• 1312:• 1294:• 1263:A 1190:) 1088:• 1079:-- 1041:• 1022:-- 889:) 882:pw 861:) 854:pw 804:) 797:pw 753:-- 737:) 730:pw 709:) 702:pw 685:) 678:pw 651:) 644:pw 620:) 613:pw 603:) 596:pw 574:) 567:pw 523:}} 517:{{ 513:}} 507:{{ 483:) 476:pw 437:-- 389:) 382:pw 378:. 363:-- 356:) 349:pw 330:-- 323:) 316:pw 302:-- 276:) 269:pw 256:-- 200:| 192:, 188:, 184:, 167:) 131:) 101:| 3731:) 3723:( 3675:) 3667:( 3649:( 3605:( 3568:. 3307:) 3299:( 3258:) 3250:( 3224:7 3184:) 3176:( 3103:) 3095:( 3044:) 3036:( 3024:) 3020:( 3014:( 2976:) 2968:( 2878:( 2844:( 2745:) 2737:( 2639:) 2631:( 2485:) 2477:( 2407:) 2399:( 2370:) 2362:( 2338:) 2330:( 2300:) 2292:( 2272:. 2260:( 2188:( 1884:) 1876:( 1861:( 1789:( 1778:) 1770:( 1747:( 1704:) 1696:( 1664:) 1656:( 1483:( 1443:) 1435:( 1419:( 1391:( 1381:A 1363:) 1355:( 1316:) 1308:( 1290:( 1186:( 1092:) 1084:( 1045:) 1037:( 885:( 857:( 800:( 733:( 705:( 681:( 647:( 616:( 599:( 570:( 479:( 385:( 352:( 319:( 272:( 163:( 151:· 146:( 127:( 50:.

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

Knowledge

talk:Featured topics/Archive 2 - Knowledge

Index