192:
160:
1178:
Knowledge. They are always written "Governor
General" or "Lord Lieutenant." Very occasionally you might see "governor general" or "lord lieutenant" To my mind using only one capital is incorrect anywhere. Does it happen differently in US? Is the "Vice President " written "vice President" or "Vice president ?" If so the rules should be different with articles about British subjects to articles about USA or other countries that do not follow British conventions. For the moment if I see somebody described as "Governor general of Canada," . "Lord lieutenant of Leicestershire " or "high Sheriff of Nottingham" I shall change them.
230:
171:
309:
129:
264:
178:
170:
177:
810:. The MOS doesn't need to try and determine every individual thing. Some things need to be decided on a case-by-case basis; and I don't think the argument has been convincingly made that this is a situation where one framing makes a better default than the other or where uniformity would benefit the wiki. --
1337:
I agree with everything so far In "President Ronald Reagan " it is part of his name. In "US president Ronald Reagan" it is not. But if it were written "President of the USA Ronald Reagan" that would be correct. It would not be part of Reagan's name but it is a specific office which is a name itself.
1177:
Where a post has more than one word we continually see very odd looking capitalisation (note my spelling. Please do not alter it. British spelling and conventions are important in this discussion) I have never seen such posts as
Governor general or Lord lieutenant written in that way anywhere outside
1036:
If a (traditionally) gendered term for an occupation exists, which we (or sources) would normally use for a cis person in that profession, then I think it's generally preferable that articles should insistently use those terms when describing binary trans people, and try to avoid them when describing
953:
I don't really get it myself. Major cinematographers who have worked in the US are not in ASC are very rare, so I wouldn't think it's such a noteworthy "achievement" it is worth noting immediately. Not to mention, it is not an honor, and the criteria for being in ASC is not particularly stringent. It
1072:
for all people whose job it is to fight fires, etc., regardless of gender. To me "waiter" is as gender-free as "doctor" and "firefighter". I don't want to be forced into using gendered noun forms for random subjects merely because those subjects prefer to use gendered pronouns, when I would normally
564:
is not something that we ought to be prescribing in the MOS, it's a matter of grammar. Option B is the standard order, whereas option A sounds distinctly odd to this native speaker. As to whether "retired" or "former" should be in the opening sentence, I would say no as a general rule – though there
1096:
we should use the gendered form that matches the gender identify of the subject, then of course we should. For instance we should not use "waitress" for someone who does not identify as female, obviously. But if that is the intended meaning then it did not come across. If so, we should replace the
1111:
I like DE's new version. I was ok with the status quo ante. I see this section used very frequently to deal with garden-variety transphobia, and I've never encountered a dispute over good-faith use of "waitress" vs. "server", or an analogue. I'm sure it happens occasionally.
651:. In general I would avoid "retired" or "former" in the opening sentence. If someone is notable for being an actor then that's what the first sentence should say. If they haven't acted for a while, that can be explained in more detail later. On those occasions when "former"
499:
950:, it's even included as "title" in infobox. Was there ever any reason given for why this is? I did a search here, and it was seemingly only mentioned once in an unrelated discussion, with the person expressing confusion as to why it's in so many articles.
1012:
Obviously, language is evolving to ungender many nouns, and there are many where traditionally male forms are now acceptable for all people. And of course we shouldn't go out of our way to use archaic, uncommon, or invented forms e.g.
1040:
In this specific case I think referring to a trans woman as either a "server" or a "waitress" is fine. It's possible that a better example exists. But given the choice we should consistently refer to trans women film performers as
542:
Not everything needs to be mentioned in the opening sentence. I would omit the word “retired” from the first sentence (so: “X is an
American actor”) and mention the retirement in a subsequent sentence later in the first paragraph.
1037:
non-binary people. This prescription circumvents an... unfortunate trend where speakers (unconsciously or maliciously) use ungendered language specifically for trans men and women, while gendering our cis counterparts.
954:
just means you are/were part of a club of cinematographers. Yes, "cinematography by (name) ASC" is a common credit, but so is "produced by (name) PGA", and I don't see uses of
Producers Guild postnom in articles.
1156:
expressed my concerns with the previous wording much better than I could myself, and I much prefer the current version. Thank you everyone for keeping it civil, as I know this is a very contentious topic area.
533:
332:
1008:
I'm not in the interest of edit warring on a high-profile guideline, so I won't revert twice, but I would encourage David to self-revert back to the status quo, at least until a proper consensus develops.
1130:
I put the previous wording in while partly rewriting the section after the neopronouns RfC, to emphasize the scope of "gendered terms". I think this change still accomplishes that, so no objection here.
974:
The lead sentence should be concise: Academic (including honorary) degrees and professional qualifications may be mentioned in the article, along with the above, but should be omitted from the lead ...
565:
are no doubt exceptional cases where "former"/"retired" is actually a defining characteristic, such as for a person currently notable in one field and formerly notable in a totally different capacity.
337:
1075:
And we obviously should not bend out of our way to use archaic, uncommon, or invented forms e.g. firewoman, doctoress when the gender-neutral firefighter and doctor exist and are widely accepted
831:
correct answer - a professional does not retire from their nationality, only their profession. Therefore bios should say 'American former/retired actor' and NOT 'former/retired
American actor'.
1356:
President, like other titles, should only be capitalized immediately before someone's name. In all other instances, it should be lowercase (recognizing there could be limited exceptions). --
992:
688:
And, like a few others here, I think the use of either adjective in the opening should be avoided unless being retired/former is a key component of understanding the subject.
1388:
1062:
342:
327:
49:
917:
791:
is sometimes misleading, e.g. athletes who retire from playing in their 30s or 40s, but still work in other fields until their 60s or later. Or former child actors. —
1371:
455:
450:
445:
440:
435:
430:
425:
420:
415:
410:
405:
400:
395:
390:
385:
380:
375:
370:
1237:
1205:
issue. The second word should not be lowercased if the first word is capitalised in any variety of
English unless it's the first word of a sentence. --
362:
357:
352:
347:
283:
942:
Has anyone ever noticed that many cinematographer biographies include "ASC" after the name in the lead? Some even have it written out in full, like
659:) and the word former is leading to possible ambiguity, it should always be possible to remove the ambiguity without making it harder to read, e.g.
1419:
1125:
1250:
1376:
What about cases where a person holding one of the above titles is mentionedn in an article, but is not the subject of the article themselves??
508:
Should guidance be added to the Manual of Style regarding the position of "retired" and "former" in the first sentence of biographical articles?
906:
1106:
1195:
254:
1214:
1166:
854:
838:
782:
697:
1347:
1277:
1220:
885:
800:
84:
1147:
1121:
986:
931:
819:
601:
574:
552:
1226:
873:
751:
643:
1365:
1332:
1318:
1265:
680:
626:
277:
1323:
Looking at that thread, for an added twist, it would be "US president Ronald Reagan", as "US president" is a modified title. —
961:
717:
583:
165:
90:
1089:
both terms for people who identify in other ways, as the disputed MOS language does, is exactly counter to that sentiment.
34:
843:
Profesional
English is illogical, and attempting to right it would needlessly and substantively degrade our reputation.
1058:
1409:
1290:
When followed by a person's name to form a title, i.e., when they can be considered to have become part of the name:
943:
272:
732:
1049:. Even though that term is slowly coming to be understood as gender-neutral, it is traditionally male-specific. –
1384:
1172:
30:
17:
1068:
I, for one, in my personal dialect, would use "waiter" for all people who serve food at sit-down restaurants,
1415:
1117:
902:
191:
159:
79:
731:
is a unique adjective in that it modifies the following word, implying that they are no longer an
American (
614:
1073:
use those nouns in a gender-free way. That is, I think we should act like your expressed sentiment above: "
287:
of
Knowledge's policy and guideline documents is available, offering valuable insights and recommendations.
239:
140:
707:. MOS is not a guide to English grammar like others pointed above. The hyper-specific guidance leans into
489:
70:
207:(MoS) guidelines by addressing inconsistencies, refining language, and integrating guidance effectively.
897:
I feel this isn't something the MOS needs to specify - nor do I see much reasoning for why we should.
1380:
1225:"The incident has been regarded as the most significant security failure by the Secret Service since
661:
Jerry
Lukiiko Ekandjo is a Namibian politician, former anti-apartheid activist and political prisoner
243:
204:
199:
1113:
1102:
898:
247:
1240:
has been unable to provide an answer to this question, so I am raising this issue at this page. –
613:(e.g. 'American') goes closest to the noun, except for qualifier/purpose adjectives. Sample ref:
761:
If appropriate, "retired" may be used instead of "former", this should be noted in the MOS. Per
203:, a collaborative effort focused on enhancing clarity, consistency, and cohesiveness across the
1343:
1274:
1191:
1183:
1054:
882:
835:
778:
693:
472:
242:
procedure and is given additional attention, as it closely associated to the English Knowledge
108:
864:
using retired in this way is best avoided. You can always add "who retired in..." or similar.
1403:
927:
850:
146:
1210:
1162:
958:
500:
RfC: The position of "retired" and "former" in the first sentence of biographical articles
8:
1153:
1142:
1098:
1003:
815:
60:
937:
594:
570:
548:
529:
100:
75:
1021:
1015:
1361:
1339:
1328:
1314:
1271:
1261:
1187:
1179:
1050:
982:
879:
869:
832:
796:
774:
747:
689:
56:
1399:
1202:
639:
610:
284:
guidance on how to contribute to the development and revision of Knowledge policies
916:. This seems like a SNOW close. Also, this issue has been raised independently at
1206:
1158:
999:
739:
708:
676:
921:
844:
811:
622:
468:
1284:
1230:
947:
587:
566:
544:
525:
308:
229:
1357:
1324:
1310:
1257:
978:
865:
792:
770:
743:
655:
needed (such as someone being notable for having left a situation, such as
561:
1242:
1134:
968:
918:
Knowledge:Village pump (idea lab)#Use of "former" to describe occupations
635:
1097:
disputed passage with something that conveys that intent more clearly. —
474:
672:
1152:
Thank you! I'd like to say that no malice was intended with my edit.
762:
618:
271:
For information on Knowledge's approach to the establishment of new
470:
263:
912:
669:
Jerry Lukiiko Ekandjo is a Namibian former anti-apartheid activist
665:
Jerry Lukiiko Ekandjo is a former Namibian anti-apartheid activist
1395:
712:
971:
seems to say to exclude for professional honors from the lead:
634:
to question 1 (too specialized), so question 2 is irrelevant.
475:
1236:
In this sentence, should "president" be capitalized? So far,
511:
If guidance is to be added, which form should be recommended?
738:). That would only be appropriate in rare cases like
1372:
Knighthoods, lordships, and similar honorific titles
302:
25:
967:I ran into this the other day for a similar edit.
1085:"waitress" for people who identify as female, and
993:Gender identity: removing "waiter/waitress/server"
1398:may have the information you're looking for. ‑‑
878:Why say in 1 word what you can say in 10, eh!
483:This page has archives. Sections older than
257:carefully and exercise caution when editing.
333:2007–2008 discussion on British nationality
139:does not require a rating on Knowledge's
197:This page falls within the scope of the
1081:"waiter" for people who identify male,
733:"The Secret Rules of Adjective Order".
14:
493:when more than 4 sections are present.
582:Previous discussion on same question
338:2008 discussion on honorific prefixes
253:Contributors are urged to review the
213:Knowledge:WikiProject Manual of Style
773:, "former American actor" is wrong.
769:is grammatically incorrect, and per
250:. Both areas are subjects of debate.
216:Template:WikiProject Manual of Style
128:
126:
122:
1077:." But I think that the example of
145:It is of interest to the following
33:for discussing improvements to the
23:
787:Yes, the key is "if appropriate".
262:
228:
24:
1431:
944:Michael Chapman (cinematographer)
742:, who renounced his citizenship.—
615:Adjective Word Order at Study.com
516:. X is an American retired actor.
487:may be automatically archived by
1092:If the intended meaning is that
521:. X is a retired American actor.
307:
190:
176:
169:
158:
127:
50:Click here to start a new topic.
1186:) 13:25, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
1033:exist and are widely accepted.
1420:19:01, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
1389:09:54, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
1366:15:46, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
1348:07:14, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
1333:15:22, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
1319:15:19, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
1278:15:08, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
1266:15:07, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
1251:15:02, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
725:Almost never "former American"
562:order of adjectives in English
328:2005 categorized contributions
18:Knowledge talk:Manual of Style
13:
1:
1221:Capitalization of "president"
1215:14:49, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
1196:13:30, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
47:Put new text under old text.
7:
1227:the attempted assassination
1173:Titles and posts (i.e.jobs)
1167:12:20, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
1148:23:06, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
1126:22:04, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
1107:20:38, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
1063:20:18, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
987:08:34, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
962:05:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
932:17:35, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
907:16:57, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
886:17:01, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
874:16:59, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
855:17:25, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
839:16:51, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
820:16:47, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
801:07:14, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
783:12:23, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
607:Option A is generally wrong
55:New to Knowledge? Welcome!
10:
1436:
752:02:58, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
718:02:35, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
238:This page falls under the
98:
1094:when using gendered forms
698:09:30, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
681:08:44, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
657:former political prisoner
644:06:23, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
627:00:52, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
602:13:35, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
575:13:13, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
553:12:02, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
534:10:49, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
504:There are two questions:
270:
236:
200:Knowledge:Manual of Style
185:
153:
85:Be welcoming to newcomers
35:Manual of Style/Biography
1025:when the gender-neutral
946:. On some articles like
219:Manual of Style articles
1256:Should be capitalized.
1238:a very brief discussion
273:policies and guidelines
1308:
1020:
1014:
976:
490:Lowercase sigmabot III
267:
233:
80:avoid personal attacks
1288:
972:
266:
248:article titles policy
232:
1381:Edwin of Northumbria
1114:Firefangledfeathers
1051:RoxySaunders 🏳️⚧️
899:PhotogenicScientist
363:Feb 2007 – Dec 2007
358:Jan 2006 – Feb 2007
353:Oct 2004 – Jan 2006
348:Oct 2003 – Sep 2004
343:Jan 2003 – Feb 2003
268:
255:awareness criteria
240:contentious topics
234:
141:content assessment
91:dispute resolution
52:
1146:
862:No, neither and C
497:
496:
299:
298:
295:
294:
291:
290:
121:
120:
71:Assume good faith
48:
1427:
1305:
1301:
1297:
1293:
1249:
1247:
1140:
1139:
1137:
1007:
924:
914:
847:
670:
666:
662:
658:
611:proper adjective
599:
592:
492:
476:
311:
303:
281:. Additionally,
221:
220:
217:
214:
211:
194:
187:
186:
181:
180:
179:
174:
173:
172:
162:
155:
154:
132:
131:
130:
123:
111:
26:
1435:
1434:
1430:
1429:
1428:
1426:
1425:
1424:
1374:
1304:pope John XXIII
1303:
1300:Pope John XXIII
1299:
1296:president Nixon
1295:
1292:President Nixon
1291:
1243:
1241:
1223:
1175:
1135:
1132:
997:
995:
940:
922:
845:
740:Wayne Brabender
668:
664:
660:
656:
595:
588:
502:
488:
477:
471:
460:
316:
244:Manual of Style
218:
215:
212:
210:Manual of Style
209:
208:
205:Manual of Style
175:
168:
166:Manual of Style
117:
116:
115:
114:
107:
103:
96:
66:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1433:
1423:
1422:
1373:
1370:
1369:
1368:
1353:
1352:
1351:
1350:
1321:
1282:
1281:
1280:
1222:
1219:
1218:
1217:
1201:This is not a
1174:
1171:
1170:
1169:
1154:David Eppstein
1150:
1128:
1109:
1099:David Eppstein
1090:
1004:David Eppstein
994:
991:
990:
989:
939:
936:
935:
934:
909:
895:No and Neither
891:
890:
889:
888:
859:
858:
857:
822:
805:
804:
803:
755:
754:
721:
720:
705:No and neither
701:
700:
683:
646:
629:
604:
577:
558:No and Neither
555:
523:
522:
517:
512:
509:
501:
498:
495:
494:
482:
479:
478:
473:
469:
467:
464:
463:
462:
461:
459:
458:
453:
448:
443:
438:
433:
428:
423:
418:
413:
408:
403:
398:
393:
388:
383:
378:
373:
367:
365:
360:
355:
350:
345:
340:
335:
330:
322:
321:
318:
317:
312:
306:
297:
296:
293:
292:
289:
288:
269:
259:
258:
252:
235:
225:
224:
222:
195:
183:
182:
163:
151:
150:
144:
133:
119:
118:
113:
112:
104:
99:
97:
95:
94:
87:
82:
73:
67:
65:
64:
53:
44:
43:
40:
39:
38:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1432:
1421:
1417:
1414:
1411:
1408:
1405:
1401:
1397:
1394:
1393:
1392:
1390:
1386:
1382:
1377:
1367:
1363:
1359:
1355:
1354:
1349:
1345:
1341:
1336:
1335:
1334:
1330:
1326:
1322:
1320:
1316:
1312:
1307:
1286:
1285:MOS:JOBTITLES
1283:
1279:
1276:
1273:
1269:
1268:
1267:
1263:
1259:
1255:
1254:
1253:
1252:
1248:
1246:
1239:
1234:
1232:
1231:Ronald Reagan
1229:of president
1228:
1216:
1212:
1208:
1204:
1200:
1199:
1198:
1197:
1193:
1189:
1185:
1181:
1168:
1164:
1160:
1155:
1151:
1149:
1144:
1138:
1129:
1127:
1123:
1119:
1115:
1110:
1108:
1104:
1100:
1095:
1091:
1088:
1084:
1080:
1076:
1071:
1067:
1066:
1065:
1064:
1060:
1056:
1052:
1048:
1044:
1038:
1034:
1032:
1028:
1024:
1023:
1018:
1017:
1010:
1005:
1001:
988:
984:
980:
975:
970:
966:
965:
964:
963:
960:
955:
951:
949:
948:Robert Elswit
945:
933:
929:
925:
919:
915:
910:
908:
904:
900:
896:
893:
892:
887:
884:
881:
877:
876:
875:
871:
867:
863:
860:
856:
852:
848:
842:
841:
840:
837:
834:
830:
826:
823:
821:
817:
813:
809:
806:
802:
798:
794:
790:
786:
785:
784:
780:
776:
772:
768:
764:
760:
757:
756:
753:
749:
745:
741:
737:
736:
730:
726:
723:
722:
719:
716:
714:
710:
706:
703:
702:
699:
695:
691:
687:
684:
682:
678:
674:
654:
650:
647:
645:
641:
637:
633:
630:
628:
624:
620:
616:
612:
608:
605:
603:
600:
598:
593:
591:
585:
581:
578:
576:
572:
568:
563:
559:
556:
554:
550:
546:
541:
538:
537:
536:
535:
531:
527:
520:
515:
510:
507:
506:
505:
491:
486:
481:
480:
466:
465:
457:
454:
452:
449:
447:
444:
442:
439:
437:
434:
432:
429:
427:
424:
422:
419:
417:
414:
412:
409:
407:
404:
402:
399:
397:
394:
392:
389:
387:
384:
382:
379:
377:
374:
372:
369:
368:
366:
364:
361:
359:
356:
354:
351:
349:
346:
344:
341:
339:
336:
334:
331:
329:
326:
325:
324:
323:
320:
319:
315:
310:
305:
304:
301:
286:
285:
280:
279:
274:
265:
261:
260:
256:
251:
249:
245:
241:
231:
227:
226:
223:
206:
202:
201:
196:
193:
189:
188:
184:
167:
164:
161:
157:
156:
152:
148:
142:
138:
134:
125:
124:
110:
106:
105:
102:
92:
88:
86:
83:
81:
77:
74:
72:
69:
68:
62:
58:
57:Learn to edit
54:
51:
46:
45:
42:
41:
36:
32:
28:
27:
19:
1412:
1406:
1378:
1375:
1340:Spinney Hill
1289:
1244:
1235:
1224:
1188:Spinney Hill
1180:Spinney Hill
1176:
1093:
1086:
1082:
1078:
1074:
1069:
1046:
1045:rather than
1042:
1039:
1035:
1030:
1026:
1011:
996:
973:
956:
952:
941:
911:
894:
861:
828:
824:
807:
788:
766:
758:
734:
728:
724:
715:
704:
690:CoffeeCrumbs
685:
652:
648:
631:
606:
596:
589:
579:
557:
539:
524:
518:
513:
503:
484:
313:
300:
282:
276:
237:
198:
147:WikiProjects
137:project page
136:
29:This is the
1400:Neveselbert
1070:firefighter
1027:firefighter
969:MOS:POSTNOM
711:territory.
540:C - Neither
278:WP:PROPOSAL
275:, refer to
1233:in 1981."
1207:Necrothesp
1159:GnocchiFan
1087:forbidding
1000:GnocchiFan
959:Quiz shows
246:, and the
1203:WP:ENGVAR
1083:requiring
1079:requiring
1043:actresses
1022:doctoress
1016:firewoman
923:Aaron Liu
846:Aaron Liu
812:Aquillion
109:WT:MOSBIO
93:if needed
76:Be polite
31:talk page
1410:contribs
1270:Agreed.
1122:contribs
709:WP:CREEP
590:Schazjmd
586:(2022).
567:Rosbif73
545:Blueboar
526:Khiikiat
314:Archives
101:Shortcut
61:get help
1396:MOS:SIR
1358:Enos733
1325:Bagumba
1311:Bagumba
1275:Snowman
1258:GoodDay
1143:they|xe
979:Bagumba
883:Snowman
866:Johnbod
836:Snowman
827:is the
793:Bagumba
789:Retired
771:Bagumba
744:Bagumba
580:Comment
485:45 days
1302:, not
1294:, not
1245:Gluonz
1136:Tamzin
1047:actors
1031:doctor
913:¬ ,¬ ∨
729:former
663:, not
636:Gawaon
597:(talk)
560:: the
143:scale.
1416:email
1272:Giant
938:"ASC"
880:Giant
833:Giant
735:Slate
673:Mgp28
135:This
89:Seek
37:page.
16:<
1404:talk
1385:talk
1362:talk
1344:talk
1329:talk
1315:talk
1262:talk
1211:talk
1192:talk
1184:talk
1163:talk
1118:talk
1103:talk
1029:and
1002:and
983:talk
928:talk
903:talk
870:talk
851:talk
829:only
816:talk
797:talk
779:talk
763:Nurg
748:talk
694:talk
677:talk
640:talk
623:talk
619:Nurg
609:: A
584:here
571:talk
549:talk
530:talk
456:2024
451:2023
446:2022
441:2021
436:2020
431:2019
426:2018
421:2017
416:2016
411:2015
406:2014
401:2013
396:2012
391:2011
386:2010
381:2009
376:2008
371:2007
78:and
1133:--
727:as
667:or
1418:)
1391:)
1387:)
1364:)
1346:)
1331:)
1317:)
1298:;
1287::
1264:)
1213:)
1194:)
1165:)
1124:)
1120:/
1105:)
1061:)
1059:📝
1057:•
1055:💬
1019:,
985:)
957:--
930:)
920:.
905:)
872:)
853:)
818:)
808:No
799:)
781:)
775:LK
765:,
750:)
713:Ca
696:)
686:No
679:)
671:.
653:is
649:No
642:)
632:No
625:)
617:.
573:)
551:)
532:)
59:;
1413:·
1407:·
1402:(
1383:(
1379:(
1360:(
1342:(
1327:(
1313:(
1309:—
1306:.
1260:(
1209:(
1190:(
1182:(
1161:(
1145:)
1141:(
1116:(
1101:(
1053:(
1006::
998:@
981:(
977:—
926:(
901:(
868:(
849:(
825:A
814:(
795:(
777:(
767:A
759:B
746:(
692:(
675:(
638:(
621:(
569:(
547:(
528:(
519:B
514:A
149::
63:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
