95:
63:
133:
74:
32:
167:
81:
223:
205:
1100:
sought after articles right at the top can work if there's just two or three of them, but most of the time there would be more. If you think about the mathematics of it, for any dab page with more than two sections, the arrangement of sections that minimises the aggregate length of all the reader navigational paths will, much more often than not, result in an order that's not alphabetical. β
581:
1317:, a term you do not seem to properly understand. It's simply more legalistic in its wording and harder for more readers to understand, so it is objectively not an improvement. There could be other wording that would be better, but "pursuant to" is not it, because it's obtuse (kind of like "obtuse", which we shouldn't use in a guideline, either). PS: If you don't understand what
1054:
sections for maths and for science, it's best to keep them one after the other (rather than have "Organisations", "Places" and "People" in-between), or if there are two separate sections for films and for TV series, you don't want them to be separated by everything else in the dab. Another factor is popularity of entries (as judged from clickthroughs
73:
80:
1197:
codes already listed in the Codes section, which leaves one entry. Museums and art centers should be promoted to a section and the sole other entry should be moved to Other uses. There is a hatnote for schools, but (a) who looks for schools under Places?, and (b) that section is directly beneath Places anyway.
507:
problems from Swpb. They formulated it as they saw fit (without demonstrating consensus) and revert anything they disagree with with instructions for the objector to "get consensus" or "get strong consensus" (whatever the difference between those things are). Where was the consensus for this version?
462:
There should be a "don't" added in the dos and dont's: a minimum of 2 entries in an individual section (not counting remnant sections like "other" and "see also"). It's kinda pointless to create a subject area and put only one thing in there. This should be self evident but it isn't. There are plenty
1251:
is yes, and I contend that's in line with this guide, both as it was promoted and as it currently stands - particularly the bit about copying the scheme of similar dabs for reader familiarity. I don't feel I need to "justify" a Places or
Organizations section; both are standard. It should go without
1099:
Well, you can create an "Art and entertainment" section, but then chances are that an alphabetical order for the subsections will result in the film and the TV entries split apart by the subsections on games, music and literature. As for the other issue: ordering by popularity, singling out the most
560:
I agree with JHunterJ here, and would probably go a bit farther and say that to many readers it may be counterintuitive to have fictional people in a completely different section to non-fictional people. This is especially the case when there isn't a dedicated "Fictional characters" section (that is
1087:
is full of much more common targets, but none stand out from the rest, that might be a good reason to pull that section to the top, and we could add language to say that that's reasonable. I haven't studied click-through data enough to now how common that situation is. As for "thematically similar
1053:
Of course, alphabetical order is a good default, but there are too many situations where different orders would be more appropriate and I don't think it's a good idea to advise against them. For example, thematically similar sections should usually be next to each other: say, if there are separate
1196:
The Places section is redundant. That section is overwhelmingly used for communities and geographical features. There are none named Mac. While "Museums and art centers" is a valid grouping, Swpb has contrived an "Other places" subsection to justify Places' existence. Other places consists of two
545:
On an otherwise human name disambiguation pages when there are a handful of non-person entries (ships, biopics) the fictional characters are better in a "fictional" subsection of the people than with those "other uses". When there isn't a film/video game/literature section otherwise. Regardless,
1057:): I often find it that a majority of visitors of a dab would come for a small number of entries, and in that case it makes sense to shorten the most common navigational paths by arranging the sections in such a way that those entries will be near the top (rather than buried at the bottom).
561:
easily visible in the table of contents) and readers may not always suss out that the fictional people will be found under "Art and entertainment". Also, I don't think we can take it for granted that readers will always know whether the person they're looking for is real or fictional. β
498:
1321:
means, you may not be in the best position to be "policing" the language usage in our guidelines. (FYI, in this sense it means 'a sideways move', i.e. neither an improvement nor regressive, though I argue that it's actually regressive for being less intelligible to the average reader).
1252:
saying that consensus on each of these questions should be decided by someone other than
Clarity or myself. Re the "overly complicated" and "redundant" complaints, I consider the questions of whether nested section levels and appropriate repetition of entries are good ways to allow for
1200:
The subsections in the People section are unnecessary. Swpb first endorsed "Names" and "People with the nickname or professional name"; when I pointed out that nicknames and professional names are still names, Swpb changed the latter to "Individuals". This is still problematic, since
1312:
is quite serious, and utterly uncalled for when someone reverts you making undiscussed changes to a guideline page (where such alterations by anyone are routinely reverted until a consensus is established for them). And your preferred wording has absolutely nothing to do with
287:
Anyone object if I remove all the "in" placements in this essay? Using "in" before most categories and subcategories seems to be an uncommon practice. I'm just wanting to avoid confusion and ensure consistency in the future. There was a brief discussion about it here:
1088:
sections", I like to see them not just next to each other, but grouped under a parent section: "Arts and media", with "Film" and "Literature" inside it. That lets alpha order be preserved at each level, and makes for more commonality from one dab to the next. β
517:
1292:
There seems to be some ownership of this page from the primary author. It is grammatically correct to use "pursuant" but that was reverted with the rationale that it is a lateral change at best. I'm not sure what that even means.
1114:
I think we could expend a lot of energy defining "clear reasons" which wouldn't get us very far. The status quo is fine. What is important is consistency, so that readers are used to seeing familiar headings, in familiar places.
472:
838:
I guess that could kinda-sorta work as a second choice, but yes my suggestion is to completely merge the pages. It will be confusing to have two guidelines about the style/layout of DAB pages. We already have one, so use it.
325:
291:
457:
605:
937:("An RfC should last until enough comment has been received that consensus is reached..." and "If the consensus is clear, any editorβeven one involved in the discussionβmay close the discussion" but
1273:
555:
492:
381:
362:
337:
565:
282:
983:
884:
418:
673:
650:
1140:
954:
750:
695:
1064:
s for occasionally departing from alphabetical order, but in my experience these are so common that it will be counterproductive to have even weak recommendations against them. β
779:
452:
1073:
921:
899:
726:
1338:
1221:
804:
539:
1124:
997:
571:
1282:
709:
593:
1022:
855:
1262:
833:
1171:
1109:
1094:
744:
644:
1155:
1049:
Order sections alphabetically unless there is a clear reason not to. (This is the easiest order to recognize β importance, for example, is usually too subjective.)
683:
988:
I don't think it's a good idea to promote a new guideline on the basis of an RfC that lasts two weeks and involves brief comments from just seven people. β
1302:
742:
642:
463:
disambiguation pages with only one item. So I suggest a stronger effort to discourage it by explicitly prescribing it in the rules or recommendations
186:
1005:
does not state 30 days as a requirement though. Also, it's an information page. This page isn't some new mysterious guideline, it's an extension of
240:
760:
1192:
I say that Swpb has overly complicated the section structure, which contravenes the purpose of LONGDAB, to simplify things for readers. IMO:
1143:
for the example scheme. There are several things that we can do to simplify it, but the most obvious first step is to get the warnings, like
157:
530:, the guideline to never include characters under People looked correct to me. When do you think it would be appropriate to mix those two?
486:
dab pages, of which sectioned ones are a minority. There's a bullet there addressing sectioning, which links back to this supplement. β
791:, and link this very large page as part of the guideline. SMcCandlish, were you suggesting copying the whole thing into a section of
292:
Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation#Feedback_requested_for_disambiguation_page._Also_is_.22IN.22_required_for_most_headings.2Fsubheadings.3F
1353:
1212:
I'm prefer to delete the blanket
Organizations section and let the three subsections stand on their own, but it's not a major issue.
249:
979:
917:
880:
682:. Recognising that this page has broad community acceptance would assist in giving long disambiguation pages a consistent style.
180:
68:
945:
reverted the close with edit summary "RfCs last for a month, not a fortnight", enforcing a rule that isn't there. Whatever.
245:
230:
210:
1036:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
934:
610:
589:
573:
1333:
1040:
850:
774:
175:
739:
499:
There's a lot of "get consensus to remove" comments in the edit history on stuff that never had consensus to include
1267:
893:
linking to it gives that context too. I think that's enough to make it clear that it doesn't apply to small dabs. β
478:
It's addressed in this supplement, in principal 2, and I've strengthened it there. I would hesitate to put it in
430:
619:
17:
94:
62:
976:
914:
877:
522:
190:
of
Knowledge's policy and guideline documents is available, offering valuable insights and recommendations.
142:
43:
1177:
110:(MoS) guidelines by addressing inconsistencies, refining language, and integrating guidance effectively.
596:
until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. β
146:
107:
102:
235:
150:
1120:
968:
950:
906:
869:
691:
669:
106:, a collaborative effort focused on enhancing clarity, consistency, and cohesiveness across the
1217:
889:
The first sentence of the page starts "On large disambiguation pages...", and the paragraph of
661:
145:
procedure and is given additional attention, as it closely associated to the
English Knowledge
1330:
1274:
Knowledge talk:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages#Table of
Contents behavior in Vector 2022
847:
771:
49:
867:β We have to make exceptions for small disambig pages though. I also request broader input.
1298:
1134:
468:
358:
321:
8:
722:
403:
1116:
1016:
961:
946:
800:
687:
665:
551:
513:
1146:, out of the section headings and into the body of the given section. Any thoughts? β
1213:
1151:
1105:
1069:
993:
601:
562:
414:
1060:
I imagine it can be argued that the situations I'm enumerating simply exemplify the
1325:
842:
814:
766:
657:
535:
448:
187:
guidance on how to contribute to the development and revision of
Knowledge policies
1294:
824:
787:β I think a good approach would be to summarize it in a moderate-size section of
640:. This was moved to the MoS and tagged as a MoS guideline, but was never closed.
546:"never" is strong enough to require explicit consensus, which I haven't seen. --
464:
399:
354:
317:
402:"Section headings should be as simple as possible". I've commented on this here
375:
Absolutely, and thanks for the thanks! Knowing it's helped is a great feeling. β
1202:
718:
331:
I'd keep them under "People" (as in "People in "), otherwise without is fine. β
1347:
1309:
1010:
1002:
818:
796:
547:
527:
509:
504:
479:
299:
132:
1147:
1101:
1080:
1079:
The approach for a few entries that dominate the click-throughs comes from
1065:
1006:
989:
940:
827:
links to the page and gives a small summary of it that could be expanded. β
597:
409:
585:
531:
444:
440:
353:
OK. Done as you suggested. Thanks for making this btw, it's been helpful.
458:
Why crate a subject area and title if there is only one entry under it?
1287:
1277:
1257:
1182:
1166:
1089:
1083:: list them up top, outside the subject area scheme altogether. If a
894:
828:
704:
487:
376:
348:
332:
308:
174:
For information on
Knowledge's approach to the establishment of new
735:
166:
594:
Knowledge:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 25#MOS:LONGDAB
1314:
1256:
reading to have been settled by the promotion of the guideline. β
1243:
Is it appropriate to put all organizations under "Organizations"?
1206:
890:
792:
788:
584:
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
1240:
Should articles about names be kept separate from individuals?
580:
1189:
and have been reverting each other over the past few days.
222:
204:
1248:
1229:
1186:
684:
Knowledge:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 1
248:, where you can join the project or contribute to the
618:
The following discussion is an archived record of a
1139:This page ends up with a rather convoluted-looking
628:
No further edits should be made to this discussion.
1055:
283:Remove the "in" in every category and subcategory?
238:pages on Knowledge. If you wish to help, you can
1345:
966:Let someone uninvolved to close this RFC. Best.
1185:and I strongly disagree on the organization of
1045:The page currently gives the following advice:
761:Knowledge:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages
398:I agree, remove all the "In" as redundant per
631:A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
160:carefully and exercise caution when editing.
482:, because that info page is meant to cover
234:, an attempt to structure and organize all
244:attached to this talk page, or visit the
42:does not require a rating on Knowledge's
100:This page falls within the scope of the
1237:Should places go in a "Places" section?
935:Knowledge:Requests for comment#Duration
933:. I closed this RfC under the terms of
14:
1346:
759:. I would make it simply be part of
156:Contributors are urged to review the
116:Knowledge:WikiProject Manual of Style
763:, but stand-alone is okay, I guess.
738:one and seems to be widely followed.
258:Knowledge:WikiProject Disambiguation
153:. Both areas are subjects of debate.
119:Template:WikiProject Manual of Style
31:
29:
25:
1228:A shorter summary for everyone, re
261:Template:WikiProject Disambiguation
48:It is of interest to the following
23:
717:it basically de facto is already.
437:People with the surname/given name
165:
131:
24:
1365:
228:This page is within the scope of
1354:WikiProject Disambiguation pages
1247:In each case, the status quo on
1032:The discussion above is closed.
592:. This discussion will occur at
579:
443:allows for. Is that intentional?
435:I see there's no mention of the
221:
203:
93:
79:
72:
61:
30:
611:RfC: make this page a guideline
1041:Alphabetical order of sections
18:Knowledge talk:Manual of Style
13:
1:
1268:A matter of possible interest
1209:contain lists of individuals.
1172:19:45, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
1156:19:00, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
1125:21:31, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
1110:20:21, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
1095:19:44, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
1074:18:41, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
998:21:34, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
984:19:46, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
955:19:21, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
922:19:54, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
900:18:13, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
885:15:22, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
856:22:14, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
834:18:08, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
805:18:33, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
780:20:48, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
651:02:19, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
473:18:53, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
382:14:14, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
363:22:23, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
338:20:15, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
326:17:19, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
1339:11:50, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
1303:03:46, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
1023:15:52, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
751:06:55, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
727:17:44, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
710:14:46, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
696:14:44, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
674:14:41, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
606:09:31, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
493:16:08, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
7:
10:
1370:
1263:22:48, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
1222:21:27, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
419:14:16, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
231:WikiProject Disambiguation
141:This page falls under the
216:
173:
139:
103:Knowledge:Manual of Style
88:
56:
1283:15:23, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
1178:Mac organization dispute
1034:Please do not modify it.
625:Please do not modify it.
574:Redirects for discussion
572:"MOS:LONGDAB" listed at
453:19:15, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
404:User talk:Swpb#Old edits
122:Manual of Style articles
823:The first paragraph of
686:touched on this issue.
588:and has thus listed it
566:17:42, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
556:17:28, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
540:13:58, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
518:12:34, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
431:Given names or surnames
264:Disambiguation articles
176:policies and guidelines
1051:
170:
136:
1047:
169:
151:article titles policy
135:
523:Fictional characters
503:This essay has some
1308:Accusing people of
1161:That's reasonable,
620:request for comment
171:
158:awareness criteria
143:contentious topics
137:
44:content assessment
1141:table of contents
1135:Format of the ToC
812:
662:explanatory essay
280:
279:
276:
275:
272:
271:
198:
197:
194:
193:
1361:
1337:
1019:
1013:
982:
974:
971:
965:
944:
920:
912:
909:
883:
875:
872:
854:
822:
810:
778:
753:
636:The proposal is
627:
583:
417:
412:
352:
312:
303:
266:
265:
262:
259:
256:
243:
225:
218:
217:
207:
200:
199:
184:. Additionally,
124:
123:
120:
117:
114:
97:
90:
89:
84:
83:
82:
77:
76:
75:
65:
58:
57:
35:
34:
33:
26:
1369:
1368:
1364:
1363:
1362:
1360:
1359:
1358:
1344:
1343:
1323:
1290:
1270:
1180:
1137:
1043:
1038:
1037:
1017:
1011:
972:
969:
967:
959:
938:
910:
907:
905:
873:
870:
868:
840:
825:MOS:DABGROUPING
809:
764:
749:
747:
660:rather than an
656:Make this page
653:
649:
647:
623:
613:
577:
525:
501:
460:
433:
408:
407:
400:MOS:DABGROUPING
346:
306:
297:
285:
263:
260:
257:
254:
253:
239:
147:Manual of Style
121:
118:
115:
113:Manual of Style
112:
111:
108:Manual of Style
78:
71:
69:Manual of Style
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1367:
1357:
1356:
1342:
1341:
1319:lateral change
1289:
1286:
1269:
1266:
1245:
1244:
1241:
1238:
1234:
1233:
1225:
1224:
1210:
1203:Mac (nickname)
1198:
1179:
1176:
1175:
1174:
1136:
1133:
1132:
1131:
1130:
1129:
1128:
1127:
1042:
1039:
1031:
1030:
1029:
1028:
1027:
1026:
1025:
986:
928:
927:
926:
925:
924:
862:
861:
860:
859:
858:
782:
754:
745:
741:
729:
712:
698:
654:
645:
641:
635:
634:
633:
614:
612:
609:
590:for discussion
576:
570:
569:
568:
563:Uanfala (talk)
558:
524:
521:
500:
497:
496:
495:
459:
456:
439:sections that
432:
429:
428:
427:
426:
425:
424:
423:
422:
421:
389:
388:
387:
386:
385:
384:
368:
367:
366:
365:
341:
340:
314:
313:
304:
284:
281:
278:
277:
274:
273:
270:
269:
267:
255:Disambiguation
236:disambiguation
226:
214:
213:
211:Disambiguation
208:
196:
195:
192:
191:
172:
162:
161:
155:
138:
128:
127:
125:
98:
86:
85:
66:
54:
53:
47:
36:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1366:
1355:
1352:
1351:
1349:
1340:
1335:
1332:
1329:
1328:
1320:
1316:
1311:
1307:
1306:
1305:
1304:
1300:
1296:
1285:
1284:
1281:
1280:
1275:
1265:
1264:
1261:
1260:
1255:
1250:
1242:
1239:
1236:
1235:
1231:
1227:
1226:
1223:
1219:
1215:
1211:
1208:
1204:
1199:
1195:
1194:
1193:
1190:
1188:
1184:
1173:
1170:
1169:
1164:
1160:
1159:
1158:
1157:
1153:
1149:
1145:
1142:
1126:
1122:
1118:
1117:Shhhnotsoloud
1113:
1112:
1111:
1107:
1103:
1098:
1097:
1096:
1093:
1092:
1086:
1085:whole section
1082:
1078:
1077:
1076:
1075:
1071:
1067:
1063:
1058:
1056:
1050:
1046:
1035:
1024:
1020:
1014:
1008:
1004:
1001:
1000:
999:
995:
991:
987:
985:
981:
978:
975:
963:
962:Shhhnotsoloud
958:
957:
956:
952:
948:
947:Shhhnotsoloud
942:
936:
932:
929:
923:
919:
916:
913:
903:
902:
901:
898:
897:
892:
888:
887:
886:
882:
879:
876:
866:
863:
857:
852:
849:
846:
845:
837:
836:
835:
832:
831:
826:
820:
816:
808:
807:
806:
802:
798:
794:
790:
786:
783:
781:
776:
773:
770:
769:
762:
758:
755:
752:
748:
743:
737:
734:Is already a
733:
730:
728:
724:
720:
716:
713:
711:
708:
707:
702:
699:
697:
693:
689:
688:Shhhnotsoloud
685:
681:
678:
677:
676:
675:
671:
667:
666:Shhhnotsoloud
663:
659:
652:
648:
643:
639:
632:
629:
626:
621:
616:
615:
608:
607:
603:
599:
595:
591:
587:
582:
575:
567:
564:
559:
557:
553:
549:
544:
543:
542:
541:
537:
533:
529:
520:
519:
515:
511:
506:
494:
491:
490:
485:
481:
477:
476:
475:
474:
470:
466:
455:
454:
450:
446:
442:
438:
420:
416:
411:
405:
401:
397:
396:
395:
394:
393:
392:
391:
390:
383:
380:
379:
374:
373:
372:
371:
370:
369:
364:
360:
356:
350:
345:
344:
343:
342:
339:
336:
335:
330:
329:
328:
327:
323:
319:
310:
305:
301:
296:
295:
294:
293:
289:
268:
251:
247:
242:
241:edit the page
237:
233:
232:
227:
224:
220:
219:
215:
212:
209:
206:
202:
201:
189:
188:
183:
182:
177:
168:
164:
163:
159:
154:
152:
148:
144:
134:
130:
129:
126:
109:
105:
104:
99:
96:
92:
91:
87:
70:
67:
64:
60:
59:
55:
51:
45:
41:
37:
28:
27:
19:
1326:
1318:
1291:
1278:
1271:
1258:
1253:
1246:
1214:Clarityfiend
1191:
1181:
1167:
1162:
1144:
1138:
1090:
1084:
1081:MOS:DABORDER
1062:clear reason
1061:
1059:
1052:
1048:
1044:
1033:
1007:MOS:DABPAGES
930:
895:
864:
843:
829:
784:
767:
756:
731:
714:
705:
700:
679:
655:
637:
630:
624:
617:
578:
526:
505:WP:OWNership
502:
488:
483:
465:--Loginnigol
461:
436:
434:
377:
333:
315:
290:
286:
246:project page
229:
185:
179:
140:
101:
50:WikiProjects
40:project page
39:
1327:SMcCandlish
1165:I did it. β
844:SMcCandlish
815:SMcCandlish
768:SMcCandlish
658:a guideline
586:MOS:LONGDAB
441:MOS:DABNAME
181:WP:PROPOSAL
178:, refer to
1295:Iterresise
1163:I'll do it
638:successful
355:Dig Deeper
318:Dig Deeper
250:discussion
149:, and the
1183:User:Swpb
746:Franklin!
719:Thryduulf
646:Franklin!
532:-- Fyrael
445:-- Fyrael
1348:Category
1012:The Grid
904:Thanks!
819:Dicklyon
813:editors
797:Dicklyon
736:de facto
732:Support.
548:JHunterJ
528:JHunterJ
510:JHunterJ
300:JHunterJ
1315:grammar
1148:Uanfala
1102:Uanfala
1066:Uanfala
990:Uanfala
941:Uanfala
931:Comment
891:MOS:DAB
865:Support
793:MOS:DAB
789:MOS:DAB
785:Support
757:Support
715:Support
701:Support
680:Support
598:Bagumba
410:Widefox
1310:WP:OWN
1288:wp:own
1003:WP:RFC
977:(talk)
915:(talk)
878:(talk)
480:WP:DDD
316:Thanks
46:scale.
1272:See:
38:This
16:<
1299:talk
1279:swpb
1259:swpb
1254:less
1218:talk
1205:and
1168:swpb
1152:talk
1121:talk
1106:talk
1091:swpb
1070:talk
1018:talk
1009:. β
994:talk
951:talk
896:swpb
830:swpb
817:and
801:talk
723:talk
706:swpb
692:talk
670:talk
602:talk
552:talk
536:talk
514:talk
489:swpb
469:talk
449:talk
415:talk
378:swpb
359:talk
349:Swpb
334:swpb
322:talk
309:Swpb
1336:πΌ
1276:. β
1249:Mac
1230:Mac
1207:MαΊ‘c
1187:Mac
1021:)
973:NOV
970:AXO
911:NOV
908:AXO
874:NOV
871:AXO
853:πΌ
777:πΌ
703:. β
508:--
484:all
1350::
1324:β
1301:)
1220:)
1154:)
1123:)
1108:)
1072:)
996:)
953:)
841:β
811:To
803:)
795:?
765:β
740:β
725:)
694:)
672:)
664:.
622:.
604:)
554:)
538:)
516:)
471:)
451:)
413:;
406:.
361:)
324:)
1334:Β’
1331:β
1297:(
1232::
1216:(
1150:(
1119:(
1104:(
1068:(
1015:(
992:(
980:β
964::
960:@
949:(
943::
939:@
918:β
881:β
851:Β’
848:β
821::
799:(
775:Β’
772:β
721:(
690:(
668:(
600:(
550:(
534:(
512:(
467:(
447:(
357:(
351::
347:@
320:(
311::
307:@
302::
298:@
252:.
52::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
