1456:. Others have done work from time to time too. I've also tried to do something to the Governance section, and added material about the toponymy. The problem is that none of the active members of the project know much about the city, and, although I have some source material for what could go into parts of the article, my information is not complete. So, I'd support Peter's idea of us having effectively a task-force of the project to work on the article, with people taking on different sections. I could take on Governance and try to sort out the existing references so that they conform with guidelines (small work, compared with what needs to be done, I agree), but if we are to do this, it might be an idea to work on it section-by-section basis, and possibly in a sandbox somewhere prior to inserting in the article, which means a group effort for each section. I am easy with either approach. We need to harness some enthusiastic editors who may not yet be fully aware of all the issues about structuring articles, the need for reliable sources, and so on. However, if a group of us agree to make a start on it, I'm in. It is an article we should ideally be prioritizing.
597:, where he has consolidated a number of very short articles (at risk from deletion nominations) into one large article, with redirects for all the high schools put in place to point to the relevant sections within it. This then allows individual articles to be split off from it if and when it seems sensible to do it. It removes the threat of deletion to individual articles, as the overall article can easily pass the notability tests. I think this "top down" strategy could be used in more cases, and we should consider using it whenever we are faced with similar situations. I'll get on with it shortly (this evening). I think, and I'll certainly put stubs in place for the hundreds article soon as well. I envisage we could do something along similar lines for modern ecclesiastical parishes, the old pre-1974 but post 1948(?) local government areas as well. At least that is the idea I have had in my mind for a little while.
918:(a glance at its recent editing history will make clear what this section is about.) We may need to be aleart to the fact that some editors are being rather quick off the mark on tagging entire articles as unsourced, and when the unsourced tags are removed (correctly removed), we may even be faced with a deluge of individual unsourced tags being placed on the article. In this case, the editor concerned isn't a new editor, though I note their talk page has at least one other message about this extremely quick kind of tagging that can interfere (as it did with me on one occasion) with ongoing editing. I tend to create articles in wikispace rather than userspace, as I think it conforms more with what wikipedia is about concerning collaborative work, but I wonder how others approach doing this? It does mean that my created articles tend to be invalid as DYK nominations (see
1317:. I think it could do with some additional views from people who have been uninvolved up to now. Since this project has a banner on the talk page, it seemed sensible to invite people from this project to comment. Could I politely invite anyone with the time or inclination to read through the dispute and comment on the article's talk page? The article is under full protection at the moment, to stop the edit-warring that was going on with respect to the disputed material, and it could do with being resolved, one way or another, to allow development of the article to proceed. Thanks.
1360:
editing that adds tons of pictures and/or slews of text that seem to be from a tourist site, or wrangles with editors who think things should be done a different way, or who think certain sites should be included even though it goes against wikipedia's policy. Speaking for myself, it got so dispiriting that, given that
Chester is a place I know comparatively little about, I just went and edited something else I knew better. I agree it is in a very bad state. But there again, there is much to do in many articles and many of them are in a poor state within the project.
955:-related topics. Collaborative stuff can come later when my own stuff feels sort of complete. But I do think there is a difference between articles with potential for expansion (eg civil parishes) and rubbish (Joe is a good chap). If an article is being actively edited (and the history will tell that) it should be left. There are thousands of articles out there which have not been touched for months and are entirely unreferenced. Those going for adminship (if this sort of thing really helps) could do some useful work with these.
1627:(outdent) I've sorted out, as far as I can, the Further Reading section. I found a surprisingly large number of errors, including missing authors, short-form titles, and wrong isbn numbers. I'm not sure many of them should be included, though I have the Wilding one about The Miller of Dee that does give some information about early indiustry. Amongst the problems are self-publishing, and the unknown quality of many of the publications. I'm almost inclined to remove all of them. What do others think?
31:
1150:
make the tables much more wide. Let me think while I try to complete them at the moment. At the moment, it is fairly clear where the facts' verifications come from, even though they are not present as inline citations, and, as I said, I have seen quite successful articles (perhaps even FA status articles that achieved FA status after the need for verification was written into the guidelines) use this technique.
146:, as a result of which a volunteer team of experienced FA editors has been set up. The aim is for them to ally with an active team from a WikiProject that knows the content side of things and is interested in taking an article to FA. The goal would be to help the project ramp up FA production, and to discover if this is a good way of sharing skills between content editors and people who know the FA process.
1197:. Could you take a look at the list for your local area and see if any are missing or create articles for any red links. Could you also add the new project banner "{{WikiProject Museums}}" to the Talk pages of the articles, so that we can identify those in need of work etc. Any help appreciated &, if anyone is interested you are welcome to join the project or discuss Museum related articles on the
469:. I'm not sure if this is the best name for it, but there would certainly have been other APs of the same name in the UK, as it just means Oak Town. If these articles are going to be created in more than very small numbers, we could do with some thought as to the nomenclature and categorisation for them. I'm not sure if this is the best name for it, though it looks like the other Cheshire Acton, now
499:
something like "Ancient parishes of
Cheshire", but unless more articles are split off from the overall "Ancient parishes" article, then it probably wouldn't be too much use. As a general strategy, I suggest that all information can begin in the Ancient parishes article, and get split out into separate articles ahen and if it "gets out of hand". I'm trying to adopt the same strategy for
1086:, which, on the editor's current form, he will get around to looking at as he seems to be looking at articles I have edited in the past for some reason (though I don't think this is their aim to concentrate on me). For this article, if an inline reference is explicitly needed for each cell in all of the tables, it will be a disaster!
564:, which might be at least mentioned there? Just teasing out history of what split from Acton when might well be too detailed for a top-level article. And there are also what look like AP population figures available at Vision of Britain Through Time, though it's hard to distinguish population change from boundary change.
1893:
Agree with adding residents. I think we can leave red-linked people who obviously meet the notability requirements (eg have ODNB entries) as many
British biographies are currently missing. However, we should definitely require inline citations to solid sources for such entries. Red links might become
926:
about overly swift applications of the Speedy
Deletion tags to newly-created articles, and some have suggested that this has come about as a result of the ways in which candidates are increasingly being assessed in RfAs (it shows up the deficiencies in the RfA process if this is true, in my opinion.)
498:
I think I must go ahead and start the article I've been planning called "Ancient parishes of
Cheshire". In which case, the naming scheme you've used seems reasonable to me, though others may suggest a better one. If necessary, the History of Cheshire category could have a suitable sub-category called
260:
Well, obviously I have a lot of sympathy for your own particular experiences with the GA process. I know that in the past there has been discord between what US reviewers expect and what is reasonable for small UK towns and villages. I remember getting rather frustrated when a US reviewer demanded to
1978:
As members of the project may already have noticed, the Deva article was promoted to GA today (17 April). It's been suggested on the talk page that it could be improved further to FA and I think it's definitely worth doing. It's a very important subject and deserves a good, comprehensive article. As
1854:
does not include such a section. And the photos need sorting (or removing and/or replacing) but maybe this will be done when the article is nearing its completion. I think a brief history of governance is worth including to give some perspective of the current situation, while concentrating mainly
1679:
which is a bit long, but this reflects the quantity of material under this heading. It is fully referenced and I hope complete-enough. It will need copyediting and maybe additions, if these are sufficiently notable. The new section means there is duplication elsewhere in the article which we will
1230:
Thanks, thats great. The remit & scope of the project is still being refined but it includes art galleries, heritage centres, historic houses that include interesting exhibits & are open to the public, museum ships etc but not zoos and aquariums (? aquaria) & the like as they are covered
1027:
I think it helps if the first version of the article saved into wikispace has at least one (preferably inline) reference. I've always tried to do this, and only once had problems with overzealous tagging (though I realise now I'm an admin, my creations are no longer patrolled). The other trick is to
969:
It takes a little bit of effort to find those articles though, compared to just patrolling new pages. I tend to prefer working in the full public glare, and so don't do much article building in my sandbox, but we're all different. I do wholeheartedly agree with your distinction between articles that
1878:
of
Chester as well as those born in the city - the residents will often have more influence in the city than those who happened to be born there and moved away. Please add those you can find. If editors add people who are not blue-linked or are unreferenced should, in my opinion, be deleted asap.
1108:
to provide inline citations for all the numbers provided in the demogs section, as they're not from precisely the same source. However, I've consolidated the "citations needed" tagging as the multiple tags in each subsection were just getting silly. In tables, there's often a column for references,
507:
is currently separate, and I think that article could be easily merged into the overall one, as it is mainly just a list of settelemnts at the moment. Since you are finding that theres enough material in the Acton case to put in a separate article, it probably would be in need of being split off in
233:
do a technical review (in the way a peer-reviewed scientific paper would be) since they do not know enough about the subject, and/or have access to the reference material. Instead the review concentrates wholly on grammar and prose (this was certainly the case for the two
Middlewich GA reviews). I
1512:
As for the Emery books, they were added in July 2006 by 81.7.35.216, who from the edit summaries, is the author. I don't know what status these books would have from the point of view of reliable sources, but I imagine they would be problematic if they were used as sources, and may even be so in a
1149:
Ok. I may do that, but my enthusiasm for editing that article has been a little drained, as my previous edits always provoked an almost immediate slew of new tags, often to parts of article I had not edited before. In terms of the column for references idea in tables, I could do that, but it would
764:
A good idea. I suggest a specific section on the project page for them. The two parts to vol 5 of the
Victoria History of the County of Chester were online, but I can't seem to locate them now (the site they used to be at is not really functioning anymore). The two parts dealt with Chester itself,
1631:
I'm willing to have a go at a section on
Landmarks (including tourist attractions) plus Religious sites (which may well be incorporated in one section). It will be a bit complicated to sort out thoughts initially so at least the first phase will be in my sandbox. Then when it goes live, I would
1211:
I've added a load (yesterday) and tried to put in either websites or contact details for them, too, to reassure people that they are real (like the "Cuckoo Clock Museum", for instance). May be there are more, or there are some which could be added but which I thought were outside the remit of the
354:
Excellent! I've made a few changes to the article over the past day or so, but I haven't done anything radical. There are still a few areas that I'm certain will be problematic at GA though, but living 20-odd miles away I don't have access to the sources that you do.Ā :-) So to get things going, I
1748:
I agree the governance section should concentrate on the recent past, but in the interests of being comprehensive, I really think that some history should be included especially since the history of
Chester article is poorly referenced and doesn't have a specific 'history of governance' section.
1559:
overdue for sorting out. I'm no expert by any means, although I have some knowledge of the city and the surrounding area, having spent time there studying some years back. I could assist with sorting out the formatting & finding citations/refs. I'm glad others feel the same as I do about the
1504:
On the matter of references, I've just tried to track down the books listed in the Further Reading section to see if the full detauis can be retrieved. So far, I've discovered that all the Emery G. books are apparently self-published, as they have G. Emery down as both the author (sometimes with
1359:
It has been in a far far worse state, believe me. The reasons may well be various: too few active members of the project, too busy fighting fires elsewhere and writing other articles more close to one's home and interests. There's also been a high incidence of vandalism at times and poor-quality
1076:
in response to the unsourced template, and stated that all the subsequent subsections used information from those references, but this was obviously not sufficient for the editor, as it resulted in templates being added to every one of the subsections! Additionally (not in our project, but it is
1031:
Regarding frequency of citations, I believe one per paragraph is generally deemed adequate for everything except featured status, although precise numbers and quotations should usually be cited. You could always try placing a reference to the whole book at the end of each paragraph as an interim
190:
There's surely always a point in producing better articles? In spite of the unfortunate Runcorn episode described above, I think that in the overwhelming majority of cases articles are very definitely improved by both the GA and FA processes. And not just in presentation, but also in content and
1808:
Thanks, Peter. "Landmarks and tourist attractions" looks like an excellent summary, and given the amount of material mentioned eg by Pevsner, I don't think it's too long. I think it needs amalgamating with much of the following section, currently entitled "Present day", and the photographs need
538:
would be helpful, I think, even if just as a placeholder for linking to. Redirects or very short stubs for the sub-articles might be useful, even if there's no content to speak of, just so that people outside the project can find articles when they link to or search for phrases like "Nantwich
1832:
suggests including information on "changes in governance made throughout the history of the settlementāwhat was its former status? its former administrative district and/or county? etc"; it is otherwise a bit vague on what historical stuff can go in. How Chester is governed today is the most
886:
has the Welsh name added to its reference (and note its another one which has the Welsh name given in the lead in the article itself) when it is not clear just why it should be specially marked out in this way. I have a reference to the Old Dee Bridge as dating back to Saxon times (as it was
1763:
I think we must have replied at the same time -- I didn't see yours before I made mine! I'd agree history of governance is a legitimate topic, but I don't think it's as urgent to include it now as to edit much of the rest of the article into better shape. As to whether it should be under
290:? We can do that ourselves pretty easily I think. The only disgreement I have with what you've said is that you can never know whether you've got the article to GA/FA standard until someone unconnected with it agrees that you have. So shall we try for GA again, together this time?Ā :-) --
1516:
Finally, there's an annoying "op. cit." in teh footnotes, when there is no unambiguous way of determining what the source referred to actually is. I'll try to sort some of these out. Even if the sections are re-written, we may be able to reuse some of the references already supplied.
950:
Quite a discussion! I tend to work in my sandbox for new articles and for significant changes to existing articles so that (1) I can concentrate on it in my own time and (2) I don't get b*ggered about by other editors while I am in "creative mode". I did this today with the
1421:). The project has 32 avowed participants. Could someone with the necessary reference material take this on? Or perhaps individuals could take on sections (History, Governance, Transport, etc.) and build up a much better article, which we must all agree, is a key article.
1505:
others) and the publisher. I've got one of the other books myself ("The Miller of Dee" one), and I know that the Lewis 2007 one was added by the author, though it is a researched book that looks into the disaster. Given what I read on the various pages to do with
1509:, along with comments by a frequent closer of FAC articles, it seems that more attention is being given to the quality of the sources used, and so I suggest that if we have an effort to improve this article, we need to pay particular attention to the sources.
1709:
I'm doing the governance section, but I'm wondering what detail should go into it: should I include detailed historical stuff about the parliamentary constituency, for example, or just concentrate on the more recent history and the present day? Any advice?
799:
I agree with adding the borough websites; I use Crewe & Nantwich quite frequently. (I hope that information doesn't get lost if/when the reorganisation goes ahead!) The interactive mapping site I mentioned also gives the election districts, by the way.
1979:
such, I'm asking for any help people can give, especially copy editing. It would also be great if someone could find or take some better images, the current ones are ok, but there must be a better one of at least the amphitheatre. There's currently a
2016:
The issues raised at peer review have been addressed, the only thing outstanding is getting hold of a map, which I should be able to do in the next few days. I think it should be thrown to the FAC lions now rather than wait, does anyone else agree?
769:) to sort out parliamentary constituencies and so on. The websites for the districts and boroughs probably should also be added as I have often found they can be used either directly or indirectly (to find other links) to yield useful information.
1314:
996:
article as soon as I remove the inuse template. Most of what is being tagged is of old stuff that has been there for ages, but the amount of individual sentences that are being tagged would result in incomprehensibility if applied, say, to
1833:
important facet of a governance section, but the historical stuff should definitely be included too, probably in a 'history' subsection of governance. The way I see it is being comprehensive rather than superfluous if that's your concern.
172:. It's a lot of jumping through hoops and (in most cases) doesn't improve the correctness of what's said (since it is unlikely that the FA reviewers will be in a position to check the correctness of an article), only the way it's said.
1924:
and noted that it mentioned history, but whilst writing, wondered at the degree of detail required. Since I started to write about the history in some detail, what i will do is continue with that, place it in a relevant section in
1282:
Museums of/in Cheshire would be a useful article. Additionally, the ones of purely local interest could be included in the appropriate local article (town, CP). "Merge with locality" tends to be the AfD outcome for such entities.
795:
As the list could get quite long, I think we should probably make it a project subpage, but linked clearly from the main project page, perhaps in the Important subpages box, as I think it would be most useful to newcomers to the
640:
PS If you're new to the project, I'd encourage you to list all your new articles & stubs in the relevant sections of the main Wikiproject page, as that's where I draw the material for the "Newest articles" section. Cheers,
1081:
has two sections where almost every sentence has been individually tagged by the same editor - actually I note that some references I am sure I included have been removed at some point. As I said, this does not bode well for
1873:
are now in prose and each one is referenced. I have excluded those for whom I cannot confirm birth in the city. It's a bit bare and I should think there are more (and more notable) people around. I think we should add
1412:
This article has been a problem since I arrived at Knowledge (and presumably before), but the challenge has always seemed too great. It will have to be rewritten, I think, virtually from scratch (this had to be done for
384:
towards GA in the way you suggest is an excellent idea. I guess this would be a model for working on other Cheshire articles towards GA (or even FA). It will be interesting to see how it progresses. I also guess that
2058:
1035:
I'm not sure that the discussion about RfAs is based in much reality as to how RfA works. In my experience, civility is one of the key things people are looking for. I certainly managed to acquire the mop without doing
1536:
I'd be willing to help by taking on a section or two as well. I share DDStretch's concern about some of the current references as well. The standards for reliable sources seem to have got quite a bit tougher recently.
1451:
I've been looking back at the article's history. There have been sporadic attempts to work at improving the article, and back in November 2007, I edited the names and sequence of sections to make it conform more to
881:
and other articles about Chester, and never responded to any messages inviting them to help wikipedia and those articles by beginning to add references to the articles. On another matter, I'm also not sure just why
137:
But there are now some very good Cheshire articles that are very close to FA. Maybe getting one or more of them to FA would give the project a well-deserved boost, and examples to follow. I mention this because at
1632:
appreciate help with copyediting, etc. Regarding self-publishing, I guess it's a bit like personal web pages. If they are well and reliably referenced, they should be OK; if not, in my opinion, they should go.
1784:
Since you're suggesting prioritising that's fair enough: there's no need to go to the effort when there are other parts which need attention more urgently. Let's just hope it doesn't get forgottenĀ :-)
1604:
OK, it's listed on the portal as "Collaboration of the Month". As it's mid-month, I suggest we see how far we can get until the end of May. Someone capable of banner design might like to make one.
355:
suggest that I list what I see as the GA "problem" areas on the article's talk page, looking at the article like a (UK) GA reviewer, and then you can agree with me or not. How does that sound? --
1560:
sorry state of the article. I too have been put off editing on this article because I thought it was a lost cause (for various reasons). It should be the flagship article of WP:Cheshire.
634:
931:, I do wish the editor concerned had forewarned editors about what he was proposing to do. So, what do others suggest we do, if anything, for articles that fall within our remit here?
134:
I know that the experiences of some editors in nominating Cheshire articles for FA has not been universally positive, and neither has it always been a positive experience even at GA.
1851:
727:
706:
412:
If any Cheshire-based photographers could take snaps of (current or former) courts in their neck of the woods (Crown Courts, County Courts and magistrates courts) and add them to
923:
1330:
1768:
or as a subsection in Governance, I don't think it matters much either way, as long as the Governance section points to it if it's placed in the History of Chester article.
1407:
105:
It's a long time off (although seems to come around so quickly), but I've created a version of the Cheshire county map with the expected boundaries for 2009. It's found at
979:
629:
subpages, I've just done a belated update. Suggestions for what to use in subsequent months would be useful! For those new to the project since the last update, there's a
1905:
1820:
1430:
858:
it has a legend about Edward I and this has just been copied into the article. Does anyone have more reliable information and references about the bridge to improve the
755:
1888:
1704:
1569:
1546:
1391:
1373:
1022:
1009:, tagging almost everything he is likely to tag would result in hundreds of individually-cited references to different pages of a relatively small number of sources.
726:
That's a brilliant idea. I struggle to know where to go to find the info I want. It may of course exist somewhere in Knowledge but if it does I've never found it.
1962:
1743:
1485:
1308:
1294:
1277:
1163:
1120:
1099:
1051:
811:
610:
588:
529:
1946:
1723:
1661:
1469:
964:
904:
782:
389:
has felt a bit "lonely" during the work done on Middlewich and with team support it should be easier - I certainly felt rather on my own when I was struggling with
364:
329:
299:
243:
200:
181:
1315:
Talk:The King's School, Chester#Despite discussion, how can the continuing dispute about adding the CCF past and present leaders in a series of lists be resolved?
730:
is not very "friendly". There are lots of sites I've come across and it would be good to have a place to record them and make them available to others. Such as
1615:
1845:
1793:
1779:
1758:
1255:
162:
2106:
2070:
2044:
1864:
1244:
I think we need a bit of care before adding articles on smaller local museums, such as Nantwich Museum, as I recall they have been deleted at AfD in the past.
402:
2138:
1261:
1599:
1028:
put something like "Creating article on XXX; intend further work" as the edit summary if one has to leave the article in an unfinished state for any reason.
944:
836:
720:
269:
guidelines has gone a long way towards addressing that problem. There are now quite a number of UK settlement GAs and even FAs conforming to that guideline.
2026:
1239:
1225:
1809:
redistributing and/or replacing. Perhaps some of "Present day" could also be moved into history, as it seems to relate to 20th/21st century development?
854:
as a reference. Is this a reliable source? It says itself that it is an unofficial site and some of the comments made seem to be without foundation.
413:
2010:
877:
I'm inclined to agree with you. There is or was strong links between that site and the person who added enormous amounts of unreferenced material to
516:, and would be drawing up suitable maps for any Ancient Parishes article, as I have done for those two already, but it can be a bit time-consuming.)
1689:
432:
1850:
Thanks for the comments. I agree that "Present Day" should go - completely - and the material therein deleted or amalgamated with other sections.
492:
455:
149:
If anyone would be interested in trying out this idea, then please reply here. I'd have to admit that when I first heard about this FA team idea,
1992:
1353:
1193:? We are currently trying to identify articles within the Museum projects scope (& develop guidelines to help improve them etc). There is a
652:
508:
any overall Ancient parishes article as well, so I don't see any problem with that. Does that help at all? Any comments? (I'm still working on
1641:
89:
81:
76:
64:
59:
1072:
Thanks for the comments. I did put three references at the head of a section delaing with demographics (which I hadn't written, in fact) in
871:
1205:
594:
169:
106:
1530:
662:
I'm wondering if it would be useful to maintain a list of free online resources that are relevant to the project. I'm sure many, like the
1980:
992:
I tend to agree that one should fix it rather than tag it, but I am disappointed with the renewed slew of tagging that gets done to the
970:
have the potential for expansion and those that don't, and for me that ought to be the only criteria; instead of tagging it, fix it. --
421:
221:
as an example, the two GA reviews brought up some points, however they were very US centric (because of the reviewers). The review by
234:
think the idea of getting the article to GA or FA class is good, but I don't see the point in actually getting a GA/FA review done.
1997:
Congratulations! It was one article that I despaired of, in the state it was before you took on the task of editing it into shape.
822:
2035:
Go for it! It would be good to have a truly Cheshire article as a FA. I have made a few suggestions for tweaks on the talk page.
1396:
It's always easier to start a new article properly than to fix a poor quality existing one, especially one that isn't referenced.
910:
887:
mentioned in the Domesday Book), and I'll try to dig out some more. (The reference is on page 7 of the book: Wilding, R. (1997).
139:
1344:
article, a key article and one that ought to be setting a standard for this project. Is there some reason why it's so poor? --
465:
As my article on the Acton CP was getting out of hand length-wise, I have started an article for the related ancient parish:
124:
129:
417:
47:
17:
889:
Miller of Dee.:The story of Chester mills and millers, their trades and wares, the weir, the water engine and the salmon
1198:
695:
1970:
657:
477:. Thoughts most welcome, I really know nothing about this area at all (which is partly why I wanted to split it from
1555:
Likewise, I'd like to help if I can. My editing time is limited at the moment, but this is something that has been
557:
466:
442:
Articles have now been written for all the Grade I and II* listed Cheshire churches - at least all I can find on
1189:
Could I ask for some help accessing local knowledge, from members of this wikiproject, on the behalf of the new
679:
1264:
could usefully be about all of them, with notable ones (some of which already exist) being split off from it?
765:
and so should also be added to the list if they can be relocated. I also make use of the Election maps site (
1232:
1190:
637:
for suggested items without objections. We're still particularly short of good suggestions for biographies.
407:
1083:
1006:
998:
919:
535:
474:
1382:
I do know what you mean. There are lots of articles that I've completely given up on as hopeless cases. --
1109:
which doesn't take up too much space, and you could put a note on general sources in the table footnotes.
1184:
825:. It contains the urls that are mentioned above, as well as one or two others. Feel free to add/comment!
1667:
1542:
1387:
1349:
975:
698:. Also people might not realise how much is available for free via Cheshire library card log-in -- the
360:
295:
196:
158:
38:
687:
1957:
1900:
1815:
1774:
1738:
1610:
1480:
1402:
1313:
There has been a long-running content dispute about the appropriateness of certain material added to
1289:
1250:
1212:
project? What kinds of places which one might not immediately think of as museums would be included?
1115:
1046:
831:
806:
715:
647:
583:
487:
437:
2040:
1884:
1860:
1700:
1685:
1676:
1637:
1426:
960:
867:
751:
460:
451:
398:
262:
1829:
743:
630:
217:
of getting them to GA or FA review - however the actual review itself is too hit and miss. Using
1894:
a problem with GA or FA review, but we can always quickly create stubs if references are given.
1194:
286:
Whatever your view on this FA team idea, what say you that we have another go at getting GA for
2086:
1538:
1383:
1345:
1335:
971:
620:
428:
356:
291:
192:
154:
1952:
1895:
1810:
1769:
1733:
1605:
1565:
1475:
1397:
1284:
1245:
1110:
1041:
1005:(which I had seen used elsewhere) was deemed unsatisfactory to the tagger. If he ever sees
922:
as an example of a long-term ongoing article creation.) A related discussion is ongoing at
826:
801:
710:
642:
578:
540:
513:
500:
482:
222:
1680:
have to work through (and a lot of the material in the article should be deleted anyway).
1474:
We could start a Collaboration of the Month with Chester, and advertise it on the portal.
8:
2085:
The nomination was unsuccessful, but there was some positive feedback, particularly from
2036:
2005:
1941:
1880:
1856:
1718:
1696:
1681:
1656:
1633:
1525:
1464:
1422:
1368:
1325:
1272:
1220:
1158:
1094:
1017:
956:
939:
924:
Knowledge talk:Requests for adminship#Bite the newbies and get rewarded with an adminship
899:
863:
847:
777:
747:
683:
605:
524:
447:
394:
1926:
1921:
1765:
1729:
1728:
For now, I'd be inclined to stick to the recent past on the governance section, as the
1453:
841:
593:
Yes, at the moment, I'm very much in favour of doing what Peter I. Vardy has done with
561:
509:
266:
2124:
504:
443:
325:
239:
177:
560:; there are some events that cross the boundaries of the CPs/townships, such as the
1929:
and then summarize it with some expansion of the present day governance issues for
1513:
further reading section, given what I have read on wikipedia about self-publishing.
425:
1077:
where I live, and so it is on my watchlist and I have edited a bit, but not much)
1592:
1561:
855:
626:
574:
478:
119:
1870:
1582:
Me too! I share all the above concerns, but I'd still love to help where I can!
46:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
2102:
2066:
2022:
1998:
1988:
1934:
1841:
1789:
1754:
1711:
1649:
1518:
1457:
1361:
1318:
1265:
1213:
1151:
1087:
1010:
932:
892:
859:
770:
691:
598:
517:
709:, but I don't know how one would go about adding resources or comments to it.
675:
265:
got its water from not so very long ago. But the development last year of the
2094:
2090:
109:. Just wanted the project to be aware of these for when (if) the time comes.
731:
1971:
1836:
On a different note, I've sorted out the Roman bit of the history section.
1506:
1260:
Perhaps this is another instance where an overall article, titled perhaps,
1105:
1073:
1002:
993:
928:
915:
878:
470:
386:
321:
235:
173:
143:
97:
547:
idea, and I'm not surprised that they are taking a lot of time to compile.
1078:
1983:
of the article going on so feel free to drop by and add your opinions.
1586:
952:
381:
287:
218:
113:
2098:
2062:
2018:
1984:
1837:
1785:
1750:
1236:
1202:
663:
705:
I'm aware that the UK project lists some resources at the bottom of
739:
142:
there has been some discussion about how to increase the number of
2093:. Once the article has undergone a copy edit, I'll resubmit it at
766:
573:
At the moment, though, I'm focusing on working through the modern
2123:
Good luck with this! It'll make a cracking featured articleĀ :) --
1930:
1852:
Knowledge:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements
1669:
1414:
1341:
883:
851:
390:
150:
1418:
667:
671:
577:, with the hope that a GA might eventually prove possible!
1648:
I'll do the same as Peter, but for the Governance section
735:
168:
Personally I don't see the point - see my comments above
213:
I think you are right that articles are improved by the
473:
wasn't an AP. For now, I've just categorised it under
1920:
Thanks for the comments about governance. I had read
1695:
I've now started work on the notable people section.
633:
for articles, biographies & images, as well as a
416:, the photographs would be very much appreciated for
170:
Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cheshire#Featured articles
414:commons:Category:Courthouses in the United Kingdom
1309:Outside views requested to help resolve a dispute
1032:measure to get rid of the annoying slew of tags.
1732:has already been hived off to another article.
107:Image:Cheshire_outline_map_with_UK_(2009).png
891:. Chester: Gordon Emery. isbn 1-872265952.)
696:Cheshire County Council: Interactive Mapping
595:Secondary education in the Borough of Halton
225:was much more useful. My problem with the
422:List of county courts in England and Wales
229:is that often the people doing the review
688:UK Database of Historic Parks and Gardens
690:, and I've only recently discovered the
320:Go on then - you've twisted my arm!Ā :-)
700:Oxford Dictionary of National Biography
153:immediately sprang into my mind.Ā :-) --
14:
692:UK National Inventory of War Memorials
140:Knowledge talk:Content review/workshop
44:Do not edit the contents of this page.
1001:, and yet the solution I supplied in
1501:(outdent) That would be a good idea!
556:I don't know how far I will develop
25:
418:List of courts in England and Wales
23:
18:Knowledge talk:WikiProject Cheshire
1340:I am appalled at the state of the
1231:by other projects. Take a look at
24:
2156:
1677:Landmarks and tourist attractions
539:Hundred", and thus find the main
744:British History Online: Cheshire
686:recently pointed me towards the
682:will be well known to most, but
558:Acton, Cheshire (ancient parish)
467:Acton, Cheshire (ancient parish)
29:
2097:, hopefully with more success.
1235:& its talk page for more.ā
1104:I think it would be helpful in
911:Over-zealous unsourced tagging?
767:http://www.election-maps.co.uk/
625:For those that don't watch the
728:How to write about settlements
707:How to write about settlements
676:Vision of Britain through Time
13:
1:
653:19:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
611:16:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
589:15:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
530:14:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
493:14:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
456:16:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
125:02:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
2091:Military history wikiproject
1084:Ancient parishes of Cheshire
1007:Ancient parishes of Cheshire
999:Ancient parishes of Cheshire
920:Ancient parishes of Cheshire
536:Ancient parishes of Cheshire
475:Category:History of Cheshire
433:22:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
403:10:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
365:23:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
330:23:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
300:22:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
244:22:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
201:14:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
182:22:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
163:00:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
130:Push for a Featured Article?
7:
1675:I have added a new section
1195:List of museums in Cheshire
10:
2161:
2071:10:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
2045:09:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
2027:22:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
2011:18:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
1993:18:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
1963:21:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
1951:That's a good compromise.
1947:17:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
1906:21:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
1889:16:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
1865:18:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
1846:15:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
1821:15:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
1794:15:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
1780:15:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
1759:15:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
1744:15:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
1724:18:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
1705:17:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
1690:09:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
1662:11:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
1642:09:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
1616:15:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
1600:14:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
1570:13:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
1547:13:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
1531:11:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
1486:09:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
1470:09:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
1431:08:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
1408:07:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
1392:22:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
1374:03:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
1354:01:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
1331:22:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
1164:17:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
1121:15:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
1100:15:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
1052:13:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
1023:00:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
980:21:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
965:20:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
945:15:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
905:18:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
872:15:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
837:16:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
812:19:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
783:18:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
756:17:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
721:17:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
1295:17:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
1278:17:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
1256:16:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
1240:11:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
1226:11:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
1206:13:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
846:Please see my comment on
658:Online resources subpage?
2139:07:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
2107:00:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
821:I've created a subpage:
680:Neighbourhood Statistics
736:Romanesque architecure
2087:the lead co-ordinator
408:Photographs of courts
42:of past discussions.
2057:I've gone ahead and
543:article. Maps are a
541:Hundreds of Cheshire
514:Hundreds of Cheshire
501:Hundreds of Cheshire
1262:Museums in Cheshire
1233:WikiProject Museums
1191:WikiProject Museums
1185:Museums in Cheshire
848:Talk:Old Dee Bridge
694:and the very handy
1927:History of Chester
1766:History of Chester
1730:History of Chester
852:ChesterTourist.com
562:Battle of Nantwich
510:Diocese of Chester
2134:
2130:
1961:
1904:
1819:
1778:
1742:
1614:
1598:
1484:
1406:
1293:
1254:
1199:Project Talk Page
1119:
1050:
850:about the use of
835:
810:
740:for stained glass
719:
664:Images of England
651:
587:
505:Hundred of Wirral
491:
444:Images of England
438:Cheshire churches
144:featured articles
95:
94:
54:
53:
48:current talk page
2152:
2136:
2132:
2128:
2008:
2003:
2002:
1955:
1944:
1939:
1938:
1898:
1855:on the present.
1813:
1772:
1736:
1721:
1716:
1715:
1659:
1654:
1653:
1608:
1597:
1595:
1583:
1539:Malleus Fatuorum
1528:
1523:
1522:
1507:Reliable Sources
1478:
1467:
1462:
1461:
1400:
1384:Malleus Fatuorum
1371:
1366:
1365:
1346:Malleus Fatuorum
1328:
1323:
1322:
1287:
1275:
1270:
1269:
1248:
1223:
1218:
1217:
1161:
1156:
1155:
1113:
1097:
1092:
1091:
1044:
1040:speedy tagging!
1020:
1015:
1014:
972:Malleus Fatuorum
942:
937:
936:
902:
897:
896:
829:
823:Online resources
804:
780:
775:
774:
713:
702:, for a start.
645:
631:suggestions page
608:
603:
602:
581:
527:
522:
521:
485:
461:Ancient parishes
380:I think working
357:Malleus Fatuorum
292:Malleus Fatuorum
193:Malleus Fatuorum
155:Malleus Fatuorum
123:
102:Hello project,
73:
56:
55:
33:
32:
26:
2160:
2159:
2155:
2154:
2153:
2151:
2150:
2149:
2125:
2006:
2000:
1999:
1976:
1953:Espresso Addict
1942:
1936:
1935:
1896:Espresso Addict
1811:Espresso Addict
1770:Espresso Addict
1734:Espresso Addict
1719:
1713:
1712:
1673:
1657:
1651:
1650:
1606:Espresso Addict
1593:
1585:
1526:
1520:
1519:
1476:Espresso Addict
1465:
1459:
1458:
1398:Espresso Addict
1369:
1363:
1362:
1338:
1326:
1320:
1319:
1311:
1285:Espresso Addict
1273:
1267:
1266:
1246:Espresso Addict
1221:
1215:
1214:
1187:
1159:
1153:
1152:
1111:Espresso Addict
1095:
1089:
1088:
1042:Espresso Addict
1018:
1012:
1011:
940:
934:
933:
927:In the case of
913:
900:
894:
893:
844:
827:Espresso Addict
802:Espresso Addict
778:
772:
771:
711:Espresso Addict
660:
643:Espresso Addict
627:Cheshire portal
623:
606:
600:
599:
579:Espresso Addict
525:
519:
518:
483:Espresso Addict
479:Acton, Cheshire
463:
440:
410:
393:. Bon voyage!
223:Espresso Addict
132:
110:
100:
69:
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
2158:
2148:
2147:
2146:
2145:
2144:
2143:
2142:
2141:
2114:
2113:
2112:
2111:
2110:
2109:
2078:
2077:
2076:
2075:
2074:
2073:
2050:
2049:
2048:
2047:
2037:Peter I. Vardy
2030:
2029:
1975:
1969:
1968:
1967:
1966:
1965:
1917:
1916:
1915:
1914:
1913:
1912:
1911:
1910:
1909:
1908:
1881:Peter I. Vardy
1871:Notable people
1857:Peter I. Vardy
1834:
1824:
1823:
1805:
1804:
1803:
1802:
1801:
1800:
1799:
1798:
1797:
1796:
1707:
1697:Peter I. Vardy
1682:Peter I. Vardy
1672:
1666:
1665:
1664:
1645:
1644:
1634:Peter I. Vardy
1625:
1624:
1623:
1622:
1621:
1620:
1619:
1618:
1575:
1574:
1573:
1572:
1550:
1549:
1499:
1498:
1497:
1496:
1495:
1494:
1493:
1492:
1491:
1490:
1489:
1488:
1440:
1439:
1438:
1437:
1436:
1435:
1434:
1433:
1423:Peter I. Vardy
1377:
1376:
1337:
1334:
1310:
1307:
1306:
1305:
1304:
1303:
1302:
1301:
1300:
1299:
1298:
1297:
1186:
1183:
1181:
1179:
1178:
1177:
1176:
1175:
1174:
1173:
1172:
1171:
1170:
1169:
1168:
1167:
1166:
1134:
1133:
1132:
1131:
1130:
1129:
1128:
1127:
1126:
1125:
1124:
1123:
1061:
1060:
1059:
1058:
1057:
1056:
1055:
1054:
1033:
1029:
985:
984:
983:
982:
957:Peter I. Vardy
912:
909:
908:
907:
864:Peter I. Vardy
860:Old Dee Bridge
843:
840:
819:
818:
817:
816:
815:
814:
797:
788:
787:
786:
785:
759:
758:
748:Peter I. Vardy
684:Peter I. Vardy
659:
656:
622:
619:
618:
617:
616:
615:
614:
613:
568:
567:
566:
565:
551:
550:
549:
548:
503:, though only
462:
459:
448:Peter I. Vardy
439:
436:
409:
406:
395:Peter I. Vardy
378:
377:
376:
375:
374:
373:
372:
371:
370:
369:
368:
367:
341:
340:
339:
338:
337:
336:
335:
334:
333:
332:
309:
308:
307:
306:
305:
304:
303:
302:
277:
276:
275:
274:
273:
272:
271:
270:
251:
250:
249:
248:
247:
246:
206:
205:
204:
203:
185:
184:
131:
128:
99:
96:
93:
92:
87:
84:
79:
74:
67:
62:
52:
51:
34:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2157:
2140:
2137:
2135:
2122:
2121:
2120:
2119:
2118:
2117:
2116:
2115:
2108:
2104:
2100:
2096:
2092:
2088:
2084:
2083:
2082:
2081:
2080:
2079:
2072:
2068:
2064:
2060:
2056:
2055:
2054:
2053:
2052:
2051:
2046:
2042:
2038:
2034:
2033:
2032:
2031:
2028:
2024:
2020:
2015:
2014:
2013:
2012:
2009:
2004:
1995:
1994:
1990:
1986:
1982:
1974:... an update
1973:
1964:
1959:
1954:
1950:
1949:
1948:
1945:
1940:
1932:
1928:
1923:
1919:
1918:
1907:
1902:
1897:
1892:
1891:
1890:
1886:
1882:
1877:
1872:
1868:
1867:
1866:
1862:
1858:
1853:
1849:
1848:
1847:
1843:
1839:
1835:
1831:
1828:
1827:
1826:
1825:
1822:
1817:
1812:
1807:
1806:
1795:
1791:
1787:
1783:
1782:
1781:
1776:
1771:
1767:
1762:
1761:
1760:
1756:
1752:
1747:
1746:
1745:
1740:
1735:
1731:
1727:
1726:
1725:
1722:
1717:
1708:
1706:
1702:
1698:
1694:
1693:
1692:
1691:
1687:
1683:
1678:
1671:
1663:
1660:
1655:
1647:
1646:
1643:
1639:
1635:
1630:
1629:
1628:
1617:
1612:
1607:
1603:
1602:
1601:
1596:
1590:
1589:
1581:
1580:
1579:
1578:
1577:
1576:
1571:
1567:
1563:
1558:
1554:
1553:
1552:
1551:
1548:
1544:
1540:
1535:
1534:
1533:
1532:
1529:
1524:
1514:
1510:
1508:
1502:
1487:
1482:
1477:
1473:
1472:
1471:
1468:
1463:
1455:
1450:
1449:
1448:
1447:
1446:
1445:
1444:
1443:
1442:
1441:
1432:
1428:
1424:
1420:
1416:
1411:
1410:
1409:
1404:
1399:
1395:
1394:
1393:
1389:
1385:
1381:
1380:
1379:
1378:
1375:
1372:
1367:
1358:
1357:
1356:
1355:
1351:
1347:
1343:
1336:I am appalled
1333:
1332:
1329:
1324:
1316:
1296:
1291:
1286:
1281:
1280:
1279:
1276:
1271:
1263:
1259:
1258:
1257:
1252:
1247:
1243:
1242:
1241:
1238:
1234:
1229:
1228:
1227:
1224:
1219:
1210:
1209:
1208:
1207:
1204:
1200:
1196:
1192:
1182:
1165:
1162:
1157:
1148:
1147:
1146:
1145:
1144:
1143:
1142:
1141:
1140:
1139:
1138:
1137:
1136:
1135:
1122:
1117:
1112:
1107:
1103:
1102:
1101:
1098:
1093:
1085:
1080:
1075:
1071:
1070:
1069:
1068:
1067:
1066:
1065:
1064:
1063:
1062:
1053:
1048:
1043:
1039:
1034:
1030:
1026:
1025:
1024:
1021:
1016:
1008:
1004:
1000:
995:
991:
990:
989:
988:
987:
986:
981:
977:
973:
968:
967:
966:
962:
958:
954:
949:
948:
947:
946:
943:
938:
930:
925:
921:
917:
906:
903:
898:
890:
885:
880:
876:
875:
874:
873:
869:
865:
861:
857:
853:
849:
839:
838:
833:
828:
824:
813:
808:
803:
798:
794:
793:
792:
791:
790:
789:
784:
781:
776:
768:
763:
762:
761:
760:
757:
753:
749:
745:
741:
737:
733:
729:
725:
724:
723:
722:
717:
712:
708:
703:
701:
697:
693:
689:
685:
681:
677:
673:
669:
665:
655:
654:
649:
644:
638:
636:
632:
628:
621:Portal update
612:
609:
604:
596:
592:
591:
590:
585:
580:
576:
572:
571:
570:
569:
563:
559:
555:
554:
553:
552:
546:
542:
537:
533:
532:
531:
528:
523:
515:
511:
506:
502:
497:
496:
495:
494:
489:
484:
480:
476:
472:
468:
458:
457:
453:
449:
445:
435:
434:
431:
430:
427:
423:
419:
415:
405:
404:
400:
396:
392:
388:
383:
366:
362:
358:
353:
352:
351:
350:
349:
348:
347:
346:
345:
344:
343:
342:
331:
327:
323:
319:
318:
317:
316:
315:
314:
313:
312:
311:
310:
301:
297:
293:
289:
285:
284:
283:
282:
281:
280:
279:
278:
268:
264:
259:
258:
257:
256:
255:
254:
253:
252:
245:
241:
237:
232:
228:
224:
220:
216:
212:
211:
210:
209:
208:
207:
202:
198:
194:
189:
188:
187:
186:
183:
179:
175:
171:
167:
166:
165:
164:
160:
156:
152:
147:
145:
141:
135:
127:
126:
121:
117:
115:
108:
103:
91:
88:
85:
83:
80:
78:
75:
72:
68:
66:
63:
61:
58:
57:
49:
45:
41:
40:
35:
28:
27:
19:
2126:
2059:nominated it
1996:
1977:
1972:Deva Victrix
1875:
1674:
1626:
1587:
1556:
1515:
1511:
1503:
1500:
1339:
1312:
1188:
1180:
1106:Great Sankey
1074:Great Sankey
1037:
1003:Great Sankey
994:Great Sankey
929:Great Sankey
916:Great Sankey
914:
888:
879:Deva Victrix
845:
820:
746:, etc etc.
704:
699:
661:
639:
624:
544:
471:Acton Bridge
464:
441:
429:
411:
379:
230:
226:
214:
191:accuracy. --
148:
136:
133:
112:
104:
101:
70:
43:
37:
1981:peer review
1922:WP:UKCITIES
1830:WP:UKCITIES
1668:Revival of
1454:WP:UKCITIES
1079:Smallthorne
534:A stub for
426:Bencherlite
267:WP:UKCITIES
261:know where
36:This is an
2001:DDStretch
1937:DDStretch
1714:DDStretch
1652:DDStretch
1562:Snowy 1973
1521:DDStretch
1460:DDStretch
1364:DDStretch
1321:DDStretch
1268:DDStretch
1216:DDStretch
1154:DDStretch
1090:DDStretch
1013:DDStretch
953:Haslington
935:DDStretch
895:DDStretch
842:References
773:DDStretch
601:DDStretch
520:DDStretch
424:. Thanks,
382:Middlewich
288:Middlewich
219:Middlewich
1876:residents
862:article?
732:Pastscape
635:timetable
545:wonderful
90:ArchiveĀ 8
82:ArchiveĀ 5
77:ArchiveĀ 4
71:ArchiveĀ 3
65:ArchiveĀ 2
60:ArchiveĀ 1
2061:at FAC.
796:project.
668:Geograph
2089:of the
1931:Chester
1670:Chester
1415:Runcorn
1342:Chester
884:Hanford
391:Runcorn
387:Salinae
322:Salinae
236:Salinae
215:process
174:Salinae
151:Runcorn
39:archive
2095:WP:FAC
2007:(talk)
1943:(talk)
1720:(talk)
1658:(talk)
1527:(talk)
1466:(talk)
1419:Widnes
1370:(talk)
1327:(talk)
1274:(talk)
1222:(talk)
1160:(talk)
1096:(talk)
1019:(talk)
941:(talk)
901:(talk)
779:(talk)
672:Genuki
607:(talk)
526:(talk)
231:cannot
227:review
2133:AVIES
1594:Talk
1588:Jza84
575:Acton
114:Jza84
16:<
2129:OGER
2103:talk
2099:Nev1
2067:talk
2063:Nev1
2041:talk
2023:talk
2019:Nev1
1989:talk
1985:Nev1
1958:talk
1901:talk
1885:talk
1869:The
1861:talk
1842:talk
1838:Nev1
1816:talk
1790:talk
1786:Nev1
1775:talk
1755:talk
1751:Nev1
1739:talk
1701:talk
1686:talk
1638:talk
1611:talk
1566:talk
1557:long
1543:talk
1481:talk
1427:talk
1417:and
1403:talk
1388:talk
1350:talk
1290:talk
1251:talk
1116:talk
1047:talk
976:talk
961:talk
868:talk
856:Here
832:talk
807:talk
752:talk
716:talk
678:and
648:talk
584:talk
512:and
488:talk
481:!).
452:talk
420:and
399:talk
361:talk
326:talk
296:talk
263:Sale
240:talk
197:talk
178:talk
159:talk
120:talk
98:2009
1237:Rod
1203:Rod
1201:.ā
1038:any
111:--
2105:)
2069:)
2043:)
2025:)
1991:)
1933:.
1887:)
1863:)
1844:)
1792:)
1757:)
1703:)
1688:)
1640:)
1591:|
1584:--
1568:)
1545:)
1537:--
1429:)
1390:)
1352:)
978:)
963:)
870:)
754:)
742:,
738:,
734:,
674:,
670:,
666:,
454:)
446:.
401:)
363:)
328:)
298:)
242:)
199:)
180:)
161:)
86:ā
2131:D
2127:R
2101:(
2065:(
2039:(
2021:(
1987:(
1960:)
1956:(
1903:)
1899:(
1883:(
1859:(
1840:(
1818:)
1814:(
1788:(
1777:)
1773:(
1753:(
1741:)
1737:(
1699:(
1684:(
1636:(
1613:)
1609:(
1564:(
1541:(
1483:)
1479:(
1425:(
1405:)
1401:(
1386:(
1348:(
1292:)
1288:(
1253:)
1249:(
1118:)
1114:(
1049:)
1045:(
974:(
959:(
866:(
834:)
830:(
809:)
805:(
750:(
718:)
714:(
650:)
646:(
586:)
582:(
490:)
486:(
450:(
397:(
359:(
324:(
294:(
238:(
195:(
176:(
157:(
122:)
118:(
116:ā¢
50:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
.png){kind=link}