Knowledge talk:What Knowledge is not: Difference between revisions

2186:*'''Keep historic block schedules for major networks, remove current schedules and suggest week-by-week schedules for historic periods should not be created'''. It seems few contributors here recognise the (large) distinctions between the different types of article being discussed - hence comments like "the networks report this anyway" or "they're transient and will quickly get out of date", which are pretty good reasons not to list current schedules but are bizarre if applied to the historic block schedules. On the other hand "it's all fancruft" or "why reproduce what's in reliable sources updated by professional editors anyway, let's just link to them" are poor arguments all round - in the latter case, why would we bother writing Knowledge at all? My take on this: nobody would claim this week's TV guide is a form of encyclopedia, and I don't think it belongs in this particular encyclopedia either. Nor does last week's TV guide (or one from three months, or twelve years ago) become encyclopedic by virtue of age. However, Firsfron has given a very clear explanation of why the historic block schedules pass the general notability requirements - multiple reliable sources have been published which document and discuss them. The only remaining issue for me is whether the ''format'' of article is suitable for Knowledge. For comparison, there are multiple reliable sources on how to assemble bookshelves, but we disallow articles of the how-to guide format. I can't see anything as clear-cut to disallow block schedules, particularly given PyTom's excellent point that we allow content usually found in "specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers" (and of course, the old block schedules can be found in the specialized encyclopedias that Firsfron pointed out). If anything, these articles most closely resemble ''lists'' in format - an area for which suitability for Knowledge has always been contentious, and guidelines comparatively fuzzy. For what its worth, the old block schedules do not appear to me to contain "indiscriminate" information (an issue often debated when considering whether lists should be deleted), especially since they contain information systematically-arranged, context-rich and clearly valuable to readers researching old TV series. I was initially going to suggest transwiki to Wikisource for these articles on the grounds that few of them seem to contain editorial content (just a referenced, fixed table that has no need to be updated) but Firsfron has indicated that there is non-tabular information that could be added too (viz the schedule analysis contained in his specialized encyclopedias). That would clearly not be suitable for Wikisource, and moreover would make the articles more closely resemble other Knowledge articles with substantial textual content. So we should view the articles that contain only tables of information of historic schedules as stubs and when considering whether they should be deleted, it's best to imagine what the articles should look like post-expansion - unlike the modern TV guide schedules that change week-by-week, I think it is clear that the historic block schedules would be kept. ] (]) 17:35, 20 August 2009 (UTC) 2208::::Thanks for the thorough analysis, Grappler. Stax, what does "EV" mean (surely not ])? Above you mention ] as an example of "The ONLY time would ever include schedule information is where the info is notable". NBC's more recent line-ups are a very good example of noted schedules which were highly successful. However, NBC had earlier schedules which were much more successful and which are just as noted, but you must dust off a book or a microfiche to find these notes. DuMont's 1953 schedule has received a great deal of attention from critics for being highly ''un''successful, with a weak line-up of programs (I'm thinking specifically of Castleman and Podrazik's detailed commentary of the schedule starting on page 87), and DuMont's craptacular ], which fizzled into nothing at all, a point of commentary by TV historians even today. (Brooks and Marsh, pages xiii and 174; Weinstein, numerous pages). DuMont, though, had a few scheduling successes, for example, scheduling '']'' against Uncle Miltie with decent ratings, as discussed in Weinstein, pages 156-157, or scheduling a raucous game show against a public service program on other networks. ABC's early scheduling woes, too, merit attention from historians, such as Goldenson on ABC's 1953 schedule, pages 116-124, many others) Let's not forget ]'s ] which was directed at the Big Three's ] (Boddy, pages 225-228), and the subsequent scramble by the networks to avoid similar criticism the following year. Syndicated programmers' struggles against the Big Three's schedules is documented in many sources, but especially in Boddy's book (page 180, for example, where the three networks' use of scheduled "option time" helped kill any chance of a syndicated network seriously challenging the Big Three, and led to the decline of non-network programming to the point where the number of syndicated programs in 1956 (29) had declined to just 1 in 1964. I could go on, but I don't deal with much TV history past 1962. Now, I'm sure the ''Firefly'' scheduling might have helped kill it, but criticism and commentary of network television schedules goes back all the way to 1946, when two tiny TV networks ] to a handful of TV sets (literally in Washington DC, according to Bergmann). Let's ] when discussing policy. You say "Must See TV" can stay, because you know of it; however, plenty of other network schedules have received similar (or even greater) attention from the people who study such trends. ] 05:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC) 1926::::::::::::It is not possible to set aside the issue of the schedules' notability, because if they fail ], then they fail ] and vice versa. I can see where you are coming from: you are arguing that these articles are encyclopedic because they are sourced, but are ignoring the point that '''merely being significant, true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in Knowledge'''. You are trying to sidestep the issue that the ] is required to demonstrate these articles' suitability as standalone articles. Evidence of notability comes in the form of significant coverage from reliable secondary sources that are independent of the schedules themselves, and these articles contain none. Clearly reproducing the schedules on their own means these articles are verifable (this is not in question), but merely reproducing the schedules (the primary source) does not constitute evidence of notability. However, what is more obvious is the complete lack of commentary, criticism or analysis that is needed to provide context (''significant coverage'' per ]). So when I say that these barebone schedules are not encyclopedic, I mean that they do not provide any context for the reader, which is a symptom of their lack of notabilty. You can continue to argue that they are encyclopedic in the same way a railway timetable could be argued to be useful and verifable, but without evidence of notability, there is nothing to support your assertion. In their current form, they are clearly prohibited by ], because they do not contain ''balanced coverage'' of their subject matter, by which I mean they don't contain a mix of primary and secondary coverage. --] (]|] 13:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC) 1871:::::::::Gavin, these are already cited in the articles themselves. I presumed if you were seriously discussing deleting the articles that you would have taken a look at the articles themselves before vehemently calling for their deletion. That would only make sense. However, you missed the fact that the prime time U.S. network schedules have been sourced since I sourced them myself . All primetime network series between 1946 and 1980 were sourced to Castleman and Podrazik (1982), Brooks and Marsh (1985), and McNeil (1996). Brooks and Marsh have a 62-page section covering network schedules. McNeil's is only 50 pages. In Castleman and Podrazik's book each chapter begins with a network schedule, followed by pages of text discussing said schedule (and in the early years, ABC's and DuMont's problems with their schedules), what hits resulted from each schedule, and what programs were doomed because of being scheduled against tougher competition (the obvious examples are the programs scheduled against '']''; only '']'' lasted long, according to David Weinstein). A fourth work, Bergmann and Skutch's (2002), was also referenced for the years 1946-1955. A great number of other references could also have been used, but I chose these four because I own them. In addition to these four, I can think of the various books by William Boddy, Michele Hilmes, James Roman, Leonard Goldenson, and David Weinstein which discuss early network schedules. Please see ], ], ], ] etc., for a list of works you can use to verify the content in the schedules. As I said, these are already present in the articles, and have been for a very long time. ] 19:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC) 1640:*I've said it before. The historic block schedules, consisting of prime time 1946 to present major U.S. network television schedules, must be kept: these block schedules are in use in television encyclopedias, and appear frequently in reliable sources (these are available upon request). These national schedules affected (and still effect) millions of viewers each year, and have a major impact on the television industry each fall, especially around Upfront time. Entire books have been written about these schedules: see Castleman's , for example. Local stations and minor (under ~100 affiliates) television networks probably don't warrant schedules: because of how the TV markets are set up in the U.S., networks with fewer than 100 affiliates in the U.S. can't or don't pull in Nielsen numbers higher than 1% of the viewing audience, and generally aren't the subject of extensive coverage in reliable sources. Sources exist, though, for ABC, NBC, CBS, DuMont, NTA, Fox, UPN, the WB, the CW, MNTV, PAX/i/ION, and a few others. Local station/cable channels don't average very many viewers. The gap is closing between broadcast and cable, but not that much that cable channels can attract giant audiences that would greatly affect the TV industry: NBC doesn't counter-program based on what Syfy is airing. ] 04:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC) 1968:::::::::::::::Forget it, Masem. Gavin is never going to understand. This is the same editor who was for the deletion of ] after the discussion closed as keep, and after several inline citations had been added, including one from ''World Book Encyclopedia''. Gavin was still claiming the article was "unencyclopedic", citing ]: check the ]. I feel that Gavin is so caught up in Knowledge policies and guidelines ("There can be no exceptions to these rules") that he's missing the forest for the trees. While I know he's a good-faith editor, he doesn't seem to understand the premise that if something has already been included in other encyclopedias, calling it "unencyclopedic" and "not suitable for inclusion in Knowledge" is silly, and only makes Knowledge look less encyclopedic. Sadly, once Gavin has made up his mind about something being unsuitable for inclusion, it won't be changed: I know this is true based on the Theba, Arizona incident: even after the article went from one in-line citation to eight, he was still arguing for deletion. Above, Gavin is requesting that more "notability" be provided for the schedules (presumably citing more stuff). But I won't waste my time, knowing already from the Theba incident that my work won't make any difference. ] 14:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC) 1739:*'''Support removal''' as Knowledge is not an indiscriminate collection of information; ] does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion. The schedules/lineups have no encyclopedic value unless they support commentary from reliable secondary sources in accordance with ]. I think ] knows that that Knowledge is an encyclopedia incorporating '']'' elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers; merely being true or useful does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. What is being missed by some editors is that these schedules come from the TV networks themselves and should be classed as primary sources, in the same way a railway timetable is a primary source. This does not change even if the schedules/lineups are reproduced in secondary sources; the schedules on their own cannot take the place of commentary, analysis or criticism that provide context for the reader and evidence of notability to justify their own standalone articles. No matter how many times these schedules are reproduced, without encyclopedic content of this nature these articles fail ] because there is no rationale for inclusion, and the editors who are creating them should reevaluate their reasons for doing so. --] (]|] 09:15, 16 August 2009 (UTC) 1288:* It's more than just this policy that is relevant here. Our policies on verifiability and prohibiting original research are relevant, also. Here are some specific questions to answer, to see the underlying general point here: How do we know that has made the article more accurate instead of less? How can we confirm that the article is correct? If the answer is "Check it against this week's published listings for the channel.", how is such information, that isn't generalized beyond the specific week of the edit where it was introduced, actually useful information for a reader in (say) three months' time? And how, in that case, is our presenting a single week's specific schedule as if it were the regular general schedule not a mis-representation of fact?For extra credit, attempt to check for accuracy what the article says about the ''Monday'' schedule for the channel. Is it true for next week? Is it true for this week? Was it even true for ''last'' week? What ''can'' be said of the general Monday schedule? How do you know? It's interesting to see how many edits are being devoted to defending, and amassing support for defending, ''content that is a falsehood''. ] (]) 08:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC) 1904::::::::::I don't think there can be any misunderstanding. '''Unless there some clear evidence of notability, such as commentary from reliable secondary sources that are independent of schedules, then they should be removed.''' If the schedules are not notable, then they are no different from a railway timetable, and nothing you or any "expert" editor can say can change that unless it can be backed up with citations to demonstrate their notability as standalone article topics in accordance with ]. If some of the publications contain commentary, then you should add it to the articles to provide some form of context for the reader, otherwise they are just not encylopedic. There can be no exceptions to these rules: just because your views on their ] are stronger than mine, that is not a verifiable reason for keeping them; what is needed is '']'' in the form substantial coverage from reliable secondary sources that are independent of the schedules themselves. The way that ] is written to give an exemption to articles on schedules is, quite frankly, special pleading and is not in accordance with the spirit of this policy. --] (]|] 07:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC) 3096::::Knowledge articles about individual ]s, ], ]s, ], ]s, ], ], and other international agreements that have been enacted, issued, ratified, or proposed may satisfy ] (WP:N). However, Knowledge itself is not a code of laws or regulations, a series of law reports, or an ], ], ], or ]. Many such official governmental and intergovernmental publications often have hundreds of volumes with countless entries and ] that span thousands of pages. Unless a specific entry or proceeding—the latter of which would fall under ] (WP:EVENT)—has significant coverage in ] that are ], then there is no reason for there to be a Knowledge article about it. When such sources are not used, the content of such articles often veers into ] (WP:NOR), personal essays (WP:NOTESSAY), public domain material better suited for ] (WP:NOTREPOSITORY), or advocacy, propaganda, and opinion pieces (WP:SOAPBOX). This also applies to all articles, amendments, sections, and clauses of the aforementioned legal documents, to unwritten and uncodified constitutions, and to ]s. 1893:::::::::::If there is a misunderstanding here, it is your own. I believe I already stated that the schedules in Castleman and Podrazik's 1982 book are reproduced with commentary, criticism, and analysis of the network schedule themselves; each chapter is a discussion of the network line-ups and what happened because of them. Each of Knowledge's prime time network schedules from 1946 to 1980 are referenced to Castleman and Podrazic's 1982 book, but there are other books which also provide the level of detail that you require. However, do not quote ] and ] to me when WP:DIR specifically ''allows for the annual U.S. television network schedules''. That clause was added specifically because the people who work with these articles, the people who study early TV history, the people who research early television in reliable sources, realized there was a problem with good-faith but misinformed editors quoting ] randomly. It's still happening, however. ] 21:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC) 1519::::*I have never been and will never be a fan of informing projects of discussions they may have an interest in. Such notifications inherently bias a discussion. Further, projects do not have ownership of ''any'' article and are not capable of writing policy nor breaching it on articles within their areas of interest. AfD discussions are not held at the project level. Neither are policy discussions decided upon at the project level. We've had this discussion now for the better part of a week. It's blatantly clear what the policy is, and it is blatantly clear that per-station television schedules are not permitted under this policy. I am not and never will be opposed to the community as a whole having input, which is why I informed ] () which has been read by about 50 editors since it was posted there, in addition to the ~30 editors who saw it here. Nevertheless, since you insist, I've added the rfc tag to this section per your request. --] (]) 19:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC) 2230::::::Ah; thanks for the EV definition. I'm not aware of any cable channel receiving a printed "network" block schedule in any television encyclopedia or reliable printed source. I could be wrong, but I've never seen it. Cable channels don't need to please 200 local affiliate stations like the networks do (and can thus be pretty careless about scheduling; we've all seen the all-day marathons of reruns that many cable channels air, even in Prime Time; broadcast networks never do this) and cable channels don't rely entirely on the ratings/advertising cycles to support their operations. Cable channels generally attract very small audiences, and the major broadcast networks historically didn't counter-program based on what cable was airing, (and in the 1980s-'90s many cable channels were mostly airing old network programs anyway) making (eg.) "what did CBS air against Lifetime?" a senseless question. ] 07:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC) 1882::::::::::There is a misunderstanding here. If the schedules are reproduced without any commentary, criticism, or analysis to provide context, then they are simply a regurgitation of the primary source (from the network itself). Without any commentary, these articles provide no evidence of notability. If these publications voice some sort of comment on the schedules themselves (not just a regurgitation) then you have knockout evidence of their notability. But if there is no commentary, then why on earth would you think they were encyclopedic when ] has various prohibitions (], ] & ]) against listings of barebone information? As state earlier, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia: the schedules need to have been noted (i.e. commented upon, not just reproduced) to be suitable for inclusion in Knowledge. --] (]|] 20:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC) 2828::{{tq|I don't think the additional verbiage about official journals et al. is necessary. Do other editors actually treat Knowledge this way in your experience, and aren't existing guidelines sufficient for explaining why they shouldn't?}} The short answer is "Yes, other editors do use Knowledge in this way in my experience, and no, existing guidelines are apparently not sufficient for explaining this." I've encountered numeorus Knowledge articles about bills proposed in the United States Congress during a particular session that were never enacted and may have never even been voted out of committee. All bill proposals during a session of Congress are included in the '']'', which is the official journal of the United States Congress. The inclusion of proposed legislation that does not satisfy WP:N seems little different than people using Knowledge as a soapbox (WP:SOAP), but these articles were created anyway. 2683::I don't know that it's a big enough problem that we need to cover it in a policy, but I'll echo here what I said there. My personal inclination is that a number appearing in an OEIS entry is only ] if the sequence is "nice", "core" (of central importance to some topic), or "hard" (which often means that it comes from an unsolved problem). Because the source is reliable but intentionally rather indiscriminate, we should focus our attention on the subset of it that is marked as more interesting than the rest. Or, in other words, we should follow the source when it comes to emphasis. This is roughly going to be equivalent to mentioning properties that already have their own blue-link-able Knowledge articles. I say "roughly" because it's not hard to imagine edge cases where an article ''could'' be written but hasn't yet because nobody has gotten around to it. ] (]) 21:01, 5 August 2024 (UTC) 4035::I usually try to avoid saying the word in debates, but there are times when something clearly is unencyclopedic, such as writing articles in the first person with original research. Most everybody here would agree on that and I believe that calling it unencyclopedic would be backed by consensus. Any debate that is contentious shouldn't revolve around this term, as obviously some editors would feel that the element in question is encyclopedic. Just calling something unencyclopedic in this manner would probably lead to a shouting war with no analysis of ''why'' people believe it to be encyclopedic or not. As for the question of whether this is a specialised encyclopedia or not, I note that the word "elements" that you quoted above is vague, probably intentionally so. In the end it is us who determine what elements are fit for discussion. ''']]]''' 19:15, 22 August 2009 (UTC) 1409:::::There are two different types of tv schedules being talked about here. The present case is about a specific station's TV schedule embedded in the station's article. The Archive23 talk section is about the historical TV schedules that are generally not station specific. They are apples and oranges in terms of how we should approach them, with NOT presently advicing that the former are not appropriate while we're still ok with the latter -- though as some see it, even those should not belong despite NOT's current long-standing wording supporting it. That is, if there is to be discussions on the merits of the historical, non-station specific schedules, that needs more detailed discussion - but we've long-standing advice that current schedules on a station's page should not be included. --] (]) 15:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC) 918::I think the cavaet on WP:NOTDIR#4 is important, that when the subject is a major national broadcaster, a historical summary of the schedule is reasonable, and so, for example, the upcoming fall season schedule (at the general weekly resolution, not a per-episode frame) for CBS or ABC would be fine, as these networks clearly fall into the realm of "historically significant". Now, the problem here is that I can't tell if the networks in the examples given would qualify the same way as "historically significant" that that we'd consider CBS/ABC in the States, or something like BBC in the UK. It would definitely need to be a national station (eg. something like the US's ] would not count towards that even if WGN does get some national coverage), but that would be a starting point. --] (]) 22:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC) 1684:::::*Third part sources don't provide any evidence of notability unless they contain some sort of commentary on their subject matter, othewise they are classed as tertiary sources. However, most of these schedules are not even sourced, so I think Hobit is speculating, which not getting us any closer to providing ] for inclusion. Notability is an issue here, in the sense that all of the topics in ] are not likely to fail ], and vice versa. If these schedules were notable, there would be no doubt that they would be entitled to their own own standalone articles. But as they stand, articles such as ] are just random ''stuff'' that provide no commentary, context, criticism or analysis that are the hallmarks of encyclopedic coverage, which is why they fail WP:NOT. --] (]|] 14:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC) 1081::I can see why some editors would want these listings based on ], but as topics for inclusion as standalone articles or lists, their notability is unproven until such time they are the subject of commentary from reliable secondary sources that are independent of the schedules. However, belief in measures subjective importance, such as ], no matter how strongly held, do not provide evidence that the schedules are compliant with Knowledge's content policies. I beleive most of these schedules are comprised of ] and are magnets for original research, and should be deleted. Some editors may have strong views about creating these type of article, but unless there is evidence to show that they are notable, they are not encyclopedic.]. --] (]|] 11:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC) 2839::I have also encountered many Knowledge articles about laws, regulations, court cases, public policies, treaties, and other international agreements that do not appear to satisfy the WP:N policy, and it occurs to me that government gazettes, legal codes, and law report series are more analogous to manuals and academic journals than they are to repositories since repositories are generally indiscriminate collections of information while manuals, academic journals, government gazettes, legal codes, and law reports are not. This is why I'd argue that unless we make {{strikethrough|these guidelines}} the instructions I added into explicit policy, articles about these topics that do not satisfy WP:N will continue to be created. -- ] (]) 15:20, 18 August 2024 (UTC) 1717:*'''Support removal''' of current lineups. '''Support retention''' of historical lineups with sourced notability. There's a reason why TV Guide is published every week, and we do not handle rapidly changing news, nor are we a crystal ball for future events. We only handle information after it has received significant discussion. Perhaps historical schedules, such as the 1955 schedule on NBC, could be considered encyclopedic (I have a manual in my library discussing such lineups) but current schedules are not encyclopedic at all. We are not a directory and we shouldn't be the place to turn if a user wants expansive tables of information without any discussion about them or significance in published media. ''']]]''' 16:58, 15 August 2009 (UTC) 1574:*I'm late to the party, but have to agree that some form of culling is in order. Some of the station articles have gotten completely out of hand, and the individual network schedule pages are certainly out of line and fall under the notion of TV Guide-ism (to coin a phrase). I would agree that the page that shows the broadcast network schedule for all the broadcast networks by year is encyclopedic, and gives a historic context, but the individual information (and specific times) does not. I've had this discussion on ] in the past, and have told folks that listing full blown times and dates certainly fails this test, and should be deleted. (bottom line: yes, do the culling; it's okay as far as I'm concerned) --] (]) 21:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC) 1049:

if phrased as historical ie "2009 season schedules". To clarify, would you accept someone going through the history of ] (which you used as an example earlier) and extracting the 2008 season to create a separate article? Personally, I don't believe such an article would be acceptable and would not survive AFD, even though it could be reliably sourced to respectable publications such as the New Zealand Listener and any number of daily newspapers. Adding a series of sections to the C4 article as "2007 schedule", "2008 schedule" and "2009 schedule" would be equally unacceptable, but not testable via AFD. What makes ] different?-] 23:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

1299:**This is the reason why WP:NOT says not to include schedules; the sources for the schedules will always be better than Knowledge because they are either the stations themselves, or corporations that make money providing the information, and can afford paid staff. So it would be appropriate to include a link to reliable sources for the schedules, since one would need to be provided anyway as a reference, and let users click on it, but not migrate the schedule to Knowledge. Seriously, if I wanted to find out when something was airing, I would not trust Knowledge, but I would expect it to link to the channel's program guide. ] (]) 09:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC) 4126::The other thing this page is is a trump card, used to shortcut discussion about whether something should be included in the encyclopedia. This is most obvious with NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. If I had one wish for how this page would be rewritten, it would be that each criterion should follow the same rules as ], most specifically #1, objective: {{tq|Most reasonable people should be able to agree whether a page meets the criterion. Often this requires making the criterion very specific.}} That is, if good faith editors can differ whether something meets the criterion or not, I believe it's insufficiently explicit to be a NOT policy element. ] (]) 19:59, 26 August 2024 (UTC) 1827:::The schedules themselves are the subject of independent, extensive coverage in ]. The people arguing for the deletion of these schedules clearly aren't checking out the references; such lack of basic scholarship continues to be a problem on Knowledge, where someone who doesn't know anything about the subject can make the decision that something is "not notable" or "not encyclopedic" even if the subject is noted in multiple references already listed in the article, and the content already appears in encyclopedias. Editors who fail to note references should re-evaluate their reasons for doing so. ] 15:24, 16 August 2009 (UTC) 1915:::::::::::Notability is a '''guideline''' (and based on RFC earlier this year, will likely remain one for a long time) meaning there are common sense exceptions to it. Now, presuming Firsfron is accurate in his description of the books, then there is notability here, but that's not the point. Not every single page on WP needs to pass WP:N - WP:NOT, yes, WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV yes, but WP:N is a guideline for a very good reason, as everything that we are by the five pillars, including works like almanacs, may mean that we include significant data that is completely appropriate per all other content policies but may fail WP:N. --] (]) 12:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC) 4409:*Knowledge is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Knowledge's notability requirements. Note that this policy does not apply outside of the main article space. Whilst using user space to create a memorial is generally not acceptable, limited exemption applies to the user space of established Wikipedians who have died. At a minimum it is expected that they were regular contributors, and that more than one tenured Wikipedian will have used the deceased user's page (or an appropriate sub-page) to add comments in the event, and after verification of, their death. 3516::''']''', ''']s''', or ''']s''': Knowledge articles about individual ]s, ], ]s, ], ]s, ], ], and other international agreements—as well as specific sections or clauses of these legal documents—that have been enacted, issued, ratified, or proposed may satisfy ]. However, Knowledge itself is not a code of laws or regulations, a series of law reports, or an ], ], ], or ]. Many such official governmental and intergovernmental publications often have hundreds of volumes with countless entries and ] that span thousands of pages. Also, Knowledge does not exist to codify ]s and unwritten or uncodified constitutions. -- ] (]) 19:39, 25 August 2024 (UTC) 1125:::::::Calton, why should a small group of veteran editors decide the policy for all wikipedians? Hammersoft was disrupting pages by deleting dozens of existing sections. When editors reverted these sections, he would write warnings on their pages. I was simply responding to these disruptions and Hammersoft warnings. If we all want to have an open, transparent discussion about deleting hundreds of editors thousands of edits, why didn't Hammersoft bother to invite these editors to discuss this on this page? True consensus will never be reached if we exclude those editors who are the most negatively effected by the dictated forced changes. 2402:* '''Keep some'''. For me the test would be, "if the Knowledge version of the schedule were not updated for 6 months, would it be of any worth?" A schedule for a small station, or one that changed rapidly, would fail that test. But a schedule that was described in a slightly more generic way (eg, 4am: "Varies. Teletubbies, British sitcom repeats."), for a massive station might still be useful. I agree that providing another place to look up what's on TV tonight fails to be encyclopaedic. Being able to compare what two networks were running at 7pm on tuesday nights in 2007 is useful and encyclopaedic. ] 15:02, 21 August 2009 (UTC) 3828:#Related, there's a stupidly large number of redirects, anchors and shortcuts to various sections, I believe because editors are attracted to the WP:NOT form and like to make redirects for every conceivably relevant value of X. Probably any individual example of these redirects is reasonable but their aggregate effect is a sort of "death by a thousand shortcuts" where the mass of hatnotes and shortcut boxes starts making the page too busy. Plus they make it more difficult to condense and merge points that really don't need to be separate, because you need to think about what to do with the shortcuts and anchors as well. 2382:* Recently some old television schedules from decades ago came up for deletion. My argue for keeping all the old ones was this: Showing a historic list of every show ever shown on a notable network, is perfectly fine by almanac standards for the Knowledge. Television plays a massive role in shaping people's opinions, and affecting the world. If someone wanted to see where and when shows were at, and then do a study to determine how each one affected someone, this might be of use. It also shows how the taste of the people changed over time, what sort of thing they watched year by year. ]''' 11:31, 21 August 2009 (UTC) 3817:#Additionally, "things Knowledge is not" is just a bit of a strange grouping, full stop. To pick three at random, why should our policies on censorship (NOTCENSORED), using Knowledge for research (NOTLAB) and avoiding dictionary entries (NOTDICT) all come under the same policy? I don't think it's because they're a natural fit to be discussed together – I think it's because, at some point, someone came up with a way to conceptualise them in terms of "Knowledge is not X" and added them here. So it's pure chance we have, say, the policy on password strength at ] instead of a sub-section here called NOTWEAKPASSWORD. 3559:* Abductive, what were the criteria you used to assign positions to people? I'm in support of removing per-station program guides, while keeping network-level guides. I _think_ that's the same position as, for example, DGG... but you listed us with two different positions. I'll also point out that the policy currently explicitly calls out network-level program guides, saying that "Historically significant programme lists and schedules (such as the annual United States network television schedules)", so a departure from this position would be overturning NOT. — ] (]) 22:07, 21 August 2009 (UTC) 4104:::If take that approach, what it probably needs is a close review by that the bundle does not contain any substantive changes and that it really does tidy it up. And for them to state their findings. I took a first look for "does not contain any substantive changes". Maybe I missed where it was retained, but it looks like you took out the "but articles can sometimes be on a ''term'' tweak of the not a dictionary section. IMO this is substantive change, and as a sidebar, one which I'd oppose. ''North8000'' (]) 19:25, 26 August 2024 (UTC) 2422:*'''Support removal''' of directory information. It is reasonable to have an entry on, say, NBC's long-running and successful ] schedule/marketing campaign which includes schedule info., and we do; but the current articles are like what ] would look like if only the game log were present in the articles and not the context. It's simple directory info. in the most literal sense of the term and is unencyclopedic. Only the relatively few historical significant schedules should have entries, and those should provide context explaining their significance. ] (]) 23:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC) 3736:*'''Keep historic, nationwide (or almost nationwide) TV schedules''' They can be sourced, they are clearly "encyclopedic" as I show in the subsection below, and they can be assumed to meet WP:N based on the sourcing we've seen on this page and on some of the "References" sections of these articles. In-depth coverage for what is essentially a WP:LIST exists in ''TV Guide'' and other publications that have articles on network TV schedules (such as ''The New York Times''). There is no reason to change WP:NOT to ban these kinds of articles. -- ] (]) 16:19, 22 August 2009 (UTC) 1235:*There is nothing wrong with contacting people who have participated in these articles previously, to tell them what is going on. That isn't canvasing, nor is it wrong in any way. Secretly deleting what others have spent a lot of time working on, without seeking their input, is however quite wrong. Let them have their say as well. And honestly, no one has ever article they have worked on or cared about on their watchlist, monitoring every little change constantly, that just not possible. Someone should contact all of them. ]''' 03:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC) 4115::::It's still there, just in a footnote. No problem with moving it back in the main text if that's preferable. Again, I haven't set out to make substantive changes, but I'm realistic: condensing down the page by a third will inevitably trample on some sensitive wording in a few places, even when that's not my intent. This is more like a proof of concept or an "artist's impression" of how much shorter this policy could be – not every detail will be faithful and accurate, but it demonstrates the core idea is workable. – ]''']''' ] 03:24, 27 August 2024 (UTC) 940:::* The key factor between being a TV guide and an encyclopedic coverage of what shows a network airs is the fact we do not break this down week-by-week, episode by episode or include one-time events. Now granted, the data on the network pages should technically be put with the data on the historical schedule comparison pages, because after the current season is over, that's where that information will live. But that information itself should be somewhere on WP. But this is again for the national, over-the-air networks. --] (]) 22:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC) 2219:::::I'm thinking EV is short for "encyclopedic value". Which I believe you address sufficiently above, but more to the point, the historic block schedules are verifiable, not original research, are neutral, and are not indiscriminate (if we did it for every cable channel, that would be pushing it), and based on your analysis, they pass notability guidelines - even if indirectly. Current schedule per stations, yes are sketchy (that falls into both WP:CRYSTAL and WP:TEMP), but historical ones are a much different beast --] (]) 06:20, 21 August 2009 (UTC) 2806::Not sure about the journals but the added language regarding govt codes, etc. is something that can be a problem. I see people do laws or court cases that cite only the primary sources without considering the coverage of these in third party sources, and that's both a notability (WP:NOT) and an original research problem (in interpreting what laws or cases imply without aid of third party sources). Its reasonable to discuss. I don't think we need the additional language coveraging different journal types though. --] (]) 23:48, 17 August 2024 (UTC) 1728:*'''Support retention of Major-network Schedules.''' Firsfron makes the very good point that entire books have been written about these network schedules, and that makes them notable. Per ], "Knowledge is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers." This is the sort of information that would be in a specialized encyclopedia, so we should keep it. It also serves a quite plausible navigational purpose, and so should be kept for that reason alone. — ] (]) 22:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC) 2795:@]: I don't think the additional verbiage about official journals et al. is necessary. Do other editors actually treat Knowledge this way in your experience, and aren't existing guidelines sufficient for explaining why they shouldn't? In any case, the section title has been made much clunkier by the additions. ] ‥ ] 23:06, 17 August 2024 (UTC) 995:** I disagree that the historical comparisons are a problem. It's well established that one can look at the changing reception of a show, and in fact, how new programs are introduced and removed, based on what the competition was airing at the same time, at a level of high granularity, so these historical articles provide a key resource. The networks selected are discriminate: these are the major over-the-air broadcasters (even if a station like the CW doesn't get close to some cable networks). --] (]) 22:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC) 1268::*I think ikip was within his rights to inform others of the situation, however, wikipedia is not a ]. If the members of a particular wikiproject want to make a change to policy (such us ]) then they need to convince the wikipedia community as a whole. I'm still in favour of removing and I haven't heard any, what I'd call "valid" reasons to keep them -- ]] (]•]) 07:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC) 3897:''The Complete Directory to Prime Time Network TV Shows; 1946–Present'' is a one-volume, specialized encyclopedia with more than 3,000 articles in alphabetical order on individual evening, national-network TV programs, and, in the back, a section titled "Prime Time Schedules: 1946-1980" (my copy, the second revised edition, is from 1981). If this specialized encyclopedia can include dozens of pages of block schedules (pages 852-886) just like our own, then we can't really be "unencyclopedic" by following their lead. 1618:*'''Keep network block schedules, remove specifics'''. The block schedule of an entire network for an entire season is encyclopedic. Ratings of various shows are discussed in RS'es, people can check what was on years ago, and so forth. This kind of schedule includes empty spaces set aside for local programming, and open-ended time on weekends for sports and movies. However, it is not encyclopedic to update a detailed schedule every week when things are moved around for specials, etc. ] (]) 18:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC) 951::::*I don't think what medium it is broadcast in or how extensive the coverage of the station/network is should be a factor. If it's important enough for a network, it's important enough for a station. Plus, in smaller countries the definition of "network" and "station" is very much blurred. I concur with your statement below that response to Rossami and historical articles. I do not see how keeping track of current schedules on every station/network article is in any way encyclopedic. --] (]) 22:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC) 3594:::As for the article size, the Page Size tool puts the article word count at 2,145 words, but this excludes the content in the numbered lists. When including that content, the word count of the current revision is 6,127 words. The shorter wording proposed here would add only 119 words. Per WP:SIZE, that is not a length where trimming or division of the article would be required or recommended. As such, the article would not be bloated by its inclusion and is not currently bloated. -- ] (]) 02:11, 26 August 2024 (UTC) 1948:::::::::::::: Once again, the only alternative to notability, ], is not accepted as a basis for article inclusion in Knowledge. It is a matter of personal opinion to argue that these schedules are significant and important if you don't provide a shred of evidence to support your view point. Simply arguing that these schedules are "significant", "important", "informative", "worthy" or "valuable" does not carry any weight in Knowledge. You have to provide ] for a standalone article. --] (]|] 13:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC) 2647:::Lists of ingredients from food packages would be indiscriminate, since there's 1) an infinite possibility of ingrediants and 2) an infinite possibly of foodstuffs. Nor is this info verifiable without turning to the primary source (most of the time), being the wrapper or container itself. On the other hand, these lists are selectively looking at certain blocks of programming (prime time schedules) for specific networks of a certain quality (national affliates) that have been covered by non-primary sources. 1673::::The national network schedules provide clear evidence of notability since many are clearly sourced to reliable third-party publications. Gavin, please go to your local library and check out some of the books listed as references on these pages. Also, there are not "hundreds of different television networks in the U.S. alone"; the number of broadcast networks is closer to fifty, and only a dozen or so are true nationally-viewed networks. ] 14:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC) 1979:::::::::::::We all know that the argument that places are inherently notable without evidence is questionable to say the least. I think the same principle applies here - the existence of these articles on television schedules is questionable too, and their ] is a matter of opinion, not fact. If Firsfron can't add commentary to these articles which he passionately cares about, then I don't know who can. He may as well have supported deltion from the begining. --] (]|] 15:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC) 2175:*'''100% support removal''' The ONLY time I would ever include schedule information is where the info is notable, such as for ], or in discussing how the timeslot pertains to a particular show (perhaps ] for example, IIRC ''Firefly'' got moved around in timeslots and that's thought to be one of the things that killed the show). ] ]] 15:50, 20 August 2009 (UTC) 1838::::: We have no way of telling if the schedules are discussed in any meaningful way at all in these publications, so your assertions are pure speculation. My guess is that the topics of these publications are either the netweorks themselves or the television programmes they produced, and that the network schedules are used merely the framework to discuss them. To back up your statements, you will have to come up with citations, not rumours of citations. --] (]|] 16:00, 16 August 2009 (UTC) 3572:::What is special about these topics is what has already been said in this discussion by myself and by others: articles are being created about these topics that do not satisfy the general notability guideline despite its existence, and that such articles will continue to be created unless instructions are included that explicitly direct editors to not do so—like the proscriptions against all of the other topics already included in the policy that were presumably added for the same reason. 4497::There are problems other than partisanship here. The base is that from an objective perspective the names and most other attributes of the victims are generally not too relevant to the event - however news padding and "human interest" mean that a lot is reported, and the names even become bywords. The ] may be an early case in point: although we are sorry for ] we would be just as sorry if his name was Walbeck - nonetheless he is defiantly notable. ''] ]'', 13:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC). 2570:

value in that information as a business resource, but it is an information resource to those that study past history of televsion (as evidenced by the books referenced above). I also think it's important that there is a layer of discrimination going on here as only the major network broadcasters are included, and the resolution is, at worst, at the fall/spring/summer schedules, which is a very broad stroke and appropriate for encyclopedic summation. --] (]) 15:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

929::*I think we immediately get into a granularity issue there. I suggest the line in the sand isn't if a station is a national network or not. I think the line in the sand is per-station/network. Articles such as ] are fine, as they offer an historical perspective to compare programming slots. Station/network articles that have are not fine. Similarly, ] isn't an acceptable use either. A current schedule isn't encyclopedic. It turns us into a guide. --] (]) 22:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC) 2592::Suppose some lunatic started transcribing the ingredients list from different food packages. Would that be tolerated? Would people argue that some readers might want to know this information? Would people argue that food is notable, so that the ingredient lists must therefore be encyclopedic? I can only assume that a few of the people here would so argue, blind as they are to what an encyclopedia really is. ] (]) 20:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC) 2782:

more recent editions. If this kind of thing gets covered in reliable sources like my source or like TV Guide (and it does), then reliable sourcing and the question of whether or not the articles are "encyclopedic" should be resolved. If this independent coverage exists for many of the historic, nationwide schedules, then it's reasonable to assume it exists for all, and there should be no justification from this project page for deleting them. -- ] (]) 15:55, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

1092:::I am in agreement with ] in that "''The whole ] series should be reconsidered.''" I fail to see how, what amounts to a nicely formatted TV schedule is encyclopaedic? Knowledge is ] a record of everything under the sun. In my opinion ] was right to go ahead and remove that listing and any other similar -- ]] (]•]) 19:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC) 4934: 1464:*FWIW, I agree with Hammersoft and Uncle G that the schedules for individual stations are not generally appropriate. The stations can do it better themselves. The work it would take us to do it correctly should be better spent on writing articles on topics we need to cover--or perhaps improving the plot sections of TV shows. (Networks and some national stations are another matter entirely and I would not support deleting them). ''']''' (]) 22:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC) 1486:*'''Wrong venue''' Please start an RfC. Per Protonk this shouldn't be determined here. If for some reason we are going to determine this here, I think we should have major network schedules here, where "major" is unclear in many markets (to me at least). The schedule of a show has a lot to do with the success of the show and even what the show does (follow on to another show etc.) It is clearly an important part of many shows. ] (]) 18:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC) 2001::::::::::::I think you have missed a point, that even though the schedules are sourced from secondary sources, you are in actual fact repoducing the the primary source because no commentary, criticism or analysis accompanies accompanies the schedules. Without such commentary from reliable secondary sources there is no evidence of notability, and your arguments that they should have their standalone articles runs contrary to ]. --] (]|] 07:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC) 3922::If we were to start a new Knowledge, I am sure that we would organize our policies differently. (Even if we wanted our policies to be basically the same.) But I'm against this even just on a procedural level. It creates a lot of conflict for very little gain. The usability/readability issue is mostly addressed by good anchors, and anything else can be accomplished with an essay about whichever point of NOT needs clarification. ] (]) 14:30, 27 August 2024 (UTC) 2658:::Again, I point out the question: if these historical tv schedules are inappropriate, then what makes the full record of every pro team's every season appropriate? That's just as much a "directory" as these schedules, and are just as discriminate/indiscriminate and have the same types of backing sources. As noted below, we are more than just an encyclopedia, we include specialized encyclopedias and almanacs, both which these can be derived from. --] (]) 1651:::*'''Comment''' Since the schedules provide no evidence of notability, there is no rationale to keep them other than various editors views about their ]. What seems to be missing is ] that they should be kept - so far we have only various editors expressing strong view. The must be hundreds of different television networks in the US alone, but which one is more important than another is a matter of personal opinion. --] (]|] 14:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC) 4970: 4216::Of course. We have thousands of articles on future ventures, albums, movies and TV shows. We have articles on future elections, future car concepts, future aircraft. No policy on wikipedia prevents these. I am, however, hesitant to engage in discussion someone who has assumed that everyone on the other 'side' is "under a spell" or is vandalizing articles. Please assume good faith and treat people with respect. ] (]) 22:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC) 1103::::I will contact many of the editors involved in making these scheudules, there are 6 editors here, many veteran editors whose accounts overwhelming focus on attempting to delete other editors contributions, attempting to make policy for everyone else. Typical but not exactly overwhelming conseus. The overwhelming consensus is the hundreds of editors over several years, who have made and maintained these schedules.] (]) 19:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC) 3052::I think you need to rethink it as a section under the Not a Guide/Textbook section. It didn't need a whole separate section, but we should clearly have something that we aren't here to mirror govt documents (though where appropriate, that's a function Wikisource can do when copyright's not an issue); legislative and case laws should be documented through third party sources, not simply because the law exists. ] (]) 13:42, 24 August 2024 (UTC) 3625:*You can move me closer to 'uphold'. I think that editors should be free to include programs guides insofar as they are contextualized by a reliable source (in the sense that Gavin argues). The core of NOTDIR is valid and shouldn't be changed. Which means that as it applies, we should follow it. Program guides which are ''functionally'' and largely just tables of times and shows don't need to be here. ] (]) 22:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC) 4872: 1310:*I am now being reverted by ] who is citing this thread as support for including the schedules. . In this thread, I see 9 people supporting the removals, with only 2 opposing. There's three others with possibly equivocal opinions not included. This isn't a vote, but after 5 days (inclusive) it's pretty clear where we stand. He's done this 11 times. I am reverting, but would appreciate some support. --] (]) 13:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC) 2164:*'''Support removal and suggest strengthening policy'''. Past program schedules are of historic interest to lots of people, including those doing serious research, but I can think of no reason why WP should include current program schedules. We're not a one-stop reference for any and all info, we're an encyclopedia, and such info is ''readily'' available elsewhere on the Web, on TV, and in print. ] (]) 07:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC) 68: 1849::::::Gavin, '''I have each and every one of these books in my collection.''' It's not "pure speculation", and when ''you'' say "my guess is..." it is ''you'' who is engaging in pure speculation. Check out these books yourself if you refuse to believe that I have these books. Also, can't you tell from the title what ''The TV Schedule Book'' might be about? ] 16:09, 16 August 2009 (UTC) 2462:*'''Support removal''' and endorse our current policy as expressed. I have just closed a couple of AfDs as No consensus in order to channel the discussion here, as it is more appropriate to have everything centralized. The only way I believe the information about when something was on TV is relevant is if it is included in the article about tv series or another programme, such as in ]. --''']''' 13:07, 22 August 2009 (UTC) 2329::::::*If you scroll up a bit, you'll see that Firsfron has posted information about 5 books devoted to the subject. So the significant coverage requirement is more than met, for the major-network schedules. Frankly, I'm not sure there's anything left to debate: Major-network schedules are notable due to being written about in multiple books, while per-station schedules should be removed. — ] (]) 08:22, 21 August 2009 (UTC) 2142:*'''Endorse removal''' per ]. These schedules change almost on a weekly basis, and I would concur it is ]. If the basic structure of programming (ie of historical significance) is changed from one year to the next, there need to be an agreed way of presenting it, possibly juxtaposed with historical schedule or competitors' schedules. but these should be the exception rather than the rule. ] (]) 15:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC) 973:::::*But I do think it's smart idea to discourage the schedule coverage on the station article and push it to national historical schedule pages - yes they are current, but in 3 months, they will be historical, so there's no problem with that information staying around after the fact. However, it will deemphasize the station-centric view that can occur on the individual station pages. --] (]) 23:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC) 1202:*I don't actually think it is appropriate to determine the fate of these articles via a discussion at WP:NOT. Obviously, we lack a centralized discussion system whereby changes across many articles can be agreed upon (in principle) but NOT isn't a good substitute. My suggestion is that you start another discussion at Wikiproject TV and close this discussion w/ a pointer there. ] (]) 01:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC) 2153:*'''Observation'''. Although it is difficult to follow the thread of this talk section, I would like to suggest that, among those editors who, like me, came here in response to the RfC (as opposed to some of those who are continuing an ongoing argument in this section), there is really a pretty strong trend towards consensus that the TV schedules should largely be removed. --] (]) 21:29, 19 August 2009 (UTC) 1213:**Please note ], third bullet point: a "WikiProject cannot decide that for the articles within its scope, some policy does not apply, unless they can convince the broader community that doing so is right". A discussion based at a Wikiproject will be inherently biased. This talk page of the policy in question is a considerably more global forum. A pointer was placed at ]. --] (]) 13:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC) 3795:#The page is a bit conceptually incoherent – obviously there's any number of things Knowledge is not, so there's no clear criteria for when to add sections beyond "a consensus of editors felt it was important enough". But editors are more likely to be motivated to add new sections than to remove obsolete sections, so there's always going to be this tendency for the policy to be bigger than it needs to be. 1147:::::::*The Knowledge community decided the policy, not a small group of 'elite editors' (I'm not an elite editor, and neither is anyone else here). The policy is quite clear. an "article on a ... station should not list ... current schedules". The stance against schedules has been in the ] policy for more than three years. For the record, I did invite people. See ]. --] (]) 14:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC) 4902: 2952:] and ], per the comments in this talk page discussion and WP:CREEP, the section was not added to deal with a hypothetical problem and the language was not too long. Additionally, other editors here have expressed support for the additional language so it is unclear to me how there was not a consensus for adding the additional instruction per WP:CON. -- ] (]) 12:44, 24 August 2024 (UTC) 4207:

schedules may be acceptable." Not only that current programming schedules should be included on article about a TV station, but ] also follows this guideline and other cable networks can allow current programming on their separate articles, but they should all need a reliable source to support it. If needed, can this guideline be slightly expanded? ] (]) 20:00, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

1860:::::::I don't understand then why you did not you cite some coverage from these publications that supports the notability of one or more schedule/lineup articles from the begining of this discussion. Can you add some citations now, so we can examine what you have in in your library? Evidence in support of your assertions would be most welcome. --] (]|] 17:43, 16 August 2009 (UTC) 1169:::::Well said! I agree. If you don't like it, then you don't have to go there. The large number of people who do go there for information, and have contributed to it over the years, are important. Is there any way to see just how many hits a particulate page gets? Bringing more people to the Knowledge, for any reason, is always a good thing. ]''' 00:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC) 1017:*For major networks, I don't think its bad. What currently airs on a network can be an encyclopedic subject, though if we can do it better (with maybe a navbox style list divided by genre and stuff), that could be a good compromise. ] ] 22:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC) 4060::{{tq|It's overwhelming to try to comment on a bundle of many dozens of changes to a core policy.}} Very fair! If it helps, maybe think of it not so much as "these are the exact point-by-point changes we need, the RfC opens tomorrow" but rather "whoa, we can make this a lot shorter and I don't even think we broke ''that'' much". – ]''']''' ] 15:49, 26 August 2024 (UTC) 2340:::::If you a scroll up a bit, you will see that the sources merely reporoduce the schedules direct from the primary source, but they don't add any evidence of notability. Don't forget that just because a TV schedule appears in more than source, it is still the primary source, and in itself does not provide evidence of notability. --] (]|] 08:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC) 1990::::::::::::::Would you please stop repeatedly linking to that essay? I've already linked above to multiple books which ] the content, which ], and which are presented from a ] point of view. I've conceded that the local station schedules should go, and I just wish you could have met me halfway. ] 03:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC) 2535:

timeslot changes, but this is not OR towards a specific POV, and falls well within acceptable synthesis (particularly as the specifics of changes are outlined below the schedules, at least for US television). They are as "inappropriate" as the listing of the results of every game a professional sports team has played, which are also perfectly fine for an almanac.

4295:::sounds good to me as well. We who work here do not have the responsibility to provide all the possible public benefits needed in the world. We are here to provide one specific thing: a comprehensive 💕. That it be an encyclopedia worth using requires some degree of limit on total imaginable comprehensiveness. ''']''' (]) 02:33, 16 August 2009 (UTC) 1006::Bravo! I have yet to see how such scheduling information continues to be "upheld" as an okay exception beyond a general fondness for it. Most are not historically significant, and current schedules certainly should be frowned upon. Knowledge is not a TV guide nor is it a mirror for TV.com. -- ] (] '''·''' ]) 22:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC) 5406:, per the comments in this talk page discussion and WP:CREEP, the section was not added to deal with a hypothetical problem and the language was not too long. Additionally, other editors here have expressed support for the additional language so it is unclear to me how there was not a consensus for adding the additional instruction per WP:CON. -- 2241::::::*'''Comment''' The argument that a schedule is "historically significant" is just basically a restatement of ]. These schedules are no different from any other schedule unless ] can be provided to show that they merit their own standalone articles. While we are at it, lets also put aside lots of other spurious arguements for inclusion: 3550::This is just a long way to say articles on laws and regulations have to meet our notability standards – just like every other subject on Knowledge. What's special about these topics that means we should single them out to reiterate this general guidance, in a policy that's already bloated as is? – ]''']''' ] 01:23, 26 August 2024 (UTC) 962:::::*We do need some level that designates a national station, otherwise, we'll have every tiny UHF station have their schedule posted. The US is easy, but probably more difficult for smaller countries, but also at smaller countries, you're less likely to have a large number of stations or stations that aren't national to begin with. 858:

cannot decide that for the articles within its scope, some policy does not apply, unless they can convince the broader community that doing so is right." and that never happened. I also found a discussion that occurred in the global forum of Village Pump (policy) ] which showed a pretty strong consensus that the schedules had to go.

4181::Well put. So long as the "rumors" or inpending upcoming releases are backed up by reliable sources, there is no real negative in not covering them. We cover content that appeals to a broad audience, not only that which seems relevant to some of our community. Best, --]'']'' 21:51, 15 August 2009 (UTC) 3616::::Articles about non-notable subjects '''will''' get created. No matter how many rules you create and how much text you add to other pages that will not have been read by newbies. IMHO your proposal is superfluous. ] ] 02:35, 26 August 2024 (UTC) 5740:

aggregate effect is a sort of "death by a thousand shortcuts" where the mass of hatnotes and shortcut boxes starts making the page too busy. Plus they make it more difficult to condense and merge points that really don't need to be separate, because you need to think about what to do with the shortcuts and anchors as well.

3992:*The not a "collection of data" to reinforce that as encyclopedia, our approach is to cover things in enclyclopedia articles, including prose. This might help provide guidance on the areas where Knowledge lacks guidance (on what is OK regarding list articles) and strengthing up guidance against 99% "stats only" articles. 1662::::*TV schedules are printed in all sorts of 3rd party publications. They easily meet WP:N. The question is if they violate NOT#DIRECTORY. I think the historical versions certainly don't, but I can also see how one could reasonably conclude they do. But notability isn't at issue here. ] (]) 14:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC) 4420:#This is understood by some editors to mean that the names of victims of atrocities, such as ] or ], where the victims all died at the same time, should not be included in the relevant articles, but that it is appropriate to include the names of victims of atrocities where they died at different times, e.g. ] or ]. 2817:::I'd support to the new section about laws/etc, separately from the additional journal types language. There are hundreds of years of such laws and rulings, the vast majority of which won't be notable. -- LCU ''']''' ''«]» °]°'' 10:28, 18 August 2024 (UTC) 2318::::::To be honest, all these arguments are a load of intellectual garbage. Just find some significant coverage from reliable secondary sources (not just the barebone schedules) to provide evidence of notability - this is the only ''real'' defence against deletion or merger. --] (]|] 08:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC) 3725:*Wow, if Firsfron has books on material which can be sourced, then I am all for keeping that material. Whole books on subjects should be enough for verifiability and sourcing. So keep the historic and national guides at least. i need to think about finer details. :) ] (] '''·''' ]) 08:49, 22 August 2009 (UTC) 5771:

If we were to start a new Knowledge, I am sure that we would organize our policies differently. (Even if we wanted our policies to be basically the same.) But I'm against this even just on a procedural level. It creates a lot of conflict for very little gain. The usability/readability issue is mostly

5739:

Related, there's a stupidly large number of redirects, anchors and shortcuts to various sections, I believe because editors are attracted to the WP:NOT form and like to make redirects for every conceivably relevant value of X. Probably any individual example of these redirects is reasonable but their

5652:

What is special about these topics is what has already been said in this discussion by myself and by others: articles are being created about these topics that do not satisfy the general notability guideline despite its existence, and that such articles will continue to be created unless instructions

5421:

I think you need to rethink it as a section under the Not a Guide/Textbook section. It didn't need a whole separate section, but we should clearly have something that we aren't here to mirror govt documents (though where appropriate, that's a function Wikisource can do when copyright's not an issue);

3931:

Is this really a specialized encyclopedia? It says it is (from the Introduction, page x): "This is an encyclopedia " It is called an "encyclopedia" or "encyclopedic" by others (from the blurb at the top of the front cover): "'This is the Guinness Book of World Records ... The Encyclopedia Britannica

2513:

It appears the consensus is clear about per-station current schedules from the above - they change too much and too often to be effective in an article about the station. So I suggest focusing on the other issue (which many have ID'd above, but there's too much to separate one aspect from the other)

5922:

The other thing this page is is a trump card, used to shortcut discussion about whether something should be included in the encyclopedia. This is most obvious with NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. If I had one wish for how this page would be rewritten, it would be that each criterion should follow the same rules

5900:

It's still there, just in a footnote. No problem with moving it back in the main text if that's preferable. Again, I haven't set out to make substantive changes, but I'm realistic: condensing down the page by a third will inevitably trample on some sensitive wording in a few places, even when that's

5274:

The short answer is "Yes, other editors do use Knowledge in this way in my experience, and no, existing guidelines are apparently not sufficient for explaining this." I've encountered numeorus Knowledge articles about bills proposed in the United States Congress during a particular session that were

3603:***I don't think the current policy is particularly US-centric, just because it uses a US-related article as an example. A sourced article giving network schedules for national networks (or stations with national distribution) in other countries would be fine, too. — ] (]) 17:43, 22 August 2009 (UTC) 2926:

Several editors have argued for the overturning of a key tenet of WP:NOT. In order to achieve that goal, they must gain a clear consensus. In fact, the opposite has happened; the majority has argued for the retention of this policy. I've toted up the comments so far. If I made a mistake, please move

5795:

The not a "collection of data" to reinforce that as encyclopedia, our approach is to cover things in enclyclopedia articles, including prose. This might help provide guidance on the areas where Knowledge lacks guidance (on what is OK regarding list articles) and strengthing up guidance against 99%

5076:

if the sequence is "nice", "core" (of central importance to some topic), or "hard" (which often means that it comes from an unsolved problem). Because the source is reliable but intentionally rather indiscriminate, we should focus our attention on the subset of it that is marked as more interesting

4320:

Curious to hear what others think about articles such as ] and the compatibility with ], which states that Knowledge should not feature "Simple listings without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit. Listings such as the white or yellow pages should not be replicated." At present, the ]

2781:

A subsection I started below, ] shows coverage from a reliable, independent source for historic national-network evening schedules in the United States. The source I cite actually has one-year-per-page schedules that look remarkably like our own. My source was published in 1981, but there have been

1552:::::::*No, but the people who _read_ ] are hugely more wonky than the average editor. I am very far on that extreme myself. I just think those that actually edit the articles in question are as important to hear from as those that live and breath policy (e.g. me). ] (]) 12:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC) 1069:

Just giving you a heads-up, but {{user|Jon2guevarra}} has reinstated some of the schedules Hammersoft removed. It seems ''any'' communication with the guy seems to be futile because he reverted the edits despite the notes left behind on his talk page. - ] | ] | ] 10:20, 7

1048:

I am very happy to see such listings removed, although I think you (Hammersoft) should have sought this clarification first, rather than afterwards. If I understand you correctly, you believe that articles on historical schedules are acceptable, but articles on current schedules are only acceptable

5879:

If take that approach, what it probably needs is a close review by that the bundle does not contain any substantive changes and that it really does tidy it up. And for them to state their findings. I took a first look for "does not contain any substantive changes". Maybe I missed where it was

5634:

This is just a long way to say articles on laws and regulations have to meet our notability standards – just like every other subject on Knowledge. What's special about these topics that means we should single them out to reiterate this general guidance, in a policy that's already bloated as is? –

4169:

Knowledge should be a crystal ball etc. Too many people are caught up in rules which don't really create any positive benefit to what the site offers. As far as I can grasp. everyone on the site seems to be under the 'WP Spell' whereby they care more about Knowledge itself than the actual subjects

3967:

Is this book reliable? Well, it won the American Book Award and the San Francisco State University Broadcast Preceptor Award, for what it's worth (page vii, "Preface to the Second Edition"). According to this Google Books search, the book seems to be cited by hundreds of other books: The book has

857:

Prior to beginning the removals (knowing there'd be resistance) I checked for background discussions. I found one that had been cited previously that occurred at the Wikiproject Television ], that happened in 2007. My take on that was it was irrelevant, since our policy at ] notes "The WikiProject

5656:

As for the article size, the Page Size tool puts the article word count at 2,145 words, but this excludes the content in the numbered lists. When including that content, the word count of the current revision is 6,127 words. The shorter wording proposed here would add only 119 words. Per WP:SIZE,

5284:

I have also encountered many Knowledge articles about laws, regulations, court cases, public policies, treaties, and other international agreements that do not appear to satisfy the WP:N policy, and it occurs to me that government gazettes, legal codes, and law report series are more analogous to

2569:

I think the key point here is that the specific NOT phrase this falls under includes as the catchall: "resource for conducting business". Current television schedules can be seen as that, since they inform the reader as what's on or what is coming. Once the event has happened, however, there's no

5731:

Additionally, "things Knowledge is not" is just a bit of a strange grouping, full stop. To pick three at random, why should our policies on censorship (NOTCENSORED), using Knowledge for research (NOTLAB) and avoiding dictionary entries (NOTDICT) all come under the same policy? I don't think it's

5188:

I don't think the additional verbiage about official journals et al. is necessary. Do other editors actually treat Knowledge this way in your experience, and aren't existing guidelines sufficient for explaining why they shouldn't? In any case, the section title has been made much clunkier by the

5727:

The page is a bit conceptually incoherent – obviously there's any number of things Knowledge is not, so there's no clear criteria for when to add sections beyond "a consensus of editors felt it was important enough". But editors are more likely to be motivated to add new sections than to remove

5215:

Not sure about the journals but the added language regarding govt codes, etc. is something that can be a problem. I see people do laws or court cases that cite only the primary sources without considering the coverage of these in third party sources, and that's both a notability (WP:NOT) and an

3968:

aspirations, at least, to scholarly reliability (from the "Introduction", page x): "This volume has been carefully researched for the scholar who wants to know what happened and when. But it is also — like TV itself — for your enjoyment." The book went into multiple editions.

2534:

I for one think they are fine, per WP being aspects of an almanac - they are not indiscriminate, they are sourced, and they are associated with notable topics (television in country X). There may be a hint of OR in that they have to gloss over the details with the case of rapid cancellation and

2351::::::The clear majority says these things don't belong because they are "unencyclopedic." This is worse than them being notable or not; that doesn't matter. ''''TV schedules should be and all will be''' deleted. Let it go. ] (]) 08:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC) 5965:

WP:NOTTVGUIDE is currently in the "Knowledge is not a directory" section, stating "An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc., although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant program lists and

4206:

5077:

than the rest. Or, in other words, we should follow the source when it comes to emphasis. This is roughly going to be equivalent to mentioning properties that already have their own blue-link-able Knowledge articles. I say "roughly" because it's not hard to imagine edge cases where an article

1191::::::Obviously a good number of editors strongly disagree about a rule which, if history is any guide, was formed by a handful of veteran editors with no larger community impute. It take very little talent or diplomacy to delete other editors contributions. ] (]) 01:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC) 984:* I think your removals of those sections were entirely appropriate and will make the stronger statement that sections like that would be equally inappropriate on the CBS or ABC pages. The whole ] series should be reconsidered. ] ] 22:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC) 162: 2087:*Well, since it is clear that my request to move this to a better forum didn't find widespread agreement, I'll vote. I feel that we should include '''fewer''', not more of per-station schedules. We aren't a directory and we aren't TV guide. ] (]) 19:43, 16 August 2009 (UTC) 4241::We write for a 10yr view, so the "current programming schedule" is immediately outdated information. If there is historical aspects of the schedule to be kept, that's different, but no, we aren't going to include those current schedules. ] (]) 20:18, 1 September 2024 (UTC) 5285:

manuals and academic journals than they are to repositories since repositories are generally indiscriminate collections of information while manuals, academic journals, government gazettes, legal codes, and law reports are not. This is why I'd argue that unless we make

5732:

because they're a natural fit to be discussed together – I think it's because, at some point, someone came up with a way to conceptualise them in terms of "Knowledge is not X" and added them here. So it's pure chance we have, say, the policy on password strength at

405:{{press |org='']'' |date=November 5, 2015 |author=Dewey, Caitlin |title=The most fascinating Knowledge articles you haven’t read |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2015/11/05/the-most-fascinating-wikipedia-articles-you-havent-read/}}<!-- 3118:::What language specifically do you think should be removed and how should the title of the "Knowledge is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal" be retitled for its inclusion? Use direct quotations please. -- ] (]) 13:55, 24 August 2024 (UTC) 3851:

Anyway, upshot is I had a go at and knocked off a third of the page's total size just from trimming back the content section alone. I didn't set out to actually change the meaning of anything, just to merge similar points together and cut out redundancies.

4082:::The many links to other essays, policies and guidelines etc. might be summarized in a navigation template. No clue if there already exists one. ] ] 16:23, 26 August 2024 (UTC) 2362:*'''Support removal'''. *Current* television schedules for television networks/stations are not appropriate content. Schedules are only appropriate if there is a historical context, and not if they are specific to now. --] (]) 11:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC) 2197::*But outside of the rare instance like ], what EV is provided through listed TV schedules? ] ]] 19:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC) 1158::::::::Since editors are not familar with the study which called influential veteran editors elite, and it is being read in the wrong way, I removed the term "elite" and replaced it with "veteran". Sorry for any confusion. ] (]) 16:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC) 2131:*I agree that the information should probably be removed, but having something that points out when a notable TV show or program comes on, in the article about that show, would be acceptable to my understanding of policy. ] (]) 20:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC) 1585:*'''RfC comment.''' It's not exactly clear where the discussion stops and the RfC starts, but I came here via the RfC. I think it is very clear that the primetime schedules violate NOTDIRECTORY, and should be deleted. --] (]) 22:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC) 60: 2120:*I believe most are historically insignificant and should be removed (]). There are certainly some exceptions, such as those critiqued in the references given above, but generally speaking, these aren't encyclopedic. --] ] 01:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC) 836:

Today, I began removing a bunch of scheduling information from a large number of TV stations. Examples: . I did this based on WP:NOTDIRECTORY #4, "an article on a ... station should not list ... current schedules". This seems clear and unequivocal.

3887:

Did I break a million anchors? Probably. Did I inadvertently overturn seven RfCs on subtle points of wording? Probably. Is it a net improvement? Yeah, once the kinks are ironed out, I think so. What do you think? – ]''']''' ] 14:18, 26 August 2024

2872:], per your edit , you have added a maintenance tag indicating that the section requires copyediting. What content in the section do you believe violates WP:COPYEDIT? Please state it here and I will address it. -- ] (]) 03:29, 24 August 2024 (UTC) 1497::*Not at all the wrong venue. If an RfC started, the discussion would be right here. Further, it was announced at Village Pump (policy). The very large majority agree the schedules per station are inappropriate. --] (]) 18:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC) 5281:, which is the official journal of the United States Congress. The inclusion of proposed legislation that does not satisfy WP:N seems little different than people using Knowledge as a soapbox (WP:SOAP), but these articles were created anyway. 3804:], first pillar, first sentence (boldface mine): ''Knowledge is an encyclopedia incorporating '''elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers.''' Content should be verified with citations to reliable sources.'' 4442:#Some editors believe that WP:NPOV is being breached in the former position as the position is a means of excluding the names of those killed by Irish republican groupings, while including the names of those killed by British armed forces. 5986:

We write for a 10yr view, so the "current programming schedule" is immediately outdated information. If there is historical aspects of the schedule to be kept, that's different, but no, we aren't going to include those current schedules.

2861:::That seems fine; thank you for the additional elaboration. ] ‥ ] 03:07, 22 August 2024 (UTC) 5514:(WP:NOTREPOSITORY), or advocacy, propaganda, and opinion pieces (WP:SOAPBOX). This also applies to all articles, amendments, sections, and clauses of the aforementioned legal documents, to unwritten and uncodified constitutions, and to 4250:: "whereby they care more about Knowledge itself than the actual subjects" sounds good to me - people who can't separate out their passion for a subject from their role here as an editor are a menace. --] (]) 22:09, 15 August 2009 (UTC) 4321:

is by definition a White Pages style directory listing of embassies in London and their addresses and coordinates. There is no contextual information, no encyclopedic merit, and no secondary sources. ] (]) 08:23, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

5748:

and knocked off a third of the page's total size just from trimming back the content section alone. I didn't set out to actually change the meaning of anything, just to merge similar points together and cut out redundancies.

5523:

What language specifically do you think should be removed and how should the title of the "Knowledge is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal" be retitled for its inclusion? Use direct quotations please. --

5787:

I applaud the effort. It's overwhelming to try to comment on a bundle of many dozens of changes to a core policy. There are two areas where if there were be a substantial rewrite there should be a bunch of careful work:

5216:

original research problem (in interpreting what laws or cases imply without aid of third party sources). Its reasonable to discuss. I don't think we need the additional language coveraging different journal types though. --

3957:

5970:

also follows this guideline and other cable networks can allow current programming on their separate articles, but they should all need a reliable source to support it. If needed, can this guideline be slightly expanded?

5901:

not my intent. This is more like a proof of concept or an "artist's impression" of how much shorter this policy could be – not every detail will be faithful and accurate, but it demonstrates the core idea is workable. –

5271:

3660::::WP:SIZE is a guideline relating to articles, not Knowledge policies. 6000 words is, indeed, far too long for a policy, at least if we're actually expecting people to read it. – ]''']''' ] 02:48, 26 August 2024 (UTC) 3861:

Clearly, if Knowledge incorporates an element of a specialized encyclopedia, that incorporation can't be called "unencyclopedic". Well, these historic schedules can't be called "unencyclopedic" for just that reason.

5823:

Very fair! If it helps, maybe think of it not so much as "these are the exact point-by-point changes we need, the RfC opens tomorrow" but rather "whoa, we can make this a lot shorter and I don't even think we broke

5752:

2581::None of Knowledge's content polices support this view. Special pleading only makes you bid for an exemption more obvious: in the absence of ], all barebones schedules fail ]. --] (]|] 20:18, 21 August 2009 (UTC) 1431:* I'd agree that this information is encyclopedic and should be removed. FWIW, there have been AfDs on some dedicated TV schedule articles in the past, one I remember was ]. ] 20:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC) 6040:, which states that Knowledge should not feature "Simple listings without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit. Listings such as the white or yellow pages should not be replicated." At present, the 5950: 1937:::::::::::::Once again '''Notability is not a policy''', it is only a guideline and thus applied with common sense exceptions. This clearly seems to be one of those cases. --] (]) 13:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC) 3581:**It looks like the US-centric part (bias) of the policy, which said "may be acceptable" has been deemed unacceptable by 20+ editors. ] (]) 22:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC) 5233:

I'd support to the new section about laws/etc, separately from the additional journal types language. There are hundreds of years of such laws and rulings, the vast majority of which won't be notable. --

3981:*The linked not a dictionary has evolved a bit to recognize that terms can, are and should be a subject of coverage. The term often either creates the subject or creates a particular view of the subject. 5792:

The linked not a dictionary has evolved a bit to recognize that terms can, are and should be a subject of coverage. The term often either creates the subject or creates a particular view of the subject.

4389:

In a few places, the float-right shortcuts bump each other a sizeable distance to the left. I suggest adding {{tl|-}}, a.k.a. {{tl|clear}}, to avoid that. Thoughts? — ] ] 14:21, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

1224:***I'm well aware of that provision, thanks. Start an RfC or start a discussion at the village pump if you like. I just don't think discussing it here is productive. ] (]) 19:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC) 6044:

is by definition a White Pages style directory listing of embassies in London and their addresses and coordinates. There is no contextual information, no encyclopedic merit, and no secondary sources.

2749::::Good to know people at Knowledge have beaten me to it, but adding something here might be a quick little guideline to help people avoid the most egregious examples. ] (]) 21:27, 5 August 2024 (UTC) 3669:*Thoughts on striking out the parenthetical special exception (which is rather nationalistic)?: "''(such as the annual United States network television schedules)''" --] ] 01:07, 22 August 2009 (UTC) 145: 5352:, you have added a maintenance tag indicating that the section requires copyediting. What content in the section do you believe violates WP:COPYEDIT? Please state it here and I will address it. -- 5072:

I don't know that it's a big enough problem that we need to cover it in a policy, but I'll echo here what I said there. My personal inclination is that a number appearing in an OEIS entry is only

2067:::::::Ah. Do you think Garion was talking about the historically significant national schedules or current station schedules? ] 06:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC) 2705::# Certain properties (e.g. ], ], ]) that are sufficiently well known and generally applicabile, are worth assuming they would be of interest for anyone reading an article on a specific number. 2023:::TV guide doesn't list annual national programming grids, Garion: it's a place to check ''local listings'' for the week. ] 15:24, 16 August 2009 (UTC) 15: 4431:#Others believe that it is appropriate to include names in relation to both types of atrocity, but that if it is not deemed appropriate in one, then it should not be appropriate in the other. 5653:

are included that explicitly direct editors to not do so—like the proscriptions against all of the other topics already included in the policy that were presumably added for the same reason.

5657:

that is not a length where trimming or division of the article would be required or recommended. As such, the article would not be bloated by its inclusion and is not currently bloated. --

1475:*I cannot see any way in which tv or radio schedules for forthcoming programs belong in an encyclopedia - if we allow this, then we do become a directory. ] (]) 11:46, 11 August 2009 (UTC) 2614::::Do you doubt that ingredients lists are printed on the sides of the bags of chips? An the serving size too! ] (]) 20:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC) 1695:*Remove 'em all. No matter which way you look at it, they're nearly inherently inappropriate for an encyclopedia. –''']''' | ] 04:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC) 1420::::::I am crying "uncle", i give up. This is something I am not to interested about anyway. At least the information is still in the edit history. ] (]) 16:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC) 1596:::*'''Suggestion''' Instead of having the schedules as part of the page, why not link to the stations' schedules in the External Links section? --] (]) 21:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC) 1180::::::The policy was already made, just unevenly enforced. It takes very little talent to imitate TVGuide. ] (]) 00:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC) 1398::::Why does ] quoting Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not not a good justification, but you citing Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not not is? ] (]) 15:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC) 5696:

WP:SIZE is a guideline relating to articles, not Knowledge policies. 6000 words is, indeed, far too long for a policy, at least if we're actually expecting people to read it. –

90: 28: 1246:**Why not just delete all of the policy-violating TVGuide stuff, and then see if they even notice? ] (]) 03:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC) 2895::The whole thing's a convoluted mess..... instructional creep at its best. ]🍁 03:30, 24 August 2024 (UTC) 898:

So, I ask the question of everyone else: Is the display of current scheduling information in station specific articles a violation of ]? --] (]) 22:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

4863: 3680:*This is complete not my feelings. I support what NOT currently reads for this: current per-station guides bad, historic guides good. --] (]) 04:34, 22 August 2009 (UTC) 2560:

Per the discussion at ], I was wondering if we could propose adding a standard for the notability of facts about numbers to this policy. ] (]) 20:52, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

2056::::::Not to put words in Garion's mouth, but you seem to be overlooking the presence of the qualifier "historically significant" in #4. --] ] 05:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC) 1541::::::*If notifying ] of this discussion counts as being a "policy wonk" bent on hiding discussion, then THANK YOU for the compliment. --] (]) 21:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC) 5590:, and other international agreements—as well as specific sections or clauses of these legal documents—that have been enacted, issued, ratified, or proposed may satisfy 5946: 5675:

get created. No matter how many rules you create and how much text you add to other pages that will not have been read by newbies. IMHO your proposal is superfluous.

2850::If the section title is that much of a concern, then we could just include my contribution as a separate section on the article. -- ] (]) 17:06, 18 August 2024 (UTC) 1750:::Not a single thing you've said in the above post is accurate, Gavin. These schedules '''do not'' come from the networks themselves. They come from reliable sources: 5157:

Good to know people at Knowledge have beaten me to it, but adding something here might be a quick little guideline to help people avoid the most egregious examples.

2482:*'''Support removal'''. However, I believe that most of historical schedules may be transwikied to Wikisource — ]] 17:34, 22 August 2009 (UTC) 4024:

This information should refute a number of statements above, especially that these kinds of pages are somehow "unencyclopedic." -- ] (]) 15:41, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

1508:::*An RfC would get a wider bit of input, as would announcing it to the appropriate projects (if that hasn't already been done). ] (]) 19:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC) 1530:::::*I tend to be equally dubious of "policy wonks" hiding discussions from those they actually impact. Thanks for the RfC tag! ] (]) 20:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC) 1028:*Enforcement of no schedules must be '''merciless''' and '''heartless'''. Remove them all. ] (]) 23:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC) 4544: 2603:::Do you guyes doubt that TV Guide similar sources have produced articles or listings for every years schedule? I don't. - ] (]) (]) 20:50, 21 August 2009 (UTC) 2716::# Otherwise, properties should only be noted if there is significant attestation in sources specifically regarding the number in question having said property. 2045:::::Have you even read the policy you've just quoted? Please read #4 all the way through. ] 16:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC) 153: 86: 5110:) that are sufficiently well known and generally applicabile, are worth assuming they would be of interest for anyone reading an article on a specific number. 2917:::I completely agree. We simply do not need, and should not have, sections on absolutely everything Knowledge is not. – ]''']''' ] 12:32, 24 August 2024 (UTC) 5954: 5718: 5113:

Otherwise, properties should only be noted if there is significant attestation in sources specifically regarding the number in question having said property.

4263:::You can just view the schedules on a third-party website, I was specifically noting why ] complies with this guideline. ] (]) 01:21, 2 September 2024 (UTC) 5811: 5931:

That is, if good faith editors can differ whether something meets the criterion or not, I believe it's insufficiently explicit to be a NOT policy element.

5773: 4988: 157: 5765: 5047: 5028: 5054: 4623: 5506:, then there is no reason for there to be a Knowledge article about it. When such sources are not used, the content of such articles often veers into 1442:**Don't you mean ''un''-encyclopedic? I'm sure everyone would be up in arms if ''encyclopedic'' material was removed ;) ] 20:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC) 69: 6118: 4940: 4916: 5627: 5415: 5361: 5021: 4859: 4855: 4851: 4847: 4843: 4839: 4835: 4831: 4827: 4823: 4819: 4815: 4811: 4807: 4803: 4799: 4795: 4791: 4787: 4783: 4779: 4775: 4771: 4767: 4763: 4759: 4755: 4751: 4747: 4743: 4739: 4735: 4731: 4727: 4723: 4719: 4715: 4711: 4707: 4703: 4699: 4695: 4691: 4687: 4683: 4679: 4675: 4671: 4667: 4663: 5845:

The many links to other essays, policies and guidelines etc. might be summarized in a navigation template. No clue if there already exists one.

5688: 5014: 4659: 4655: 4651: 4647: 4643: 4639: 4635: 4631: 4627: 5337: 5312: 5298: 4093:::Maybe a bundle where there no changes of substance. ''North8000'' (]) 19:13, 26 August 2024 (UTC) 5980: 5708: 5666: 5647: 2034::::Fine, so Knowledge is not an annual national programming guide. The information doesn't belong here per ]. ] ] 16:12, 16 August 2009 (UTC) 5166: 5533: 5434: 2625:::::No, but I doubt you can find articles on those labels. Big difference, red herring, all that. - ] (]) (]) 20:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC) 5929:

Most reasonable people should be able to agree whether a page meets the criterion. Often this requires making the criterion very specific.

5374: 5263: 2109:*Support removal. Schedules are ephemeral and have no encyclopedic value, Knowledge is not a directory. ] (]) 23:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC) 5257: 5035: 4912: 5090: 5275:

never enacted and may have never even been voted out of committee. All bill proposals during a session of Congress are included in the

4579: 5152: 5130: 5781: 5745: 5303:

If the section title is that much of a concern, then we could just include my contribution as a separate section on the article. --

5289:

the instructions I added into explicit policy, articles about these topics that do not satisfy WP:N will continue to be created. --

5209: 1706::Except, as I noted above, television encyclopedias use them. ] 13:39, 15 August 2009 (UTC) 5733: 5940: 5858: 5772:

addressed by good anchors, and anything else can be accomplished with an essay about whichever point of NOT needs clarification.

4911:

on Knowledge. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review

3691:*I'm not sure who should be where, but seeing Masem in with us usual suspects is amusing. - ] (]) (]) 04:42, 22 August 2009 (UTC) 1629:*'''Keep network and programming block schedules''' per Squidfryerchef. ]] 21:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC) 5966:

schedules may be acceptable." Not only that current programming schedules should be included on article about a TV station, but

5913: 5895: 5874: 5840: 5960: 5610:. Many such official governmental and intergovernmental publications often have hundreds of volumes with countless entries and 5490:. Many such official governmental and intergovernmental publications often have hundreds of volumes with countless entries and 6017: 5999: 6041: 6033: 5228: 4585: 6053: 2636::::::Only because some lunatic hasn't done it yet. ] (]) 20:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC) 1365:::::"Please see our discussion on my talk page. There is consensus, and local Wikiproject consensus can not override policy" 5391: 4871: 1607:*'''Support removal''' Go to TV Guide, not an encyclopedia, if you want this information. ] (]) 17:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC) 191: 187: 115: 6104: 5066: 119: 108: 5379:

I completely agree. We simply do not need, and should not have, sections on absolutely everything Knowledge is not. –

5611: 5567: 5491: 5447: 4908: 5662: 5623: 5529: 5411: 5357: 5308: 5294: 1114::::::Note that ] has started canvassing on this issue (see , , and especially . --] | ] 00:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC) 5057:, I was wondering if we could propose adding a standard for the notability of facts about numbers to this policy. 5884:

tweak of the not a dictionary section. IMO this is substantive change, and as a sidebar, one which I'd oppose.

5253: 4529: 223: 97: 5728:

obsolete sections, so there's always going to be this tendency for the policy to be bigger than it needs to be.

5595: 5507: 5475: 5422:

legislative and case laws should be documented through third party sources, not simply because the law exists.

5176: 4525: 4508:::We should do whatever the sources do. It works for other NPOV stuff. - ] (]) (]) 15:55, 22 August 2009 (UTC) 180: 5349: 4330::::Opinions vary. NOT is what we are, but may not want to be, mostly. - ] (]) (]) 02:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC) 6073:

In a few places, the float-right shortcuts bump each other a sizeable distance to the left. I suggest adding

5910: 5837: 5762: 5705: 5644: 5503: 5495: 5388: 4948: 4574: 3638::::Sounds like what's needed is to actually enforce existing guidance on notability, rather than adding more. 4956: 4170:

which they choose to edit/take control of/vandalise as I've seen them do. ] (]) 13:32, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

5693:

Sounds like what's needed is to actually enforce existing guidance on notability, rather than adding more.

5658: 5619: 5525: 5494:

that span thousands of pages. Unless a specific entry or proceeding—the latter of which would fall under

5407: 5353: 5304: 5290: 5183: 4565: 1783:::*Bergmann, Ted; Skutch, Ira (2002). ''?''. Lanham, Maryland: Scarecrow Press, 2002. ISBN 0-8108-4270-X. 169: 5603: 5499: 5483: 5474:(WP:N). However, Knowledge itself is not a code of laws or regulations, a series of law reports, or an 5470:, and other international agreements that have been enacted, issued, ratified, or proposed may satisfy 5239: 4618: 1563:*'''Keep all''' Sources discuss this stuff, and so should we. - ] (]) (]) 20:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC) 2442:*'''Support removal''' and endorse our current policy as expressed. ] (]) 12:33, 22 August 2009 (UTC) 2514:

and consider the historical TV schedules, which presently is called out as an acceptable allowance.)

5162: 5148: 5062: 4978: 4003:

Sincerely, ''North8000'' (]) 14:41, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

2738:::I think maybe this all should be addressed at ] rather than ]. —] (]) 21:12, 5 August 2024 (UTC) 5777: 5594:. However, Knowledge itself is not a code of laws or regulations, a series of law reports, or an 1794:::*Brooks, Tim & Marsh, Earle (2007). '' (9th ed.). New York: Ballantine. ISBN 0-345-31864-1. 135: 104: 3525:'''6:10:22'''. Thanks, ] (]) 21:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC) 6049: 6037: 6026: 4920: 3932:

of Television!' -- TV Guide"; (from the back cover): "'Hilarious and Encyclopedic!' -- Newsday"

6058: 2263::::::::# these schedules only include "important" television programs, not insignificant ones; 5891: 5870: 5807: 5086: 3647:*Shouldn't there be two lists, for the two questions? - ] (]) (]) 22:30, 21 August 2009 (UTC) 63: 4603: 5852: 5821:

It's overwhelming to try to comment on a bundle of many dozens of changes to a core policy.

5682: 5591: 5471: 5277: 5099: 5095:

I think it makes sense to have a two-tiered standard, based on my read of that discussion.

4886: 2694::I think it makes sense to have a two-tiered standard, based on my read of that discussion. 589:-->{{AutoArchivingNotice|small=yes|age=14|index=./Archive index|bot=MiszaBot II}}<!-- 4475:

Can we get clarification on the meaning of Not-Memorial? ] (]) 20:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

8: 6013: 5976: 5607: 5487: 5158: 5144: 5058: 4952: 4555: 6004:

You can just view the schedules on a third-party website, I was specifically noting why

4486:*I suggest starting with , and the background to that. ] (]) 04:49, 20 August 2009 (UTC) 2307::::::::# these schedules go all the way back to "Noah and the flood" and are not recent. 6097: 6025: 5936: 5546: 5329: 5201: 5125: 4959:

exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

4944: 4595: 4570: 176: 6045: 5906: 5833: 5758: 5701: 5640: 5599: 5479: 5384: 5136: 5107: 4551: 5924: 5082: 2098:*Agree with removal; Knowledge is not a TV guide. ] (]) 20:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC) 2012:*'''Support removal''' Knowledge is not a tv guide. ] ] 09:38, 16 August 2009 (UTC) 1761:::*McNeil, Alex (1996). '''' (4th ed.). New York: Penguin Books. ISBN 0-14-024916-8 16: 5510:(WP:NOR), personal essays (WP:NOTESSAY), public domain material better suited for 5995: 5880:

retained, but it looks like you took out the "but articles can sometimes be on a

5847: 5677: 5430: 5224: 4993: 643:{| class="messagebox plainlinks small-talk" style="width: {{{box-width|238px}}}" 636:{| class="messagebox plainlinks small-talk" style="width: {{{box-width|238px}}}" 6087: 6009: 5972: 4882: 136:→‎The reason why the "unencyclopedic" argument just doesn't fly 6112: 6094: 5932: 5723:

Inspired by the above section, let's lay out some problems with this policy.

5615: 5583: 5579: 5575: 5515: 5463: 5459: 5455: 5319: 5191: 5140: 5118: 5073: 5046: 1453:***Yep, thanks. Spellchecker gone wild I think. ] 21:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC) 3761:

Inspired by the above section, let's lay out some problems with this policy.

44: 5902: 5829: 5754: 5697: 5636: 5571: 5451: 5403: 5380: 218: 5367:

The whole thing's a convoluted mess..... instructional creep at its best.

2296::::::::# these schedules are for "top rated" programs, not low rated ones; 2252::::::::# these schedules are for the "biggest" networks, not little ones; 4887: 1257:*Remove. Not encyclopedic ''']''' ('']'') ] 05:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC) 6077: 6063: 6005: 5988: 5967: 5614:

that span thousands of pages. Also, Knowledge does not exist to codify

5558: 5552: 5511: 5423: 5217: 4915:

before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to

1805:::*Castleman, H. & Podrazik, W. (1982) ''''. New York: McGraw-Hill. 2285::::::::# these schedules are for "broadcast" networks, not cable ones; 5399: 5369: 5345: 5103: 2274::::::::# these schedules are for "national" networks, not local ones; 4137::Do admit you killed some content. ] (]) 23:23, 30 August 2024 (UTC) 4884: 3770:===The reason why the "unencyclopedic" argument just doesn't fly=== 555:|archive = Knowledge talk:What Knowledge is not/Archive %(counter)d 548:|archive = Knowledge talk:What Knowledge is not/Archive %(counter)d 5081:

be written but hasn't yet because nobody has gotten around to it.

4969: 5563: 5443: 4933: 5587: 5467: 5055:

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics#Cleaned_up_the_article_7

4907:

The project page associated with this talk page is an official

1387::::stating: rv re-inclusion of schedules against consensus at ] 4888: 1332::::] reverted your deletions of other editors contributions: 5496:

Knowledge's subject-specific notability guideline for events

4901: 5317:

That seems fine; thank you for the additional elaboration.

4989:"The most fascinating Knowledge articles you haven't read" 335:|target=Knowledge talk:What Knowledge is not/Archive index 328:|target=Knowledge talk:What Knowledge is not/Archive index 6032:

Curious to hear what others think about articles such as

4951:. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If 4364:== Requested clarification of meaning of Not:Memorial == 3716:== Problems with this policy and trimming things back == 1772:::*Castleman, H. (1984). , McGraw-Hill. ISBN 0070102775. 51: 5736:

instead of a sub-section here called NOTWEAKPASSWORD.

5863:

Maybe a bundle where there no changes of substance.

4520: 1136:::::::Also see ]. ] (]) 01:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC) 4464:A discussion began but failed to reach consensus. 5719:Problems with this policy and trimming things back 2961:*'''Overturn WP:NOT an electronic program guide''' 1376::::You again deleted other editors contributions, 4453:#Other editors disagree that WP:NPOV is relevant. 6110: 5618:and unwritten or uncodified constitutions. -- 5135:I think maybe this all should be addressed at 4517:Latest revision as of 14:21, 14 September 2024 154:Latest revision as of 14:21, 14 September 2024 4947:while commenting or presenting evidence, and 878:Despite this, I am starting to get reverted. 1321:::Can you please explain this inconsistency: 207: 4160:== Does WP:NOTTVGUIDE need extra info? == 5734:Knowledge:Password strength requirements 5592:Knowledge's general notability guideline 5472:Knowledge's general notability guideline 3074:::Here's the text before it was removed: 6119:Knowledge pages referenced by the press 5498:(WP:EVENT)—has significant coverage in 5439:Here's the text before it was removed: 773:|} 766:|} 6111: 5596:official journal of a legislative body 5562:: Knowledge articles about individual 5476:official journal of a legislative body 805:== Per station television schedules == 6042:List of diplomatic missions in London 6034:List of diplomatic missions in London 5947:2601:447:C600:4840:67:712D:772A:F99E 5671:Articles about non-notable subjects 5541:Reviewed WP:CREEP; shorter wording: 5442:Knowledge articles about individual 4964: 4928: 4896: 87:Revision as of 19:15, 22 August 2009 77: 43: 5961:Does WP:NOTTVGUIDE need extra info? 5927:, most specifically #1, objective: 4987:Dewey, Caitlin (November 5, 2015). 4528:for discussing improvements to the 3240:Reviewed WP:CREEP; shorter wording: 319:{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn 312:{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn 216: 203: 168: 151: 144: 131: 96: 84: 13: 5945:Do admit you killed some content. 4519: 32: 6130: 4979:mentioned by a media organization 2772:== Additional journal verbiage == 246:{{Talk header|search=yes|WT:NOT}} 5744:Anyway, upshot is I had a go at 4968: 4932: 4900: 4870: 4545:Click here to start a new topic. 6105:14:21, 14 September 2024 (UTC) 6008:complies with this guideline. 4913:policy editing recommendations 2927:yourself into the proper spot. 2727::]] 21:01, 5 August 2024 (UTC) 1: 6093:, to avoid that. Thoughts? — 6054:08:23, 8 September 2024 (UTC) 6018:01:21, 2 September 2024 (UTC) 6000:20:18, 1 September 2024 (UTC) 5981:20:00, 1 September 2024 (UTC) 5612:transcriptions of proceedings 5492:transcriptions of proceedings 4542:Put new text under old text. 4515: 4504: 4493: 4482: 4471: 4460: 4449: 4438: 4427: 4416: 4405: 4394: 4385: 4360: 4351: 4326: 4316: 4291: 4282: 4259: 4246: 4237: 4212: 4202: 4177: 4165: 4156: 4133: 4122: 4111: 4100: 4089: 4078: 4069:== The reality as I see it == 4065: 4056: 4031: 4020: 3999: 3988: 3977: 3963: 3953: 3927: 3918: 3893: 3883: 3857: 3847: 3824: 3813: 3800: 3791: 3766: 3757: 3732: 3721: 3712: 3687: 3676: 3665: 3656: 3643: 3634: 3621: 3612: 3599: 3590: 3577: 3568: 3555: 3546: 3521: 3512: 3487: 3476: 3465: 3454: 3443: 3432: 3421: 3410: 3399: 3388: 3377: 3366: 3355: 3344: 3333: 3322: 3311: 3300: 3289: 3278: 3267: 3256: 3245: 3236: 3211: 3200: 3189: 3178: 3167: 3156: 3145: 3134: 3123: 3114: 3101: 3092: 3079: 3070: 3057: 3048: 3023: 3012: 3001: 2990: 2979: 2968: 2957: 2948: 2922: 2913: 2900: 2891: 2868: 2857: 2846: 2835: 2824: 2813: 2802: 2791: 2777: 2768: 2745: 2734: 2723: 2712: 2701: 2690: 2679: 2654: 2643: 2632: 2621: 2610: 2599: 2588: 2577: 2565: 2556: 2530: 2521: 2509: 2498: 2489: 2478: 2469: 2458: 2449: 2438: 2429: 2418: 2409: 2398: 2389: 2378: 2369: 2358: 2347: 2336: 2325: 2314: 2303: 2292: 2281: 2270: 2259: 2248: 2237: 2226: 2215: 2204: 2193: 2182: 2171: 2160: 2149: 2138: 2127: 2116: 2105: 2094: 2083: 2074: 2063: 2052: 2041: 2030: 2019: 2008: 1997: 1986: 1975: 1964: 1955: 1944: 1933: 1922: 1911: 1900: 1889: 1878: 1867: 1856: 1845: 1834: 1823: 1812: 1801: 1790: 1779: 1768: 1757: 1746: 1735: 1724: 1713: 1702: 1691: 1680: 1669: 1658: 1647: 1636: 1625: 1614: 1603: 1592: 1581: 1570: 1559: 1548: 1537: 1526: 1515: 1504: 1493: 1482: 1471: 1460: 1449: 1438: 1427: 1416: 1405: 1394: 1383: 1372: 1361: 1350: 1339: 1328: 1317: 1306: 1295: 1284: 1275: 1264: 1253: 1242: 1231: 1220: 1209: 1198: 1187: 1176: 1165: 1154: 1143: 1132: 1121: 1110: 1099: 1088: 1077: 1065: 1056: 1044: 1035: 1024: 1013: 1002: 991: 980: 969: 958: 947: 936: 925: 914: 905: 894: 885: 874: 865: 853: 844: 832: 821: 812: 801: 792: 749: 744:- ongoing; partially archived 734: 725: 718: 705: 694: 678: 664: 585: 576: 531: 520: 508: 498: 486: 476: 464: 454: 401: 390: 380: 297: 288: 273: 262: 251: 242: 5746:condensing things down a bit 5017:(November 2005–January 2006) 4949:do not make personal attacks 449:|archiveheader = {{atnhead}} 442:|archiveheader = {{atnhead}} 433:-->{{User:MiszaBot/config 426:-->{{User:MiszaBot/config 18:Browse history interactively 7: 6036:and the compatibility with 5955:23:23, 30 August 2024 (UTC) 5941:19:59, 26 August 2024 (UTC) 5914:03:24, 27 August 2024 (UTC) 5896:19:25, 26 August 2024 (UTC) 5875:19:13, 26 August 2024 (UTC) 5859:16:23, 26 August 2024 (UTC) 5841:15:49, 26 August 2024 (UTC) 5812:14:41, 26 August 2024 (UTC) 5782:14:30, 27 August 2024 (UTC) 5766:14:18, 26 August 2024 (UTC) 5709:02:48, 26 August 2024 (UTC) 5689:02:35, 26 August 2024 (UTC) 5667:02:11, 26 August 2024 (UTC) 5648:01:23, 26 August 2024 (UTC) 5628:19:39, 25 August 2024 (UTC) 5534:13:55, 24 August 2024 (UTC) 5435:13:42, 24 August 2024 (UTC) 5416:12:44, 24 August 2024 (UTC) 5392:12:32, 24 August 2024 (UTC) 5375:03:30, 24 August 2024 (UTC) 5362:03:29, 24 August 2024 (UTC) 5338:03:07, 22 August 2024 (UTC) 5313:17:06, 18 August 2024 (UTC) 5299:15:20, 18 August 2024 (UTC) 5264:10:28, 18 August 2024 (UTC) 5229:23:48, 17 August 2024 (UTC) 5210:23:06, 17 August 2024 (UTC) 5177:Additional journal verbiage 4550:New to Knowledge? Welcome! 10: 6135: 5604:international organization 5484:international organization 5167:21:27, 5 August 2024 (UTC) 5153:21:12, 5 August 2024 (UTC) 5131:21:01, 5 August 2024 (UTC) 5091:21:01, 5 August 2024 (UTC) 5067:20:52, 5 August 2024 (UTC) 4593: 2904:===The consensus so far=== 2502:===Historical schedules=== 205: 133: 5330: 5202: 5126: 5098:Certain properties (e.g. 4580:Be welcoming to newcomers 4511: 4500: 4489: 4478: 4467: 4456: 4445: 4434: 4423: 4412: 4401: 4383: 4367: 4355:== add some {{tl|-}}'s == 4349: 4333: 4314: 4298: 4280: 4257: 4253: 4235: 4219: 4200: 4184: 4173: 4154: 4131: 4120: 4109: 4098: 4087: 4076: 4072: 4054: 4038: 4027: 3997: 3986: 3975: 3971: 3951: 3935: 3916: 3900: 3881: 3865: 3845: 3822: 3811: 3807: 3789: 3773: 3755: 3739: 3728: 3710: 3694: 3683: 3672: 3654: 3650: 3632: 3628: 3610: 3606: 3588: 3584: 3566: 3562: 3544: 3528: 3510: 3494: 3483: 3472: 3461: 3450: 3439: 3428: 3417: 3406: 3395: 3384: 3373: 3362: 3351: 3340: 3329: 3318: 3307: 3296: 3285: 3274: 3263: 3252: 3234: 3218: 3207: 3196: 3185: 3174: 3163: 3152: 3141: 3130: 3112: 3108: 3090: 3086: 3068: 3064: 3046: 3030: 3019: 3008: 2997: 2986: 2975: 2964: 2946: 2930: 2911: 2907: 2889: 2866: 2855: 2844: 2833: 2822: 2811: 2800: 2789: 2785: 2766: 2743: 2732: 2721: 2710: 2699: 2688: 2677: 2661: 2650: 2639: 2628: 2617: 2606: 2595: 2584: 2573: 2554: 2538: 2526: 2517: 2505: 2494: 2485: 2474: 2465: 2454: 2445: 2434: 2425: 2414: 2405: 2394: 2385: 2374: 2365: 2354: 2343: 2332: 2321: 2310: 2299: 2288: 2277: 2266: 2255: 2244: 2233: 2222: 2211: 2200: 2189: 2178: 2167: 2156: 2145: 2134: 2123: 2112: 2101: 2090: 2079: 2070: 2059: 2048: 2037: 2026: 2015: 2004: 1993: 1982: 1971: 1960: 1951: 1940: 1929: 1918: 1907: 1896: 1885: 1874: 1863: 1852: 1841: 1830: 1819: 1808: 1797: 1786: 1775: 1764: 1753: 1742: 1731: 1720: 1709: 1698: 1687: 1676: 1665: 1654: 1643: 1632: 1621: 1610: 1599: 1588: 1577: 1566: 1555: 1544: 1533: 1522: 1511: 1500: 1489: 1478: 1467: 1456: 1445: 1434: 1423: 1412: 1401: 1390: 1379: 1368: 1357: 1346: 1335: 1324: 1313: 1302: 1291: 1280: 1271: 1260: 1249: 1238: 1227: 1216: 1205: 1194: 1183: 1172: 1161: 1150: 1139: 1128: 1117: 1106: 1095: 1084: 1073: 1061: 1052: 1040: 1031: 1020: 1009: 998: 987: 976: 965: 954: 943: 932: 921: 910: 901: 890: 881: 870: 861: 849: 840: 828: 817: 808: 790: 627: 624: 592: 581: 399: 343: 340: 304: 301:{{talkheader|search=yes}} 286: 258: 240: 235: 232: 150: 120:Pending changes reviewers 83: 3061:*'''Allow some guides''' 1816:::There are many others. 188:Extended confirmed users 116:Extended confirmed users 1354::::You responded that: 619:--><!--{{archives 208:→‎add some {{-}}'s 82: 5796:"stats only" articles. 5659:CommonKnowledgeCreator 5620:CommonKnowledgeCreator 5526:CommonKnowledgeCreator 5408:CommonKnowledgeCreator 5354:CommonKnowledgeCreator 5305:CommonKnowledgeCreator 5291:CommonKnowledgeCreator 5184:CommonKnowledgeCreator 5053:Per the discussion at 4917:keep cool when editing 4575:avoid personal attacks 4398:WP:NotMemorial states: 4864:Auto-archiving period 4530:What Knowledge is not 5278:Congressional Record 1343::::: citing, ] and ] 5608:supranational union 5488:supranational union 5038:(July–October 2007) 4977:This page has been 5022:Newspaper Articles 4586:dispute resolution 4547: 3005:**Peregrine Fisher 512:|minthreadsleft = 502:|minthreadsleft = 468:|maxarchivesize = 458:|maxarchivesize = 192:New page reviewers 166: 94: 5600:regulatory agency 5547:Official journals 5508:original research 5480:regulatory agency 5262: 5247: 5243: 5237: 5044: 5043: 5006: 5005: 4963: 4962: 4927: 4926: 4895: 4894: 4566:Assume good faith 4543: 4514: 1070:August 2009 (UTC) 825:{{rfctag|policy}} 152: 85: 65: 6126: 6092: 6086: 6082: 6076: 6068: 6062: 5992: 5857: 5850: 5687: 5680: 5500:reliable sources 5427: 5372: 5348:, per your edit 5336: 5334: 5328: 5324: 5287:these guidelines 5250: 5245: 5241: 5235: 5221: 5208: 5206: 5200: 5196: 5187: 5128: 5123: 5074:worth mentioning 5008: 5007: 4998: 4972: 4965: 4955:is not reached, 4936: 4935: 4929: 4904: 4897: 4889: 4875: 4874: 4865: 4606: 4521: 3105:**Squidfryerchef 729:*Topic: ] (2003) 722:*Topic: ] (2003) 359:|leading_zeros=0 352:|leading_zeros=0 227: 226: 214: 213: 211: 198: 184: 165: 160: 142: 141: 139: 126: 112: 93: 66: 57: 56: 54: 49: 47: 39: 36: 21: 19: 6134: 6133: 6129: 6128: 6127: 6125: 6124: 6123: 6109: 6108: 6090: 6084: 6080: 6074: 6071: 6066: 6060: 6038:WP:NOTDIRECTORY 6030: 6027:WP:NOTDIRECTORY 5990: 5963: 5848: 5846: 5721: 5678: 5676: 5584:public policies 5464:public policies 5425: 5368: 5326: 5320: 5318: 5219: 5198: 5192: 5190: 5181: 5179: 5119: 5051: 5024:(May–July 2007) 5002: 5001: 4994:Washington Post 4986: 4982: 4957:other solutions 4891: 4890: 4885: 4862: 4612: 4611: 4610: 4609: 4602: 4598: 4591: 4561: 4509: 4498: 4487: 4476: 4465: 4454: 4443: 4432: 4421: 4410: 4399: 4390: 4379: 4374: 4365: 4356: 4345: 4340: 4331: 4322: 4310: 4305: 4296: 4287: 4276: 4271: 4264: 4251: 4242: 4231: 4226: 4217: 4208: 4196: 4191: 4182: 4171: 4161: 4150: 4145: 4138: 4127: 4116: 4105: 4094: 4083: 4070: 4061: 4050: 4045: 4036: 4025: 4016: 4011: 4004: 3993: 3982: 3969: 3959: 3947: 3942: 3933: 3923: 3912: 3907: 3898: 3889: 3877: 3872: 3863: 3853: 3841: 3836: 3829: 3818: 3805: 3796: 3785: 3780: 3771: 3762: 3751: 3746: 3737: 3726: 3717: 3706: 3701: 3692: 3681: 3670: 3661: 3648: 3639: 3626: 3617: 3604: 3595: 3582: 3573: 3560: 3551: 3540: 3535: 3526: 3517: 3506: 3501: 3492: 3481: 3470: 3459: 3448: 3437: 3426: 3415: 3404: 3393: 3382: 3371: 3360: 3349: 3338: 3327: 3316: 3315:**Gavin.collins 3305: 3294: 3283: 3282:**Collectonian 3272: 3261: 3250: 3241: 3230: 3225: 3216: 3205: 3194: 3183: 3172: 3161: 3150: 3139: 3138:**Themfromspace 3128: 3119: 3106: 3097: 3084: 3083:**ViperSnake151 3075: 3062: 3053: 3042: 3037: 3028: 3017: 3006: 2995: 2984: 2973: 2962: 2953: 2942: 2937: 2928: 2918: 2905: 2896: 2885: 2880: 2873: 2862: 2851: 2840: 2829: 2818: 2807: 2796: 2783: 2773: 2762: 2757: 2750: 2739: 2728: 2717: 2706: 2695: 2684: 2673: 2668: 2659: 2648: 2637: 2626: 2615: 2604: 2593: 2582: 2571: 2561: 2550: 2545: 2536: 2524: 2515: 2503: 2492: 2483: 2472: 2463: 2452: 2443: 2432: 2423: 2412: 2403: 2392: 2383: 2372: 2363: 2352: 2341: 2330: 2319: 2308: 2297: 2286: 2275: 2264: 2253: 2242: 2231: 2220: 2209: 2198: 2187: 2176: 2165: 2154: 2143: 2132: 2121: 2110: 2099: 2088: 2077: 2068: 2057: 2046: 2035: 2024: 2013: 2002: 1991: 1980: 1969: 1958: 1949: 1938: 1927: 1916: 1905: 1894: 1883: 1872: 1861: 1850: 1839: 1828: 1817: 1806: 1795: 1784: 1773: 1762: 1751: 1740: 1729: 1718: 1707: 1696: 1685: 1674: 1663: 1652: 1641: 1630: 1619: 1608: 1597: 1586: 1575: 1564: 1553: 1542: 1531: 1520: 1509: 1498: 1487: 1476: 1465: 1454: 1443: 1432: 1421: 1410: 1399: 1388: 1377: 1366: 1355: 1344: 1333: 1322: 1311: 1300: 1289: 1278: 1269: 1258: 1247: 1236: 1225: 1214: 1203: 1192: 1181: 1170: 1159: 1148: 1137: 1126: 1115: 1104: 1093: 1082: 1071: 1059: 1050: 1038: 1029: 1018: 1007: 996: 985: 974: 963: 952: 941: 930: 919: 908: 899: 888: 879: 868: 859: 847: 838: 826: 815: 806: 797: 786: 781: 774: 767: 758: 756: 747: 745: 741: 730: 723: 714: 712: 703: 701: 690: 688: 685: 676: 674: 671: 660: 653: 644: 637: 620: 613: 604: 599: 590: 579: 572: 565: 556: 549: 540: 538: 529: 527: 516: 515: 506: 505: 494: 493: 484: 483: 472: 471: 462: 461: 450: 443: 434: 427: 418: 413: 406: 395: 388: 387: 376: 369: 360: 353: 336: 329: 320: 313: 302: 293: 282: 280: 271: 269: 268:Shortcut|WT:NOT 256: 255:{{Policy-talk}} 247: 228: 222: 217: 215: 206: 204: 202: 201: 200: 196: 194: 174: 172: 167: 161: 156: 148: 146:← Previous edit 143: 134: 132: 130: 129: 128: 124: 122: 102: 100: 95: 89: 81: 80: 79: 78: 76: 75: 74: 73: 72: 71: 62: 58: 52: 50: 45: 42: 40: 37: 35:Content deleted 34: 31: 29:← Previous edit 26: 25: 24: 17: 12: 11: 5: 6132: 6122: 6121: 6100: 6070: 6057: 6029: 6024: 6023: 6022: 6021: 6020: 5962: 5959: 5958: 5957: 5943: 5920: 5919: 5918: 5917: 5916: 5877: 5861: 5816: 5798: 5797: 5793: 5785: 5784: 5742: 5741: 5737: 5729: 5720: 5717: 5716: 5715: 5714: 5713: 5712: 5711: 5694: 5691: 5654: 5631: 5630: 5616:customary laws 5580:public notices 5576:court opinions 5539: 5538: 5537: 5536: 5521: 5520: 5519: 5516:customary laws 5460:public notices 5456:court opinions 5397: 5396: 5395: 5394: 5343: 5342: 5341: 5340: 5301: 5282: 5268: 5267: 5266: 5178: 5175: 5174: 5173: 5172: 5171: 5170: 5169: 5159:Allan Nonymous 5145:David Eppstein 5116: 5115: 5114: 5111: 5093: 5059:Allan Nonymous 5050: 5045: 5042: 5041: 5040: 5039: 5032: 5029:Unencyclopedic 5025: 5018: 5004: 5003: 5000: 4999: 4983: 4976: 4975: 4973: 4961: 4960: 4937: 4925: 4924: 4905: 4893: 4892: 4883: 4881: 4880: 4877: 4876: 4614: 4613: 4608: 4607: 4599: 4594: 4592: 4590: 4589: 4582: 4577: 4568: 4562: 4560: 4559: 4548: 4539: 4538: 4535: 4534: 4533: 4518: 4513: 4512: 4510: 4507: 4505: 4502: 4501: 4499: 4496: 4494: 4491: 4490: 4488: 4485: 4483: 4480: 4479: 4477: 4474: 4472: 4469: 4468: 4466: 4463: 4461: 4458: 4457: 4455: 4452: 4450: 4447: 4446: 4444: 4441: 4439: 4436: 4435: 4433: 4430: 4428: 4425: 4424: 4422: 4419: 4417: 4414: 4413: 4411: 4408: 4406: 4403: 4402: 4400: 4397: 4395: 4392: 4391: 4388: 4386: 4384: 4381: 4380: 4377: 4375: 4372: 4369: 4368: 4366: 4363: 4361: 4358: 4357: 4354: 4352: 4350: 4347: 4346: 4343: 4341: 4338: 4335: 4334: 4332: 4329: 4327: 4324: 4323: 4319: 4317: 4315: 4312: 4311: 4308: 4306: 4303: 4300: 4299: 4297: 4294: 4292: 4289: 4288: 4285: 4283: 4281: 4278: 4277: 4274: 4272: 4269: 4266: 4265: 4262: 4260: 4258: 4255: 4254: 4252: 4249: 4247: 4244: 4243: 4240: 4238: 4236: 4233: 4232: 4229: 4227: 4224: 4221: 4220: 4218: 4215: 4213: 4210: 4209: 4205: 4203: 4201: 4198: 4197: 4194: 4192: 4189: 4186: 4185: 4183: 4180: 4178: 4175: 4174: 4172: 4168: 4166: 4163: 4162: 4159: 4157: 4155: 4152: 4151: 4148: 4146: 4143: 4140: 4139: 4136: 4134: 4132: 4129: 4128: 4125: 4123: 4121: 4118: 4117: 4114: 4112: 4110: 4107: 4106: 4103: 4101: 4099: 4096: 4095: 4092: 4090: 4088: 4085: 4084: 4081: 4079: 4077: 4074: 4073: 4071: 4068: 4066: 4063: 4062: 4059: 4057: 4055: 4052: 4051: 4048: 4046: 4043: 4040: 4039: 4037: 4034: 4032: 4029: 4028: 4026: 4023: 4021: 4018: 4017: 4014: 4012: 4009: 4006: 4005: 4002: 4000: 3998: 3995: 3994: 3991: 3989: 3987: 3984: 3983: 3980: 3978: 3976: 3973: 3972: 3970: 3966: 3964: 3961: 3960: 3956: 3954: 3952: 3949: 3948: 3945: 3943: 3940: 3937: 3936: 3934: 3930: 3928: 3925: 3924: 3921: 3919: 3917: 3914: 3913: 3910: 3908: 3905: 3902: 3901: 3899: 3896: 3894: 3891: 3890: 3886: 3884: 3882: 3879: 3878: 3875: 3873: 3870: 3867: 3866: 3864: 3860: 3858: 3855: 3854: 3850: 3848: 3846: 3843: 3842: 3839: 3837: 3834: 3831: 3830: 3827: 3825: 3823: 3820: 3819: 3816: 3814: 3812: 3809: 3808: 3806: 3803: 3801: 3798: 3797: 3794: 3792: 3790: 3787: 3786: 3783: 3781: 3778: 3775: 3774: 3772: 3769: 3767: 3764: 3763: 3760: 3758: 3756: 3753: 3752: 3749: 3747: 3744: 3741: 3740: 3738: 3735: 3733: 3730: 3729: 3727: 3724: 3722: 3719: 3718: 3715: 3713: 3711: 3708: 3707: 3704: 3702: 3699: 3696: 3695: 3693: 3690: 3688: 3685: 3684: 3682: 3679: 3677: 3674: 3673: 3671: 3668: 3666: 3663: 3662: 3659: 3657: 3655: 3652: 3651: 3649: 3646: 3644: 3641: 3640: 3637: 3635: 3633: 3630: 3629: 3627: 3624: 3622: 3619: 3618: 3615: 3613: 3611: 3608: 3607: 3605: 3602: 3600: 3597: 3596: 3593: 3591: 3589: 3586: 3585: 3583: 3580: 3578: 3575: 3574: 3571: 3569: 3567: 3564: 3563: 3561: 3558: 3556: 3553: 3552: 3549: 3547: 3545: 3542: 3541: 3538: 3536: 3533: 3530: 3529: 3527: 3524: 3522: 3519: 3518: 3515: 3513: 3511: 3508: 3507: 3504: 3502: 3499: 3496: 3495: 3493: 3490: 3488: 3485: 3484: 3482: 3479: 3477: 3474: 3473: 3471: 3468: 3466: 3463: 3462: 3460: 3457: 3455: 3452: 3451: 3449: 3446: 3444: 3441: 3440: 3438: 3435: 3433: 3430: 3429: 3427: 3424: 3422: 3419: 3418: 3416: 3413: 3411: 3408: 3407: 3405: 3402: 3400: 3397: 3396: 3394: 3392:**Juliancolton 3391: 3389: 3386: 3385: 3383: 3380: 3378: 3375: 3374: 3372: 3369: 3367: 3364: 3363: 3361: 3358: 3356: 3353: 3352: 3350: 3347: 3345: 3342: 3341: 3339: 3337:**YellowMonkey 3336: 3334: 3331: 3330: 3328: 3325: 3323: 3320: 3319: 3317: 3314: 3312: 3309: 3308: 3306: 3303: 3301: 3298: 3297: 3295: 3292: 3290: 3287: 3286: 3284: 3281: 3279: 3276: 3275: 3273: 3270: 3268: 3265: 3264: 3262: 3259: 3257: 3254: 3253: 3251: 3248: 3246: 3243: 3242: 3239: 3237: 3235: 3232: 3231: 3228: 3226: 3223: 3220: 3219: 3217: 3214: 3212: 3209: 3208: 3206: 3203: 3201: 3198: 3197: 3195: 3192: 3190: 3187: 3186: 3184: 3181: 3179: 3176: 3175: 3173: 3170: 3168: 3165: 3164: 3162: 3159: 3157: 3154: 3153: 3151: 3148: 3146: 3143: 3142: 3140: 3137: 3135: 3132: 3131: 3129: 3126: 3124: 3121: 3120: 3117: 3115: 3113: 3110: 3109: 3107: 3104: 3102: 3099: 3098: 3095: 3093: 3091: 3088: 3087: 3085: 3082: 3080: 3077: 3076: 3073: 3071: 3069: 3066: 3065: 3063: 3060: 3058: 3055: 3054: 3051: 3049: 3047: 3044: 3043: 3040: 3038: 3035: 3032: 3031: 3029: 3026: 3024: 3021: 3020: 3018: 3015: 3013: 3010: 3009: 3007: 3004: 3002: 2999: 2998: 2996: 2993: 2991: 2988: 2987: 2985: 2982: 2980: 2977: 2976: 2974: 2971: 2969: 2966: 2965: 2963: 2960: 2958: 2955: 2954: 2951: 2949: 2947: 2944: 2943: 2940: 2938: 2935: 2932: 2931: 2929: 2925: 2923: 2920: 2919: 2916: 2914: 2912: 2909: 2908: 2906: 2903: 2901: 2898: 2897: 2894: 2892: 2890: 2887: 2886: 2883: 2881: 2878: 2875: 2874: 2871: 2869: 2867: 2864: 2863: 2860: 2858: 2856: 2853: 2852: 2849: 2847: 2845: 2842: 2841: 2838: 2836: 2834: 2831: 2830: 2827: 2825: 2823: 2820: 2819: 2816: 2814: 2812: 2809: 2808: 2805: 2803: 2801: 2798: 2797: 2794: 2792: 2790: 2787: 2786: 2784: 2780: 2778: 2775: 2774: 2771: 2769: 2767: 2764: 2763: 2760: 2758: 2755: 2752: 2751: 2748: 2746: 2744: 2741: 2740: 2737: 2735: 2733: 2730: 2729: 2726: 2724: 2722: 2719: 2718: 2715: 2713: 2711: 2708: 2707: 2704: 2702: 2700: 2697: 2696: 2693: 2691: 2689: 2686: 2685: 2682: 2680: 2678: 2675: 2674: 2671: 2669: 2666: 2663: 2662: 2660: 2657: 2655: 2652: 2651: 2649: 2646: 2644: 2641: 2640: 2638: 2635: 2633: 2630: 2629: 2627: 2624: 2622: 2619: 2618: 2616: 2613: 2611: 2608: 2607: 2605: 2602: 2600: 2597: 2596: 2594: 2591: 2589: 2586: 2585: 2583: 2580: 2578: 2575: 2574: 2572: 2568: 2566: 2563: 2562: 2559: 2557: 2555: 2552: 2551: 2548: 2546: 2543: 2540: 2539: 2537: 2533: 2531: 2528: 2527: 2525: 2522: 2519: 2518: 2516: 2512: 2510: 2507: 2506: 2504: 2501: 2499: 2496: 2495: 2493: 2490: 2487: 2486: 2484: 2481: 2479: 2476: 2475: 2473: 2470: 2467: 2466: 2464: 2461: 2459: 2456: 2455: 2453: 2450: 2447: 2446: 2444: 2441: 2439: 2436: 2435: 2433: 2430: 2427: 2426: 2424: 2421: 2419: 2416: 2415: 2413: 2410: 2407: 2406: 2404: 2401: 2399: 2396: 2395: 2393: 2390: 2387: 2386: 2384: 2381: 2379: 2376: 2375: 2373: 2370: 2367: 2366: 2364: 2361: 2359: 2356: 2355: 2353: 2350: 2348: 2345: 2344: 2342: 2339: 2337: 2334: 2333: 2331: 2328: 2326: 2323: 2322: 2320: 2317: 2315: 2312: 2311: 2309: 2306: 2304: 2301: 2300: 2298: 2295: 2293: 2290: 2289: 2287: 2284: 2282: 2279: 2278: 2276: 2273: 2271: 2268: 2267: 2265: 2262: 2260: 2257: 2256: 2254: 2251: 2249: 2246: 2245: 2243: 2240: 2238: 2235: 2234: 2232: 2229: 2227: 2224: 2223: 2221: 2218: 2216: 2213: 2212: 2210: 2207: 2205: 2202: 2201: 2199: 2196: 2194: 2191: 2190: 2188: 2185: 2183: 2180: 2179: 2177: 2174: 2172: 2169: 2168: 2166: 2163: 2161: 2158: 2157: 2155: 2152: 2150: 2147: 2146: 2144: 2141: 2139: 2136: 2135: 2133: 2130: 2128: 2125: 2124: 2122: 2119: 2117: 2114: 2113: 2111: 2108: 2106: 2103: 2102: 2100: 2097: 2095: 2092: 2091: 2089: 2086: 2084: 2081: 2080: 2078: 2075: 2072: 2071: 2069: 2066: 2064: 2061: 2060: 2058: 2055: 2053: 2050: 2049: 2047: 2044: 2042: 2039: 2038: 2036: 2033: 2031: 2028: 2027: 2025: 2022: 2020: 2017: 2016: 2014: 2011: 2009: 2006: 2005: 2003: 2000: 1998: 1995: 1994: 1992: 1989: 1987: 1984: 1983: 1981: 1978: 1976: 1973: 1972: 1970: 1967: 1965: 1962: 1961: 1959: 1956: 1953: 1952: 1950: 1947: 1945: 1942: 1941: 1939: 1936: 1934: 1931: 1930: 1928: 1925: 1923: 1920: 1919: 1917: 1914: 1912: 1909: 1908: 1906: 1903: 1901: 1898: 1897: 1895: 1892: 1890: 1887: 1886: 1884: 1881: 1879: 1876: 1875: 1873: 1870: 1868: 1865: 1864: 1862: 1859: 1857: 1854: 1853: 1851: 1848: 1846: 1843: 1842: 1840: 1837: 1835: 1832: 1831: 1829: 1826: 1824: 1821: 1820: 1818: 1815: 1813: 1810: 1809: 1807: 1804: 1802: 1799: 1798: 1796: 1793: 1791: 1788: 1787: 1785: 1782: 1780: 1777: 1776: 1774: 1771: 1769: 1766: 1765: 1763: 1760: 1758: 1755: 1754: 1752: 1749: 1747: 1744: 1743: 1741: 1738: 1736: 1733: 1732: 1730: 1727: 1725: 1722: 1721: 1719: 1716: 1714: 1711: 1710: 1708: 1705: 1703: 1700: 1699: 1697: 1694: 1692: 1689: 1688: 1686: 1683: 1681: 1678: 1677: 1675: 1672: 1670: 1667: 1666: 1664: 1661: 1659: 1656: 1655: 1653: 1650: 1648: 1645: 1644: 1642: 1639: 1637: 1634: 1633: 1631: 1628: 1626: 1623: 1622: 1620: 1617: 1615: 1612: 1611: 1609: 1606: 1604: 1601: 1600: 1598: 1595: 1593: 1590: 1589: 1587: 1584: 1582: 1579: 1578: 1576: 1573: 1571: 1568: 1567: 1565: 1562: 1560: 1557: 1556: 1554: 1551: 1549: 1546: 1545: 1543: 1540: 1538: 1535: 1534: 1532: 1529: 1527: 1524: 1523: 1521: 1518: 1516: 1513: 1512: 1510: 1507: 1505: 1502: 1501: 1499: 1496: 1494: 1491: 1490: 1488: 1485: 1483: 1480: 1479: 1477: 1474: 1472: 1469: 1468: 1466: 1463: 1461: 1458: 1457: 1455: 1452: 1450: 1447: 1446: 1444: 1441: 1439: 1436: 1435: 1433: 1430: 1428: 1425: 1424: 1422: 1419: 1417: 1414: 1413: 1411: 1408: 1406: 1403: 1402: 1400: 1397: 1395: 1392: 1391: 1389: 1386: 1384: 1381: 1380: 1378: 1375: 1373: 1370: 1369: 1367: 1364: 1362: 1359: 1358: 1356: 1353: 1351: 1348: 1347: 1345: 1342: 1340: 1337: 1336: 1334: 1331: 1329: 1326: 1325: 1323: 1320: 1318: 1315: 1314: 1312: 1309: 1307: 1304: 1303: 1301: 1298: 1296: 1293: 1292: 1290: 1287: 1285: 1282: 1281: 1279: 1276: 1273: 1272: 1270: 1267: 1265: 1262: 1261: 1259: 1256: 1254: 1251: 1250: 1248: 1245: 1243: 1240: 1239: 1237: 1234: 1232: 1229: 1228: 1226: 1223: 1221: 1218: 1217: 1215: 1212: 1210: 1207: 1206: 1204: 1201: 1199: 1196: 1195: 1193: 1190: 1188: 1185: 1184: 1182: 1179: 1177: 1174: 1173: 1171: 1168: 1166: 1163: 1162: 1160: 1157: 1155: 1152: 1151: 1149: 1146: 1144: 1141: 1140: 1138: 1135: 1133: 1130: 1129: 1127: 1124: 1122: 1119: 1118: 1116: 1113: 1111: 1108: 1107: 1105: 1102: 1100: 1097: 1096: 1094: 1091: 1089: 1086: 1085: 1083: 1080: 1078: 1075: 1074: 1072: 1068: 1066: 1063: 1062: 1060: 1057: 1054: 1053: 1051: 1047: 1045: 1042: 1041: 1039: 1036: 1033: 1032: 1030: 1027: 1025: 1022: 1021: 1019: 1016: 1014: 1011: 1010: 1008: 1005: 1003: 1000: 999: 997: 994: 992: 989: 988: 986: 983: 981: 978: 977: 975: 972: 970: 967: 966: 964: 961: 959: 956: 955: 953: 950: 948: 945: 944: 942: 939: 937: 934: 933: 931: 928: 926: 923: 922: 920: 917: 915: 912: 911: 909: 906: 903: 902: 900: 897: 895: 892: 891: 889: 886: 883: 882: 880: 877: 875: 872: 871: 869: 866: 863: 862: 860: 856: 854: 851: 850: 848: 845: 842: 841: 839: 835: 833: 830: 829: 827: 824: 822: 819: 818: 816: 813: 810: 809: 807: 804: 802: 799: 798: 795: 793: 791: 788: 787: 784: 782: 779: 776: 775: 772: 770: 768: 765: 763: 760: 759: 754: 752: 750: 748: 743: 739: 737: 735: 732: 731: 728: 726: 724: 721: 719: 716: 715: 710: 708: 706: 704: 699: 697: 695: 692: 691: 686: 683: 681: 679: 677: 672: 669: 667: 665: 662: 661: 658: 656: 654: 651: 649: 646: 645: 642: 640: 638: 635: 633: 630: 629: 626: 622: 621: 618: 616: 614: 611: 609: 606: 605: 602: 600: 597: 594: 593: 591: 588: 586: 583: 582: 580: 577: 574: 573: 570: 568: 566: 563: 561: 558: 557: 554: 552: 550: 547: 545: 542: 541: 536: 534: 532: 530: 525: 523: 521: 518: 517: 513: 511: 509: 507: 503: 501: 499: 496: 495: 491: 489: 487: 485: 481: 479: 477: 474: 473: 469: 467: 465: 463: 459: 457: 455: 452: 451: 448: 446: 444: 441: 439: 436: 435: 432: 430: 428: 425: 423: 420: 419: 416: 414: 411: 408: 407: 404: 402: 400: 397: 396: 393: 391: 389: 385: 383: 381: 378: 377: 375:|indexhere=yes 374: 372: 370: 368:|indexhere=yes 367: 365: 362: 361: 358: 356: 354: 351: 349: 346: 345: 342: 338: 337: 334: 332: 330: 327: 325: 322: 321: 318: 316: 314: 311: 309: 306: 305: 303: 300: 298: 295: 294: 291: 289: 287: 284: 283: 278: 276: 274: 272: 267: 265: 263: 260: 259: 257: 254: 252: 249: 248: 245: 243: 241: 238: 237: 234: 230: 229: 195: 186: 185: 170: 149: 123: 114: 113: 98: 67: 61: 59: 41: 33: 27: 23: 22: 14: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 6131: 6120: 6117: 6116: 6114: 6107: 6106: 6103: 6102: 6096: 6089: 6079: 6065: 6056: 6055: 6051: 6047: 6043: 6039: 6035: 6028: 6019: 6015: 6011: 6007: 6003: 6002: 6001: 5997: 5993: 5985: 5984: 5983: 5982: 5978: 5974: 5969: 5956: 5952: 5948: 5944: 5942: 5938: 5934: 5930: 5926: 5921: 5915: 5912: 5909: 5908: 5904: 5899: 5898: 5897: 5893: 5889: 5888: 5883: 5878: 5876: 5872: 5868: 5867: 5862: 5860: 5856: 5855: 5851: 5844: 5843: 5842: 5839: 5836: 5835: 5831: 5827: 5822: 5819: 5818: 5817: 5814: 5813: 5809: 5805: 5804: 5794: 5791: 5790: 5789: 5783: 5779: 5775: 5774:Shooterwalker 5770: 5769: 5768: 5767: 5764: 5761: 5760: 5756: 5750: 5747: 5738: 5735: 5730: 5726: 5725: 5724: 5710: 5707: 5704: 5703: 5699: 5695: 5692: 5690: 5686: 5685: 5681: 5674: 5670: 5669: 5668: 5664: 5660: 5655: 5651: 5650: 5649: 5646: 5643: 5642: 5638: 5633: 5632: 5629: 5625: 5621: 5617: 5613: 5609: 5605: 5601: 5597: 5593: 5589: 5585: 5581: 5577: 5573: 5572:constitutions 5569: 5565: 5561: 5560: 5555: 5554: 5549: 5548: 5544: 5543: 5542: 5535: 5531: 5527: 5522: 5517: 5513: 5509: 5505: 5501: 5497: 5493: 5489: 5485: 5481: 5477: 5473: 5469: 5465: 5461: 5457: 5453: 5452:constitutions 5449: 5445: 5441: 5440: 5438: 5437: 5436: 5432: 5428: 5420: 5419: 5418: 5417: 5413: 5409: 5405: 5401: 5393: 5390: 5387: 5386: 5382: 5378: 5377: 5376: 5371: 5366: 5365: 5364: 5363: 5359: 5355: 5351: 5347: 5339: 5335: 5333: 5325: 5323: 5316: 5315: 5314: 5310: 5306: 5302: 5300: 5296: 5292: 5288: 5283: 5280: 5279: 5273: 5269: 5265: 5261: 5259: 5255: 5249: 5248: 5232: 5231: 5230: 5226: 5222: 5214: 5213: 5212: 5211: 5207: 5205: 5197: 5195: 5185: 5168: 5164: 5160: 5156: 5155: 5154: 5150: 5146: 5142: 5138: 5134: 5133: 5132: 5129: 5124: 5122: 5117: 5112: 5109: 5108:triangularity 5105: 5101: 5097: 5096: 5094: 5092: 5088: 5084: 5080: 5075: 5071: 5070: 5069: 5068: 5064: 5060: 5056: 5049: 5037: 5033: 5030: 5026: 5023: 5019: 5016: 5012: 5011: 5010: 5009: 4996: 4995: 4990: 4985: 4984: 4980: 4974: 4971: 4967: 4966: 4958: 4954: 4950: 4946: 4942: 4938: 4931: 4930: 4922: 4918: 4914: 4910: 4906: 4903: 4899: 4898: 4879: 4878: 4873: 4869: 4861: 4857: 4853: 4849: 4845: 4841: 4837: 4833: 4829: 4825: 4821: 4817: 4813: 4809: 4805: 4801: 4797: 4793: 4789: 4785: 4781: 4777: 4773: 4769: 4765: 4761: 4757: 4753: 4749: 4745: 4741: 4737: 4733: 4729: 4725: 4721: 4717: 4713: 4709: 4705: 4701: 4697: 4693: 4689: 4685: 4681: 4677: 4673: 4669: 4665: 4661: 4657: 4653: 4649: 4645: 4641: 4637: 4633: 4629: 4625: 4622: 4620: 4616: 4615: 4605: 4601: 4600: 4597: 4587: 4583: 4581: 4578: 4576: 4572: 4569: 4567: 4564: 4563: 4557: 4553: 4552:Learn to edit 4549: 4546: 4541: 4540: 4537: 4536: 4531: 4527: 4523: 4522: 4516: 4506: 4503: 4495: 4492: 4484: 4481: 4473: 4470: 4462: 4459: 4451: 4448: 4440: 4437: 4429: 4426: 4418: 4415: 4407: 4404: 4396: 4393: 4387: 4382: 4378: 4376: 4373: 4371: 4370: 4362: 4359: 4353: 4348: 4344: 4342: 4339: 4337: 4336: 4328: 4325: 4318: 4313: 4309: 4307: 4304: 4302: 4301: 4293: 4290: 4284: 4279: 4275: 4273: 4270: 4268: 4267: 4261: 4256: 4248: 4245: 4239: 4234: 4230: 4228: 4225: 4223: 4222: 4214: 4211: 4204: 4199: 4195: 4193: 4190: 4188: 4187: 4179: 4176: 4167: 4164: 4158: 4153: 4149: 4147: 4144: 4142: 4141: 4135: 4130: 4124: 4119: 4113: 4108: 4102: 4097: 4091: 4086: 4080: 4075: 4067: 4064: 4058: 4053: 4049: 4047: 4044: 4042: 4041: 4033: 4030: 4022: 4019: 4015: 4013: 4010: 4008: 4007: 4001: 3996: 3990: 3985: 3979: 3974: 3965: 3962: 3955: 3950: 3946: 3944: 3941: 3939: 3938: 3929: 3926: 3920: 3915: 3911: 3909: 3906: 3904: 3903: 3895: 3892: 3885: 3880: 3876: 3874: 3871: 3869: 3868: 3859: 3856: 3849: 3844: 3840: 3838: 3835: 3833: 3832: 3826: 3821: 3815: 3810: 3802: 3799: 3793: 3788: 3784: 3782: 3779: 3777: 3776: 3768: 3765: 3759: 3754: 3750: 3748: 3745: 3743: 3742: 3734: 3731: 3723: 3720: 3714: 3709: 3705: 3703: 3700: 3698: 3697: 3689: 3686: 3678: 3675: 3667: 3664: 3658: 3653: 3645: 3642: 3636: 3631: 3623: 3620: 3614: 3609: 3601: 3598: 3592: 3587: 3579: 3576: 3570: 3565: 3557: 3554: 3548: 3543: 3539: 3537: 3534: 3532: 3531: 3523: 3520: 3514: 3509: 3505: 3503: 3500: 3498: 3497: 3489: 3486: 3478: 3475: 3469:**Staxringold 3467: 3464: 3456: 3453: 3447:**Ohconfucius 3445: 3442: 3436:**Irbisgreif 3434: 3431: 3423: 3420: 3412: 3409: 3401: 3398: 3390: 3387: 3381:**Madcoverboy 3379: 3376: 3370:**Tryptofish 3368: 3365: 3357: 3354: 3346: 3343: 3335: 3332: 3324: 3321: 3313: 3310: 3302: 3299: 3291: 3288: 3280: 3277: 3269: 3266: 3258: 3255: 3249:*'''Uphold''' 3247: 3244: 3238: 3233: 3229: 3227: 3224: 3222: 3221: 3213: 3210: 3202: 3199: 3193:**TheGrappler 3191: 3188: 3180: 3177: 3169: 3166: 3158: 3155: 3147: 3144: 3136: 3133: 3127:**Powergate92 3125: 3122: 3116: 3111: 3103: 3100: 3094: 3089: 3081: 3078: 3072: 3067: 3059: 3056: 3050: 3045: 3041: 3039: 3036: 3034: 3033: 3025: 3022: 3014: 3011: 3003: 3000: 2994:**Dream Focus 2992: 2989: 2981: 2978: 2970: 2967: 2959: 2956: 2950: 2945: 2941: 2939: 2936: 2934: 2933: 2924: 2921: 2915: 2910: 2902: 2899: 2893: 2888: 2884: 2882: 2879: 2877: 2876: 2870: 2865: 2859: 2854: 2848: 2843: 2837: 2832: 2826: 2821: 2815: 2810: 2804: 2799: 2793: 2788: 2779: 2776: 2770: 2765: 2761: 2759: 2756: 2754: 2753: 2747: 2742: 2736: 2731: 2725: 2720: 2714: 2709: 2703: 2698: 2692: 2687: 2681: 2676: 2672: 2670: 2667: 2665: 2664: 2656: 2653: 2645: 2642: 2634: 2631: 2623: 2620: 2612: 2609: 2601: 2598: 2590: 2587: 2579: 2576: 2567: 2564: 2558: 2553: 2549: 2547: 2544: 2542: 2541: 2532: 2529: 2523: 2520: 2511: 2508: 2500: 2497: 2491: 2488: 2480: 2477: 2471: 2468: 2460: 2457: 2451: 2448: 2440: 2437: 2431: 2428: 2420: 2417: 2411: 2408: 2400: 2397: 2391: 2388: 2380: 2377: 2371: 2368: 2360: 2357: 2349: 2346: 2338: 2335: 2327: 2324: 2316: 2313: 2305: 2302: 2294: 2291: 2283: 2280: 2272: 2269: 2261: 2258: 2250: 2247: 2239: 2236: 2228: 2225: 2217: 2214: 2206: 2203: 2195: 2192: 2184: 2181: 2173: 2170: 2162: 2159: 2151: 2148: 2140: 2137: 2129: 2126: 2118: 2115: 2107: 2104: 2096: 2093: 2085: 2082: 2076: 2073: 2065: 2062: 2054: 2051: 2043: 2040: 2032: 2029: 2021: 2018: 2010: 2007: 1999: 1996: 1988: 1985: 1977: 1974: 1966: 1963: 1957: 1954: 1946: 1943: 1935: 1932: 1924: 1921: 1913: 1910: 1902: 1899: 1891: 1888: 1880: 1877: 1869: 1866: 1858: 1855: 1847: 1844: 1836: 1833: 1825: 1822: 1814: 1811: 1803: 1800: 1792: 1789: 1781: 1778: 1770: 1767: 1759: 1756: 1748: 1745: 1737: 1734: 1726: 1723: 1715: 1712: 1704: 1701: 1693: 1690: 1682: 1679: 1671: 1668: 1660: 1657: 1649: 1646: 1638: 1635: 1627: 1624: 1616: 1613: 1605: 1602: 1594: 1591: 1583: 1580: 1572: 1569: 1561: 1558: 1550: 1547: 1539: 1536: 1528: 1525: 1517: 1514: 1506: 1503: 1495: 1492: 1484: 1481: 1473: 1470: 1462: 1459: 1451: 1448: 1440: 1437: 1429: 1426: 1418: 1415: 1407: 1404: 1396: 1393: 1385: 1382: 1374: 1371: 1363: 1360: 1352: 1349: 1341: 1338: 1330: 1327: 1319: 1316: 1308: 1305: 1297: 1294: 1286: 1283: 1277: 1274: 1266: 1263: 1255: 1252: 1244: 1241: 1233: 1230: 1222: 1219: 1211: 1208: 1200: 1197: 1189: 1186: 1178: 1175: 1167: 1164: 1156: 1153: 1145: 1142: 1134: 1131: 1123: 1120: 1112: 1109: 1101: 1098: 1090: 1087: 1079: 1076: 1067: 1064: 1058: 1055: 1046: 1043: 1037: 1034: 1026: 1023: 1015: 1012: 1004: 1001: 993: 990: 982: 979: 971: 968: 960: 957: 949: 946: 938: 935: 927: 924: 916: 913: 907: 904: 896: 893: 887: 884: 876: 873: 867: 864: 855: 852: 846: 843: 834: 831: 823: 820: 814: 811: 803: 800: 794: 789: 785: 783: 780: 778: 777: 771: 769: 764: 762: 761: 751: 736: 733: 727: 720: 717: 707: 696: 693: 680: 666: 663: 657: 655: 650: 648: 647: 641: 639: 634: 632: 631: 623: 617: 615: 610: 608: 607: 603: 601: 598: 596: 595: 587: 584: 578: 575: 569: 567: 562: 560: 559: 553: 551: 546: 544: 543: 533: 522: 519: 510: 500: 497: 488: 478: 475: 466: 456: 453: 447: 445: 440: 438: 437: 431: 429: 424: 422: 421: 417: 415: 412: 410: 409: 403: 398: 392: 382: 379: 373: 371: 366: 364: 363: 357: 355: 350: 348: 347: 339: 333: 331: 326: 324: 323: 317: 315: 310: 308: 307: 299: 296: 292:{{Calm talk}} 290: 285: 275: 264: 261: 253: 250: 244: 239: 231: 225: 220: 209: 193: 189: 182: 178: 173: 164: 159: 155: 147: 137: 121: 117: 110: 106: 101: 99:Themfromspace 92: 88: 70: 55: 48: 38:Content added 30: 20: 6098: 6072: 6046:AusLondonder 6031: 5964: 5928: 5905: 5886: 5885: 5881: 5865: 5864: 5853: 5832: 5825: 5820: 5815: 5802: 5801: 5799: 5786: 5757: 5751: 5743: 5722: 5700: 5683: 5672: 5639: 5557: 5551: 5545: 5540: 5398: 5383: 5344: 5331: 5321: 5286: 5276: 5270: 5251: 5246:isinterested 5238: 5203: 5193: 5180: 5139:rather than 5120: 5078: 5052: 4992: 4939:Please stay 4867: 4617: 4524:This is the 3458:**Rivertorch 3260:**Hammersoft 3182:**Cybercobra 755:July–October 687:2005–January 535:|algo = old( 524:|algo = old( 5800:Sincerely, 5568:regulations 5559:law reports 5553:legal codes 5504:independent 5448:regulations 5189:additions. 4921:don't panic 3480:**SmokeyJoe 3293:**Abductive 753:*Topic: ] ( 738:*Topic: ] ( 709:*Topic: ] ( 698:*Topic: ] ( 682:*Topic: ] ( 668:*Topic: ] ( 490:|counter = 480:|counter = 279:Policy talk 212:new section 140:my thoughts 6006:MOS:TVINTL 5968:MOS:TVINTL 5849:The Banner 5679:The Banner 5512:Wikisource 5272:shouldn't? 5137:WP:NNUMBER 5083:XOR'easter 5048:WP:NOTOEIS 3425:**Jclemens 3403:**Garion96 3359:**Amalthea 3326:**Cabe6403 3027:**A Nobody 3016:**Firsfron 700:May - July 670:Nov 2005 – 6083:, a.k.a. 6059:add some 6010:Sparkbean 5973:Sparkbean 5925:WP:NEWCSD 5887:North8000 5866:North8000 5828:much". – 5803:North8000 5502:that are 5104:primality 5015:Galleries 4953:consensus 4588:if needed 4571:Be polite 4526:talk page 3348:**Uncle G 3304:**gadfium 3271:**Rossami 3204:**Stevage 3171:**Protonk 571:}}<!-- 564:}}<!-- 224:New topic 6113:Category 5933:Jclemens 5588:treaties 5564:statutes 5468:treaties 5444:statutes 5322:Remsense 5194:Remsense 5121:Remsense 4619:Archives 4596:Shortcut 4556:get help 3414:**Stifle 711:May–July 684:November 628:Line 28: 625:Line 29: 181:contribs 171:Alien333 109:contribs 53:Wikitext 5404:Teratix 5242:ctively 5034:Topic: 5027:Topic: 5020:Topic: 5013:Topic: 4868:30 days 4286:== ] == 3215:**Hobit 3160:**Pytom 2972:**Masem 796:== ] == 386:<!-- 344:Line 7: 341:Line 7: 236:Line 1: 233:Line 1: 5141:WP:NOT 5100:parity 5036:Trivia 5031:(2003) 4919:, and 4909:policy 4604:WT:NOT 2983:**Ikip 125:29,409 64:Inline 46:Visual 6095:Alien 6088:clear 5606:, or 5556:, or 5486:, or 5079:could 4945:civil 4624:Index 4584:Seek 4532:page. 3888:(UTC) 3491:**JJL 3149:**DGG 757:2007) 713:2007) 702:2007) 689:2006) 675:2006) 199:edits 197:2,506 127:edits 6050:talk 6014:talk 5991:asem 5977:talk 5951:talk 5937:talk 5903:Tera 5892:talk 5882:term 5871:talk 5854:talk 5830:Tera 5826:that 5808:talk 5778:talk 5755:Tera 5698:Tera 5684:talk 5673:will 5663:talk 5637:Tera 5624:talk 5530:talk 5426:asem 5412:talk 5402:and 5400:Moxy 5381:Tera 5370:Moxy 5358:talk 5350:here 5346:Moxy 5309:talk 5295:talk 5220:asem 5163:talk 5149:talk 5087:talk 5063:talk 4943:and 4941:calm 4573:and 742:2007 740:July 470:600K 460:200K 177:talk 163:undo 158:edit 105:talk 91:edit 6101:3 3 5923:as 5907:tix 5834:tix 5759:tix 5702:tix 5641:tix 5385:tix 5373:🍁 5256:» ° 5236:LCU 5143:. — 673:Jan 537:30d 219:Tag 6115:: 6091:}} 6085:{{ 6081:}} 6075:{{ 6069:'s 6067:}} 6061:{{ 6052:) 6016:) 5998:) 5979:) 5953:) 5939:) 5894:) 5873:) 5810:) 5780:) 5665:) 5626:) 5602:, 5598:, 5586:, 5582:, 5578:, 5574:, 5570:, 5566:, 5550:, 5532:) 5482:, 5478:, 5466:, 5462:, 5458:, 5454:, 5450:, 5446:, 5433:) 5414:) 5360:) 5327:‥ 5311:) 5297:) 5258:∆t 5227:) 5199:‥ 5165:) 5151:) 5106:, 5102:, 5089:) 5065:) 4991:. 4866:: 4860:59 4858:, 4856:58 4854:, 4852:57 4850:, 4848:56 4846:, 4844:55 4842:, 4840:54 4838:, 4836:53 4834:, 4832:52 4830:, 4828:51 4826:, 4824:50 4822:, 4820:49 4818:, 4816:48 4814:, 4812:47 4810:, 4808:46 4806:, 4804:45 4802:, 4800:44 4798:, 4796:43 4794:, 4792:42 4790:, 4788:41 4786:, 4784:40 4782:, 4780:39 4778:, 4776:38 4774:, 4772:37 4770:, 4768:36 4766:, 4764:35 4762:, 4760:34 4758:, 4756:33 4754:, 4752:32 4750:, 4748:31 4746:, 4744:30 4742:, 4740:29 4738:, 4736:28 4734:, 4732:27 4730:, 4728:26 4726:, 4724:25 4722:, 4720:24 4718:, 4716:23 4714:, 4712:22 4710:, 4708:21 4706:, 4704:20 4702:, 4700:19 4698:, 4696:18 4694:, 4692:17 4690:, 4688:16 4686:, 4684:15 4682:, 4680:14 4678:, 4676:13 4674:, 4672:12 4670:, 4668:11 4666:, 4664:10 4662:, 4658:, 4654:, 4650:, 4646:, 4642:, 4638:, 4634:, 4630:, 4626:, 4554:; 526:7d 492:59 482:30 394:}} 384:}} 281:}} 277:{{ 270:}} 266:{{ 221:: 210:: 190:, 179:| 138:: 118:, 107:| 6099:3 6078:- 6064:- 6048:( 6012:( 5996:t 5994:( 5989:M 5975:( 5949:( 5935:( 5911:₵ 5890:( 5869:( 5838:₵ 5806:( 5776:( 5763:₵ 5706:₵ 5661:( 5645:₵ 5622:( 5528:( 5518:. 5431:t 5429:( 5424:M 5410:( 5389:₵ 5356:( 5332:论 5307:( 5293:( 5260:° 5254:@ 5252:« 5244:D 5240:A 5225:t 5223:( 5218:M 5204:诉 5186:: 5182:@ 5161:( 5147:( 5127:诉 5085:( 5061:( 4997:. 4981:: 4923:. 4660:9 4656:8 4652:7 4648:6 4644:5 4640:4 4636:3 4632:2 4628:1 4621:: 4558:. 746:) 659:| 652:| 539:) 528:) 514:4 504:1 183:) 175:( 111:) 103:(

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