750:(the operative word) indicate an album to be notable. But knowing how people see notability, if you try to create an individual article for any single one of these albums, you will likely find people ready to delete it if you can't back it with more secondary, reliable coverage. This is not to say that the lsit collection is bad - it is probably the better way to group it since it seems to be a project to release an album a month with a centralized theme. But in that fashion, you simply cannot use images for each album cover. One is acceptable for general representation, but not any more without significant commentary on the images themselves. --
879:
that someone will come along to suggest deletion or merging back to a single article, barring the discovery of new secondary sources. But standard consensus for non-free images explicitly prevents illustrating every album in a discography like this is. One representative cover (This being likely the woodbox one) makes complete sense to include, but any other cover image will be removed per policy -- unless that cover image meets NFCC#8 through commentary about the cover art itself. If you think this needs to be changed, you can likely open discussion at
21:
172:
154:
299:
123:
475:
457:
792:
opposed to just a listing. But ignoring that issue and working that you are grouping the albums together as one because it is easier to handle that way, past consensus on this is that no, image-per-album is still not appropriate, unless each image is specifically discussed from sources in detail - the article is still a discography and falls under WP:NFLISTS. Its understood that
182:
75:
904:, you will note a distinct lack of covers in any of the articles in that category. You may think this article is somehow different, but it isn't. Further, the ability of any of these CDs to stand alone is highly suspect. There's plenty of "series" articles like this one that have just one image as Masem suggests. These images need to be removed. --
1021:) as representative samples of the artwork used in the series. It is important that the artist or publisher as the copyright holder have created that montage because for us that is only one single non-free image; if you were to create the same montage, that would be four separate non-free pictures. This thus gets you
1047:, as you yourself say, is to prevent decorative usage. The usage here isn't decorative at all - far from it. It is crucial to the identification of each notable album, just like any other album cover. What you suggest above would have been fine if one wanted to represent the artwork of the series, but this is exactly
1091:
Its crystal clear, you have been told by three different users that this article violates our non-free content policy. Policy requires disputed non-free content to be removed until consensus to include it is formed. Right how there is no such agreement. Please note that enforcing NFCC is exempt from
939:
The comparison to a discography is irrelevant. A discography is, in essence, about the artist. As such it will have a picture of the artist - it does not need the album images. This is about the albums, and it needs identification of the albums. Just to demonstrate how far this is from a discography,
878:
I understand the situation you're in - I will tell you that if you split out the articles to individual albums, they won't be deleted immediately - but knowing what you have there for these albums in terms of sourcing and knowing they are thematically tied, I would not be surprised in a year or more
832:
I don't agree. If an album is notable, using an image for identification is fair use. If albums are notable enough to be listed on a separate article, where the image is used for identification, I don't see how putting them together deprives them of that. There is no consensus to the opposite, as it
791:
Being simply listed at a site is not an aspect of notability. I am aware that NABLUMS does assert that an album from a notable artist is presumed notable for a standalone article -- however, this is based that more sources can be found in the future to expand the article to an encyclopedic topic as
1402:
You misunderstand me. The single sentence "artwork" section was mentioned in passing and I don't claim it is a "critical discussion" justifying the image. I said the image is demonstrative of an artwork which is different than the cover box. All the single sentence section does is establish that it
1237:
This image has to go. Muhandes, it's not at all uncommon for people to feel that creating a montage vacates the problems with having too many non-free images. The problem is, a montage doesn't reduce the number of images. A montage of four images, such as this file, is still four images. I'm sorry,
1042:
You seem to be missing the point entirely. This is not "every element of a discography, bibliography, episode list, character list, list of currency, list of stamps, list of people, and so on". These are individual albums, released on their own, and notable on their own. Yes, they have something in
943:
As for the ability of these CDs to stand on their own, I have edited hundreds, if not thousands of album articles, so I think I know what a notable album is. I stated above the relevant sources. These albums have much more notability than the majority of the album articles. I am willing to take the
1205:
Since the 13 original albums were released individually, at their own date, with their own covers and such. I would rather like the albums to be splitted into 13 independent articles, instead of having partial information. And what i mean about partial information is that the cover is also part of
569:
It listen to the advice given to me. But decided to mantain the individual release information of the
Jigokuhen album, because it might say its the 15th album of the series, but it never says that it will be sold along with it which is different than the previous 14 albums. The core information is
1001:
list or table, regardless of where else non-free may be able to be used, it is heavily restricted there because more often than not, the use is simply decorative. This is a list, it falls under the same restrictions. Yes, the logic that follows is that if you had kept these as separate articles
1379:
The "artwork" section comprises two sentences with no references. Any other mention of artwork is a repetition of "The album cover features artwork by Jenny Akita", over and over and over again. There's no discussion of the artwork at all. It's just credit. We don't need the montage in order for
1421:
No, I didn't say that. I said that the artwork's tie to the text was "The album cover features artwork by Jenny Akita". Still, we come back to; there's no sourced discussion of the artwork. Remove the montage of artwork, and the article is not missing anything that inhibits the reader. That's a
992:
A discography is any related collection of albums, not just the entire listing of an artist. But even ignoring the exact definition, we don't allow non-free images to illustrate every element of a discography, bibliography, episode list, character list, list of currency, list of stamps, list of
767:
I don't agree. If an album is notable, its identification is fair use. If you are arguing that a studio album from a notable artist with discogs listing, a rateyourmusic listing, an allmusic review and a
Musique Machine review don't together amount to notability, I am willing to take this to
772:
or any other venue and check, but this would result in deletion of (in a very conservative estimate) thousands of articles. If the albums are notable on their own and are only listed together for convenience and to create additional notability, then their covers fall under fair use and
1002:
that each would be able to have their cover image, no questions asked there, while you can't have them while grouped. But that's based on your presumption that the individual albums are notable. The series of works is notable, that's not a question, and I'm sure there's language at
658:, so they will be deleted unless you can provide secondary sources for the articles. Instead, when combined in a list, the album images are only decorative and do not serve the same purpose that album art on standalone articles serves, and thus are inappropriate to include. --
1149:
be followed. Policy states that removal must be done until there is consensus to include the material. You are the one who is reverting and bringing up editwarring. I just wanted to make my position clear, and let you know what may happen if you continue to ignore policy.
1013:
which (appears to be) the artist's blog. Importantly, he provides his own montages of the various album covers; not all of them, but blocks of 4. Now, I doubt that anyone would have a problem if you used the main woodbox art cover as the infobox picture, and then supply
862:
for significance for the reader - we allow it on standalone articles for a single work by consensus, but on lists of works, like a discography that this article is, there is no allowance for it because such uses fail "minimal use" of NFCC#3a, and rarely meet NFCC#8. (see
680:- "In general, if the musician or ensemble is notable, and if the album in question has been mentioned in multiple reliable sources, then their officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Knowledge (XXG)". And if you insist on
675:
Did any of you two actually look at the article? We seem to be discussing two different articles. Most of these albums have two independent sources - allmusic and
Musique Machine. I can probably dig more, but that should be more than enough for notability per
1140:
I have remained very civil, our policy on non-free content it crystal clear. As of now the only person trying to re-insert large volumes of copyrighted material into this article is you. Even after being told by multiple users that it goes against policy.
1303:
It seems both Masem and myself disagree. The infobox cover is for identification of the box set. It was created by
Merzbow. The cover montage is for demonstrating the cover art by Jenny Akita. The first could not serve for the second, nor vice verse.
1006:
that asserts that any album by a notable artist is presumed notable, but remember, the word is "presumed", not "assured". Someone can challenge that. This would be a very prime case since it's clearly the grouping that is notable, not the individual
1076:
Removing them again while discussion is ongoing is clear edit warring. Please stop it. It does not "clearly violates NFLISTS" while we are still discussing if it does. And stop threatening me - continue to revert and you will be the one blocked.
1267:
Hammer, this is what I pointed to above, created by the artist himself and published on his own blog. Yes, if
Muhandes created it himself, that would be 4 nfc's but here it is only one as it is coming from the primary source themselves.
698:
Yes I did, and I would argue that with only two sources for each, you likely would fail notability requirements; in other words, separate articles would not be acceptable. In fact, it is really the collection of CDs that is notable, so
1124:
of reverting while a discussion is ongoing. There were some other editors having a civil discussion here, and trying to reach an understanding. None of them saw fit to start threatening by block and making it a revert war.
1183:
to go until the issue is resolved, reinsertions of that, while knowing that the fair-use is disputed, may be the re-insertion of a violation of copyright - you may be right that it is in this case not, but there is
95:
1336:
Sorry it took me time to answer, I did not notice the question up to now. I'm not an NFCC expert, so I'm guessing based on Masem's comment above, though I think Masem is the best to explain. The bamboo painting by
1403:
is a different artwork than the cover and that it uses various artistic style worth demonstrating. Do you seriously think the three words "various artistic ways" are a "free equivalent" to the image per
1253:
If it is not clear, I did not create this montage, the artist did. I think I mentioned this in the image description. As such, it is one image, not four. At least that's what Masem suggested above. --
538:
There's no need to say an album "is the #th album of the box-set" when the header says "Vol. #", or the release date when it's also in the infobox. There's also no need to source each release date.
1206:
that piece of information. I know so, because if i hadnt saw the cover when i was interested in the album, i wouldnt have realised it was part of the set and therefore i wouldnt have bought it.
854:
Using an album cover to identify an album certainly falls in US fair use law, but WP's non-free content policy is purposely more restrictive. We seek minimal use of non-free images. Cover art
1179:
Muhandes, "If you re-insert them you may be blocked for violating our copyright and non-free content policies." is a fair warning of the case. Copyright violations are not negotiable - they
1161:
I think your actions, especially when compared to the actions of other editors involved, speak for themselves. For now I'll take Masem's suggestion and in parallel check for notability with
1065:
I have gone ahead and removed them again, this article clearly violates NFLISTS. If you re-insert them you may be blocked for violating our copyright and non-free content policies.
900:
Muhandes, Masem happens to be right. These images have to go. It's not a question of fair use. If it were, we could use every album cover on every discography here. If you peruse
386:
102:
974:
Last word (for the moment, need to run to work). I think none of us really wants these articles split. As such, even if you think there is some rule not followed to the dot,
720:
It's a collection of albums which were released individually, each receiving media reviews. You could argue they fail notability with two sources, but that would be against
544:
Each album has two external links, one to
Important, one to Discogs. Redundant info, and the label and Discogs pages are popular enough, people can look it up themselves.
394:
1466:
1471:
315:
901:
432:
307:
345:
338:
1365:, there is a short section discussing the art, which they demonstrate). So yes, I think there is a separate notability and separate reasoning. --
608:
Album covers used in list or discographies articles where the individual albums are non-notable for their own article is considered overuse, per
1355:. The image montage (images by Jenny Akita) is for demonstrating the artwork of the covers of the 12 albums, not the box set (it may fall under
1481:
1285:
Thanks for correcting me. That being the case, this image should replace the image in the infobox, and the infobox image should be deleted. --
796:
album image is appropriate for identifying the branding of a set of related works, but cannot be used to support identification per album. --
411:
365:
352:
1486:
491:
1476:
1318:
How so? Is there some secondary sourcing pointing to the notability of the cover in the infobox that the montage image can't convey? --
215:
207:
551:
550:
Allmusic has many
Merzbow albums listed, but only a few have reviews, only actual reviews included. Added other professional reviews.
420:
541:
Credits which are the same for every album can go in the intro, exception: Fukurou. Recording info is also repeated in the infobox.
486:, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the
487:
482:
462:
134:
219:
211:
195:
159:
1349:
629:
How are the albums not notable? They were just combined for convenience. Do you want me to break them into 14 articles? --
61:
1043:
common, which is the reason they were bundled on the same article, but one could just as easily split them. The core of
1025:
of the covers in this summary article, a reasonable compromise compared to using every cover or removing all but one. --
1231:
81:
1407:#1? If they are than there is no reason to accept any images under NFCC, they can all be described in three words. --
47:
955:
albums are put in one article, they suddenly loose notability and do not need identification. You link parts of
1359:
370:
37:
1162:
945:
140:
555:
122:
769:
20:
883:, but given how many times the issue has come up, it is unlikely you'll gain any new traction on it. --
880:
872:
31:
1380:
someone to understand that the artwork was done by Jenny Akita. It's completely superfluous and fails
1216:
That to the side, i wouldnt have any problem slpitting them up and putting some links to each album.--
1431:
1389:
1323:
1290:
1243:
940:
a discography does not have infoboxes, full track lists, cover art details and credits, reviews, etc.
909:
402:
1044:
1003:
994:
868:
834:
774:
721:
677:
609:
74:
223:
1189:
725:
1412:
1370:
1309:
1258:
1170:
1130:
1082:
1056:
983:
842:
782:
733:
689:
634:
598:
378:
1121:
833:
would be ridiculous. It would force editors to split articles just so a cover could be added.
1423:
1404:
1381:
1142:
859:
681:
1221:
575:
975:
968:
964:
960:
956:
864:
1427:
1385:
1319:
1286:
1276:
1239:
1188:
reason why we should take the risk of keeping a violation of copyright in mainspace. The
1033:
905:
891:
804:
758:
711:
666:
620:
53:
171:
153:
1151:
1093:
1066:
925:
644:
298:
42:
27:
743:
655:
1460:
1408:
1366:
1305:
1254:
1197:
1166:
1126:
1078:
1052:
979:
838:
778:
729:
685:
630:
594:
593:? Last I checked wikipedia has 118,091 of them, are you going to remove them all? --
227:
187:
1019:
532:
The actual albums only use "Title: 13 Japanese Birds Pt. #". Changed per
Discogs.
951:
Bottom line, none of you has showed any policy or consensus that when a bunch of
547:
Album infoboxes: Genre, Label & Producer are repeated from the main infobox.
1217:
571:
742:
NALBUMS requires significant coverage in multiple secondary sources, just like
1269:
1026:
884:
797:
751:
704:
659:
613:
474:
456:
177:
1051:
the point of these covers. They are here to identify individual creations. --
84:. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
1435:
1416:
1393:
1374:
1327:
1313:
1294:
1280:
1262:
1247:
1225:
1200:
1174:
1156:
1134:
1098:
1086:
1071:
1060:
1037:
987:
913:
895:
846:
808:
786:
762:
737:
715:
693:
670:
649:
638:
624:
602:
579:
559:
1384:#1, as it's already been replaced by text conveying the needed meaning. --
959:
which do not mean what you claim they mean. All the ten requirements of
1338:
1011:
837:
is not meant to be used as means to force editors to split articles. --
703:
respesentative cover would be ok, but not for individual articles. --
654:
More specifically, none of the individual albums appear to meet our
570:
posed in this page but with a link to the individual release page.
201:
116:
69:
15:
297:
875:
for "lists" to see lengthy past discussion on this issue).
684:, and in the middle of a discussion, I can do that too. --
490:, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the
425:
590:
291:
286:
281:
276:
235:
1120:
Who said anything about 3RR? I was talking about the
398:: Participate in Japan-related deletion discussions.
222:. Current time in Japan: 00:53, September 22, 2024 (
199:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
214:, where you can join the project, participate in
133:does not require a rating on Knowledge (XXG)'s
724:and more importantly against the consensus at
8:
971:does not apply as this is not a discography.
746:. As NALBUMS points out, receiving reviews
589:Since when are the album covers considered
1010:Now, there is a midway solution. I found
902:Category:Discographies of Japanese artists
451:
264:
148:
206:on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to
978:- it is for the best of the subject. --
924:Discussion up to this point moved from
453:
236:
150:
1341:is for identification of the subject,
1467:Redirect-Class Japan-related articles
993:people, and so on - eg , the core of
871:, and you can search the archives at
480:This redirect is within the scope of
193:This redirect is within the scope of
120:
7:
1472:NA-importance Japan-related articles
1092:3RR so you will be blocked, not me.
41:Because this page is not frequently
139:It is of interest to the following
997:is that when you are illustrating
500:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Albums
45:, present and future discussions,
14:
1232:File:13 Japanese Birds covers.jpg
643:If you do, they will be deleted.
249:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Japan
473:
455:
180:
170:
152:
121:
73:
19:
80:This article was nominated for
585:Notability and fair use images
535:Removed redundant album info:
1:
1482:Redirect-Class Album articles
1192:is on the editors wishing to
944:notability of such albums to
580:08:45, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
560:07:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
268:WikiProject Japan to do list:
62:Talk:Masami Akita discography
1345:box set, under the terms in
1238:but this image has to go. --
1196:the images. I am sorry. --
1018:of these montage pics (like
529:I rewrote the introduction.
1487:WikiProject Albums articles
503:Template:WikiProject Albums
390:to articles that need them.
329:Featured content candidates
1503:
1477:WikiProject Japan articles
324:
252:Template:WikiProject Japan
858:meets the requirement of
468:
263:
165:
147:
101:delete, 2 July 2008, see
1436:15:39, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
1417:13:43, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
1394:13:29, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
1375:06:00, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
1328:13:56, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
1314:13:42, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
1295:13:11, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
1281:14:50, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
1263:12:31, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
1248:11:35, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
1226:16:19, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
1201:10:57, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
1175:10:50, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
1157:10:33, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
1135:10:24, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
1099:10:00, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
1087:09:55, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
1072:09:41, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
1061:09:17, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
1038:05:54, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
988:05:27, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
914:16:36, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
896:15:00, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
847:14:37, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
809:13:28, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
787:07:51, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
763:07:33, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
738:06:42, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
716:06:10, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
694:05:14, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
671:02:54, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
650:02:46, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
639:23:32, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
625:22:39, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
603:21:56, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
426:Japanese Knowledge (XXG)
366:Good article nominations
38:Masami Akita discography
34:that targets the page:
302:
255:Japan-related articles
1145:is not negotiable it
656:notability guidelines
301:
94:, 22 April 2021, see
57:should take place at:
1350:Non-free album cover
424:an article from the
406:Japan-related stubs.
216:relevant discussions
682:templating regulars
436:unassessed articles
220:lists of open tasks
210:, please visit the
963:apply, especially
777:does not apply. --
483:WikiProject Albums
412:requested articles
403:Improve and expand
395:Pages for Deletion
379:Godzilla Minus One
303:
135:content assessment
56:
50:
1343:13 Japanese Birds
929:
522:
521:
518:
517:
514:
513:
450:
449:
446:
445:
442:
441:
361:
360:
243:
204:-related articles
196:WikiProject Japan
115:
114:
111:
110:
68:
67:
52:
46:
1494:
1364:
1358:
1354:
1348:
1273:
1030:
923:
888:
801:
755:
708:
663:
617:
508:
507:
504:
501:
498:
477:
470:
469:
459:
452:
387:requested images
323:
322:
265:
257:
256:
253:
250:
247:
240:
238:
231:
190:
185:
184:
183:
174:
167:
166:
156:
149:
126:
125:
117:
86:
85:
77:
70:
23:
16:
1502:
1501:
1497:
1496:
1495:
1493:
1492:
1491:
1457:
1456:
1362:
1360:Non-free 2D art
1356:
1352:
1346:
1271:
1235:
1154:
1096:
1069:
1028:
886:
867:in addition to
799:
753:
706:
661:
647:
615:
587:
567:
527:
525:General cleanup
505:
502:
499:
496:
495:
296:
254:
251:
248:
245:
244:
234:
186:
181:
179:
54:requested moves
12:
11:
5:
1500:
1498:
1490:
1489:
1484:
1479:
1474:
1469:
1459:
1458:
1455:
1454:
1453:
1452:
1451:
1450:
1449:
1448:
1447:
1446:
1445:
1444:
1443:
1442:
1441:
1440:
1439:
1438:
1397:
1396:
1331:
1330:
1298:
1297:
1234:
1229:
1214:
1213:
1212:
1211:
1210:
1209:
1208:
1207:
1153:
1118:
1117:
1116:
1115:
1114:
1113:
1112:
1111:
1110:
1109:
1108:
1107:
1106:
1105:
1104:
1103:
1102:
1101:
1095:
1068:
1008:
972:
949:
941:
921:
920:
919:
918:
917:
916:
876:
830:
829:
828:
827:
826:
825:
824:
823:
822:
821:
820:
819:
818:
817:
816:
815:
814:
813:
812:
811:
646:
586:
583:
566:
563:
526:
523:
520:
519:
516:
515:
512:
511:
509:
506:Album articles
478:
466:
465:
460:
448:
447:
444:
443:
440:
439:
438:
437:
429:
416:
407:
399:
391:
382:
359:
358:
350:
343:
334:
333:
332:
321:
320:
316:A-class review
312:
295:
294:
289:
284:
279:
273:
270:
269:
261:
260:
258:
192:
191:
175:
163:
162:
157:
145:
144:
138:
127:
113:
112:
109:
108:
107:
106:
99:
78:
66:
65:
58:
40:
35:
24:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1499:
1488:
1485:
1483:
1480:
1478:
1475:
1473:
1470:
1468:
1465:
1464:
1462:
1437:
1433:
1429:
1425:
1420:
1419:
1418:
1414:
1410:
1406:
1401:
1400:
1399:
1398:
1395:
1391:
1387:
1383:
1378:
1377:
1376:
1372:
1368:
1361:
1351:
1344:
1340:
1335:
1334:
1333:
1332:
1329:
1325:
1321:
1317:
1316:
1315:
1311:
1307:
1302:
1301:
1300:
1299:
1296:
1292:
1288:
1284:
1283:
1282:
1278:
1274:
1266:
1265:
1264:
1260:
1256:
1252:
1251:
1250:
1249:
1245:
1241:
1233:
1230:
1228:
1227:
1223:
1219:
1204:
1203:
1202:
1199:
1198:Dirk Beetstra
1195:
1191:
1187:
1182:
1178:
1177:
1176:
1172:
1168:
1164:
1160:
1159:
1158:
1155:
1148:
1144:
1139:
1138:
1137:
1136:
1132:
1128:
1123:
1100:
1097:
1090:
1089:
1088:
1084:
1080:
1075:
1074:
1073:
1070:
1064:
1063:
1062:
1058:
1054:
1050:
1046:
1041:
1040:
1039:
1035:
1031:
1024:
1020:
1017:
1012:
1009:
1005:
1000:
996:
991:
990:
989:
985:
981:
977:
973:
970:
966:
962:
958:
954:
950:
947:
942:
938:
937:
936:
935:
934:
933:
932:
931:
930:
927:
915:
911:
907:
903:
899:
898:
897:
893:
889:
882:
877:
874:
870:
866:
861:
857:
853:
852:
851:
850:
849:
848:
844:
840:
836:
810:
806:
802:
795:
790:
789:
788:
784:
780:
776:
771:
766:
765:
764:
760:
756:
749:
745:
741:
740:
739:
735:
731:
727:
723:
719:
718:
717:
713:
709:
702:
697:
696:
695:
691:
687:
683:
679:
674:
673:
672:
668:
664:
657:
653:
652:
651:
648:
642:
641:
640:
636:
632:
628:
627:
626:
622:
618:
611:
607:
606:
605:
604:
600:
596:
592:
584:
582:
581:
577:
573:
564:
562:
561:
557:
553:
548:
545:
542:
539:
536:
533:
530:
524:
510:
493:
489:
485:
484:
479:
476:
472:
471:
467:
464:
461:
458:
454:
435:
434:
430:
428:into English.
427:
423:
422:
417:
414:
413:
408:
405:
404:
400:
397:
396:
392:
389:
388:
383:
381:
380:
375:
373:
368:
367:
363:
362:
357:
355:
354:
348:
347:
341:
340:
335:
330:
327:
326:
325:
318:
317:
313:
310:
309:
305:
304:
300:
293:
290:
288:
285:
283:
280:
278:
275:
274:
272:
271:
267:
266:
262:
259:
242:
239:
229:
225:
221:
217:
213:
209:
205:
203:
198:
197:
189:
178:
176:
173:
169:
168:
164:
161:
158:
155:
151:
146:
142:
136:
132:
128:
124:
119:
118:
104:
100:
97:
93:
90:
89:
88:
87:
83:
79:
76:
72:
71:
64:
63:
55:
49:
48:edit requests
44:
39:
33:
29:
25:
22:
18:
17:
1342:
1236:
1215:
1193:
1185:
1180:
1146:
1119:
1048:
1022:
1015:
998:
952:
922:
855:
831:
793:
747:
700:
588:
568:
552:96.18.209.17
549:
546:
543:
540:
537:
534:
531:
528:
488:project page
481:
431:
419:
410:
409:Create some
401:
393:
385:
377:
372:Vinland Saga
371:
364:
351:
344:
337:
336:
328:
314:
306:
232:
212:project page
200:
194:
188:Japan portal
141:WikiProjects
130:
91:
60:
26:This is the
1422:failure of
926:User talk:Δ
374:(TV series)
308:Peer review
208:participate
1461:Categories
1428:Hammersoft
1386:Hammersoft
1320:Hammersoft
1287:Hammersoft
1240:Hammersoft
1045:WP:NFLISTS
1004:WP:NALBUMS
995:WP:NFLISTS
969:WP:NFC#UUI
906:Hammersoft
869:WP:NFLISTS
865:WP:NFC#UUI
835:WP:NFLISTS
775:WP:NFLISTS
722:WP:NALBUMS
678:WP:NALBUMS
610:WP:NFLISTS
492:discussion
218:, and see
103:discussion
96:discussion
1163:WT:ALBUMS
976:ignore it
946:WT:ALBUMS
860:WP:NFCC#8
726:WP:ALBUMS
565:Jigokuhen
421:translate
28:talk page
1409:Muhandes
1367:Muhandes
1306:Muhandes
1255:Muhandes
1167:Muhandes
1127:Muhandes
1122:civility
1079:Muhandes
1053:Muhandes
980:Muhandes
965:WP:NFC#8
839:Muhandes
779:Muhandes
770:WT:ALBUM
730:Muhandes
686:Muhandes
631:Muhandes
595:Muhandes
346:Pictures
339:Articles
131:redirect
92:Redirect
82:deletion
32:redirect
1424:WP:NFCC
1405:WP:NFCC
1382:WP:NFCC
1339:Merzbow
1194:include
1143:WP:NFCC
1007:albums.
953:notable
591:overuse
356:: None
349:: None
342:: None
282:history
237:Refresh
43:watched
1426:#8. --
1218:Pachon
1190:burden
961:WP:NFC
957:WP:NFC
881:WT:NFC
873:WT:NFC
856:barely
572:Pachon
497:Albums
463:Albums
433:Assess
319:: None
311:: None
137:scale.
418:Help
353:Lists
292:purge
287:watch
246:Japan
228:Reiwa
202:Japan
160:Japan
129:This
30:of a
1432:talk
1413:talk
1390:talk
1371:talk
1324:talk
1310:talk
1291:talk
1272:ASEM
1259:talk
1244:talk
1222:talk
1181:have
1171:talk
1165:. --
1147:must
1131:talk
1083:talk
1057:talk
1029:ASEM
1023:some
984:talk
910:talk
887:ASEM
843:talk
800:ASEM
783:talk
754:ASEM
744:WP:N
734:talk
728:. --
707:ASEM
690:talk
662:ASEM
635:talk
616:ASEM
612:. --
599:talk
576:talk
556:talk
384:Add
277:edit
51:and
1152:ΔT
1094:ΔT
1067:ΔT
1049:not
1016:one
999:any
794:one
748:may
701:one
645:ΔT
230:6)
224:JST
59:•
36:•
1463::
1434:)
1415:)
1392:)
1373:)
1363:}}
1357:{{
1353:}}
1347:{{
1326:)
1312:)
1304:--
1293:)
1279:)
1268:--
1261:)
1246:)
1224:)
1186:no
1173:)
1133:)
1125:--
1085:)
1077:--
1059:)
1036:)
986:)
967:.
912:)
894:)
845:)
807:)
785:)
761:)
736:)
714:)
692:)
669:)
637:)
623:)
601:)
578:)
558:)
376:,
369::
331:–
226:,
1430:(
1411:(
1388:(
1369:(
1322:(
1308:(
1289:(
1277:t
1275:(
1270:M
1257:(
1242:(
1220:(
1169:(
1129:(
1081:(
1055:(
1034:t
1032:(
1027:M
982:(
948:.
928:.
908:(
892:t
890:(
885:M
841:(
805:t
803:(
798:M
781:(
759:t
757:(
752:M
732:(
712:t
710:(
705:M
688:(
667:t
665:(
660:M
633:(
621:t
619:(
614:M
597:(
574:(
554:(
494:.
415:.
241:)
233:(
143::
105:.
98:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
