Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2019/Archive 4

316:

know? There is an official Eurovision result already, so what does it add? To me it feels more right to move the OGAE voting from the Eurovision pages to the song pages. So for example on the Knowledge page for Soldi, there could be a section with achievements or something and it could say that the song came first in the 2019 OGAE voting. I think that is a very right place where the Eurovision result and the OGAE result could perfectly stand next to each other, because they could be presented as two separate achievements. Therefore, people wouldn't tend so much to confuse it or to compare it. But featuring it here on the Eurovision page, comes with the alternative reality thing. Because the page is clearly about the Eurovision Song Contest, and then you see the result of it. And then you scroll further down and you're like 'wait, there was an alternative voting?' 'What if this was the actual result?' 'I feel like this is more righteous'. The thing is, people have seen the official result, knowing that it is the official result. And then an alternative voting is presented on the page, prompting the thought that it isn't much less important than the official result. But when you're on a page all about Soldi, you can see it separately like 'hey, it got an achievement in Eurovision and it also got an achievement in the OGAE voting'. I don't know if you get how I feel about it. Even though the OGAE voting is directly imitated from the Eurovision Song Contest (they vote for the songs that participate, votes come from entities that represent countries, they use a similar voting system), I really don't see the additional value of it to this page. And opposed to that, I see a lot of negative value.

119:

Apart from conceptualisation, I do think there is a way to differentiate here. The thing with the OGAE voting is that it presents an alternative reality. We have the official results from the Eurovision Song Contest, but if it were up to the OGAE, the result would be different. So I think this is kind of misleading, and it is also a basis for potential conflict. If the scope and influence of OGAE would grow in the future, combined with the fact that their votings are covered by ESC fan websites, but also by an independent and very influential website as Knowledge is, combined with the fact that there are annual discussions among fans about whether the voting system should be televoting only or not, you can imagine that it could once get to a point where people will question which of the two votings is more legitimate and people might declare the OGAE result as valid as it does not involve juries. Of course this is very speculative and unlikely to happen, but the question is whether we should provide the incentive here. Now with the Barbara Dex Award, it does not present an alternative reality, since in the Eurovision Song Contest there is no voting on which entry had the worst clothing (nor a reversable voting on which had the best). So even though the BDA is not officially associated to the Contest or the EBU, it could stand alone and be recognised as an independent award. For the OGAE voting, it is difficult to see it independently, because people will always compare it to the official result and consequently determine which of the two they find more righteous.

268:"the other user"; I now realized: that was the first paragraph of my overall comment. You put your comment in the middle of mine, so it's just me here for now. :) I now signed that first paragraph so it is clear it's me who wrote it. Okay, after realizing and reading your comment above, I would like to address that as well: There are also YouTube and Websites Eurovision fan polls, and people say a lot of times why couldn't these results count? And people also say that a song should have won or placed higher even based on their own personal taste. At the end, it's clear that the millions of voters and the professional juries who actually vote at Eurovision are the biggest amount of people and the only decider. It's also presented clearly (even with my proposed shortening paragraph) that the OGAE is based on members which are fans, from 40+ clubs around the world. I really do think that if someone is still confusing/thinking that these results should challenge or replace the actual results, it's stems from his personal view to see it that way, not because of the way OGAE is presented (even under it's current look); just as the reader understands Barbara Dex award as a fan vote, and not actual vote and award by the EBU. I do also like your idea of "Italy was ranked" (instead of "the winner"), as it's more accurate to the level and the fact it's not an award, but a poll, survey. :-) 333:

reader over there a similar presentation - the song's actual Eurovision placing, alongside other opinions and polls as "OGAE", and the ability to separate them under different ("Achievements") title, which is also the situation here ("Ohter awards"). So people can still figure (and complain) about the presentation in "Soldi"'s article that it came 2nd with the valid voting, yet ranked first with the OGAE fan vote, just as on this annual article. I agree with you that it merit on Soldi-article as well, though, and under separate title. With that I still see the merit in presenting OGAE first-ranked song (along with other huge polls and notable opinions that may occur) on the general Eurovision article, and under a different section as well ("Other awards", though, it's not an award per-say), for which I suggested "Reception". If the reader understands that on alternative opinions on a song's individual article, I don't see how he can draw differently on the General Eurovision articles. So I hope you may understand further too what I mean, and feel about it. :-)

349:

page, and give you the courtesy that I first raise your concern if OGAE should even be included in this annual articles or not, as well as your reference to just point it at the song's individual articles. Then I will just point out my view in regards to this, and very briefly point my initial shortening suggestion (as again, we certainly do agree that mentioning precisely the top 5 has no merits and an original research - no difference-value of 6th-down places). If people would initially agree with my suggestion, I will further-detail it (as I did above with which material should be omitted, and pointing the first-ranked song). If people agree with you to completely remove it from here, I will just leave my suggestion at my first brief description, as anyway it will be a case of people agreeing with you it shouldn't appear at all, at least in this articles. That is also of-course unless you want to wait few days - and then open this discussion at the project page yourself. However you will want to proceed is okay with me.

297:

Eurovision, and who ranked as their highest; just as we know a lot of readers (as users contributing here) are interested to read about "Barabara Dex", and the Marcel Bezencon. The last even comes directly from EBU and gives titles and awards to songs, that may also differ from the actual winner on the night (just like versified critiques and awards to movies, songs etc', as I touched before). Further than that, we did anything in our power to contribute it in an accurate presentation. If a reader misunderstand this presentation because he didn't read through the section or didn't bother to look at the title, or wants to adopt OGAE as the righteous-kind under public results, it's in the territory of his responsibility. Also, a reader can also briefly, browse through a lot of other stuff (that are written clearly by us) and still therefore misunderstand any kind of material he reads on Knowledge.

412:

Contest and get it on one page. So the question is where is the limit and what is in or out? For me the OGAE voting is on the limit and I prefer to push it outside. Just another argument: there is plenty of polls every year on Eurovision websites, news websites, Facebook etc. What is the argument for not including them as opposed to the OGAE voting? Obviously we cannot include everything that is available. But this is reversed argumentation. If we exclude so much, why do we include the OGAE? It's not essentially different to other polls: no direct/official link to Eurovision; informal and subjective voting based on simple taste; a specific group of people that reacts to the poll which is not representative or predictive for the actual Eurovision result. The only difference is the way in which votes are cast, but that doesn't legitimise it for me. The value is the same: very low.

293:

similar, which further highlights to the briefly-browsing reader that this is a certain another side of public acceptance. So nobody that pays attention to the title and description, will think we present it as an alternative to the actual results. We already now present it in the truth and factual manner of another form of public acceptance, with the existing "fan club survey" overall description. Under clear title, I also find any other huge surveys-results, to be valuable and interesting, and thus contributing to the article. Also think of an article about movie, song, play, TV show... with wins by some bodies, and only nominations by others; with positive vs. negative remarks from different critiques. The reader can also choose there what to adopt, and as long as Knowledge presents the information accurate and sourced.

283:

first. For sure if one reads accurately, it is clear that the OGAE voting does not challenge the actual result. However, not everyone reads thoroughly and not everyone's mind works the same. I am quite sure that in many minds, once people see the OGAE voting, they are going to compare it to the actual result and, consciously or not, decide which one is more righteous to them. This could be supported by several arguments as I pointed out in my first reply, such as the televoting argument. And in the end people create their own reality in their minds. That's not necessarily problematic, everyone is free to think what they want. But I just think that we, as an encyclopedia, should not provide a ground for an alternative reality. In the end, an encyclopedia is about facts and truth. So virtual reality has no value here.

383:

anyways. I fail to see the additional value. I get your point about 'acceptance' or 'reception'. But then, what/who does the OGAE represent? I wouldn't call it 'public acceptance'. OGAE consists of Eurovision fans, and Eurovision fans on average have a distinctive taste. Once a song has become a fan favourite, you can be quite sure that it won't win Eurovision. I think the ultimate example of public acceptance is the Eurovision result itself, or just the televoting result if you want. So if you want to put it under 'reception' or '(public) acceptance', the false importance is back, and maybe even more than now. Plus the additional value would be even less than now, since public acceptance is the very thing Eurovision is already about.

104:

Eurovision or EBU; more so the "Barbara Dex" which is also voted by fans. It's an organisation which also hosts the competing artists every year in its parties and has some function in keeping the contest alive in specific years and countries which its popularity decreased. Overall, the survey sheds public light on the way the songs are accepted, so it feats under the "other awards", though I would place it under "Public acceptance" or this general press and public tastes under "Reception".

219:

think it is much more acceptable. That way it would decrease the idea of an alternative reality as I pointed out in my reply to the other user. So if we could agree on this change, that would be acceptable for me. However, if we could agree on removal of the entire section, I would prefer that. Mind you that any choice we make for this page with regards to this section, should be implemented on the pages of all other editions of the Eurovision Song Contest as well.

31: 364:

Eurovision article is the only one enabling concentration of all kinds of other awards and polls, that we aren't able to show on individual songs, as there (like "Soldi") we can only show reception ranking it first, or only reception referencing this specific song. Also lots more readers read the annual article so will get more exposure to OGAE and other reception. So just to add that, and again my apologies for the former comparison.

229:

and I wish for years now to change both this, and the overall Barbara Dex (also shortening the Marcel Bezencon description on same merits). Other editors also agreed back then about shortening the description and just write the winner. So we can wait here for few days and see if someone has something to add, if not, we can move this thoughts again (including your ongoing thought to remove it completely) to the project page.

138:

prose, as in 1-5 places were:... 6-10... to make it a full, yet few sentences simple prose presentation. On the other hand I also argued, for which others mostly agreed, that we can just write who won. I also said the OGAE's presentation can easily be brief, much shorter than what is written now in the annual articles. Here is my example; the redundant unnecessary info in small letters:

578: 337:

also containing precisely "audiences polls" like "CinemaScore", and grades from "Rotten Tomatoes", other critiques and the likes, sometimes also critiques thoughts if another movie should have won for "Best picture", "Best actress" etc', in parallel to its official and contradicting achievements. I will give the example of the movie

296:

Also, especially if we approach the point (as you said), that a lot of people are interested in the public-televoting sector in Eurovision itself, which we also present separately from the juries vote; so a lot of people would like to read (briefly of course :-) ) about surveys of big circles outside

282:

I was already afraid that it was just one reply haha, but reading it, it looked like it were two separate replies. Hence I thought it was some other user. I agree with your argument about the top 5 as opposed to the 6 and further. I think the only information we could present, is which country ranked

267:

Sorry I got to an edit conflict with you, as I noticed and wrote further: About false importance, yes I meant "as if" it's an actual "award", but also the way it shows the top 5, as though they have some further special awards or recognition, compared to 6th-down places. You pointed out your reply to

200:

Organisation Générale des Amateurs de l'Eurovision (more commonly known as OGAE), a network of over 40 Eurovision Song Contest fan clubs across Europe and beyond, conducts an annual voting poll before the main Eurovision Song Contest, allowing each member in each club to rank their favourite songs of

378:

Well I think that showing it on the song page is different than showing it here. There you can show both the Eurovision result and the OGAE result, without people necessarily comparing the two, because there it is possible to leave the link between OGAE and Eurovision away, plus there you don't show

386:

Thinking of another alternative: instead of showing the OGAE result here or on the songs' pages, maybe we should create a separate page for OGAE results, similar to the table on the main page of the Eurovision Song Contest. That way confusion and direct comparison are impossible, the value of it is

363:

Sorry, I now realized that the movies, songs, etc' comparison I made is equal to your individual songs articles. The comparison for annual Eurovision should be more like verses annual Oscar article (or annual general appreciation of movies between different bodies). I do still think that the annual

348:

But again and eventually, of course I understand if we didn't manage to convince each other, and if including OGAE in any kind of measure on the general Eurovision articles still greatly concerns you. :-) If no further feedback arise here in the next days, I will be glad to open this at the project

332:

Of course, I understands it deeply concerns you :-) , and I understand your way of thinking that the OGAE has a lot of parallel features (voting in a similar way, different countries, like Eurovision voting). The thing for me, is that your reference to the song's individual articles still gives the

315:

Well, even with every measure we could take to give the OGAE voting the presence that we think is justified, I am still struggling with the value of it. Like what do we know because of it? With the Barbara Dex Award, we know who (arguably) was dressed the worst. But with the OGAE voting, what do we

228:

I agree about false importance, as an "award", for which I see importance, for public reception with its thousands of voters and from diversified demography. Yea of course, when I raised this few years ago, I did so at the project page, as part of a general discussion about changes across articles,

118:

I had the same 'concern', that if we would remove the OGAE voting, how should we treat the Barbara Dex Award? In all honesty, I could not yet figure out how the Barbara Dex Award could be conceptualised differently, so that its presence on this page would be justified as opposed to the OGAE voting.

300:

Still, of course, if I also didn't manage to persuade you in the matter of this parallel-reality resolution and the reader's responsibility as well, we can wait for other opinions and see how it flows. But your last remark was truly interesting for me, I was just happy to see your further thoughts

218:

If we decide not to remove the OGAE voting (which I would still plea for), I would be all for a shorter piece of text. I hadn't thought of it, but the argument of false importance is also very valid. Combined with the removal of the result table and the mentioning of the winner just in the text, I

336:

I also just want to stress again and put some more light about the point of articles about movies, songs, etc' - they also contain different criticisms and wins from one body vs. "just" nominations from another (like the "Oscars"-the American Academy awards, vs. "Golden Globe", "BAFTA" etc'), and

137:

I do very much agree, and argued in the past myself, that the way it's presented indicates false importance to the top 5 only (also for Barbara Dex award) - what's the difference between 5th to be included and 6th to not be included, for example? So I claimed that the places can be described in a

89:

Why are we including this? It doesn't have any additional value and their 'voting' is usually not in line with the actual result, so their predicting value is non-existent. Also it is in no way officially associated with the Eurovision Song Contest or the EBU and their voting and/or result has no

292:

First, I have to say that you raise a very interesting psychological and mind-viewpoint, something to think about which even provides cases for study in academic circles. :-) Well, I can first share that this is also attached to my proposal of putting it therefore under "Reception" or something

411:

Yeah but the question is what should be included in the concentration. In the end the article is about the Eurovision Song Contest, and not about the bulk of side stuff that comes with it. It's not like we have to gather every piece of information that is slightly linked to the Eurovision Song

382:

The bottom line from my point of view, is the reduction of its presentation and to just mention the song that ranked first, because that would at least very much decrease the alternative reality thing as well as the false importance. But still I'm not really convinced why we should feature it

103:

I agree with you its fans poll and that its details and presentation should be reduced. Still, it is a big organisation spanning 40+ countries tastes, with thousands of poll voters, its inclusion under other awards is just as with the press taste which also aren't officially associated with

341:- just to also share this is perhaps my favorite movie of all time. :-) So it seems that the general thinking on Wikipdia is still great benefit to show what other sectors, even regular audiences thought. And I can relate this to my value of OGAE as a huge and diversified audience thought. 243:

I think it's good to do that, to wait for a while and then move the discussion to the project page. I think we formulated some valuable arguments here that are worth discussing on the project page. And like you, I hope we can come to a conclusion where this section is removed.

722:"(IPBC/KAN) " then the next mention uses IPBC and subsequent KAN. Are there separate organisations here, or are you just using the terms interchangeably? After all, I'm not sure how most readers could associate KAN with " Israeli Public Broadcasting Corporation"? 257:

Just seeing this: instead of calling Italy the 'winner', I would prefer to change it to something like it was 'ranked first'. I think that would contribute to decreasing the idea of an alternative reality and also decrease the importance of the OGAE voting.

387:

100%, because if you're visiting that page, apparently you wanted to know about it. Because of the lack of direct comparison, false importance is zero and alternative reality wouldn't be a thing. And there would be no struggle about how to name it.

396:

Yeah I see what you mean about "Reception" (per already valid public voting) good point. :-) I'm still in favour though of your "Achievements"/"Other achievements" idea as concentration of other awards and such polls in the annual articles.

878:

That takes me to "Participating acts". I'll get onto that once we're through these. Just a warning: I haven't checked references (content, verifiability, reliability, format etc) yet, when we do the next pass from the top.

344:

I also think the same about "Barbara Dex" - it's a big fan thing, and so even if there was an official award for "best/worst dresser" by the EBU, I wouldn't have though it should be a reason to omit this other "Barbara Dex"

583: 301:

and explanations, so wanted to share mine further, and try to suggest more views and resolutions, in regards to this interesting confusion-chances and people's minds, as you presented.

676:

Peculiar sprinkling of refs in the lead, I would move all refs out to the main article, there should be nothing in the lead that isn't in the article and it can be cited there.

713:"7,300-seat congress" just move to the end of the sentence and place in order with the other refs, it's not so important that it needs to break up the flow of the prose. 588: 616: 719:"On 19 June 2018, " merge this with the previous para, and perhaps instead of "On date..." you could have "The following day" or something to mix it up a little. 201:

the contest. The winner was Italy, with the song "Soldi performed by Mahmood (written, compsed by...? It got a 5 points margin from 2nd place Switzeralnd...?).

606: 456:

This contest is set to become available on Netflix in the U.S. on Monday (July 22). I'm not quite sure where to put this in this article, though. Any ideas?

69: 64: 59: 942: 126:: based on the agrument of an alternative reality, I would plea for removal of the OGAE voting and see the presence of the Barbara Dex Award justified. 710:

Odd single-sentence para opens this section, and "contest took place" is repeated verbatim in the opening sentence of the next subsection, repetitive.

847:"Presenters from left to right: Assi Azar, Bar Refaeli, Lucy Ayoub, and Erez Tal, Tel Aviv, 16 May 2019." no full stop required as it's a fragment. 655: 800:"The dances done in the postcard were from a wide range including Parkour, Ballet and Street dance. The following locations were used " -: --> 634: 516: 731:"pay for the Convention Center" pay for what? And last time this (same?) place was mentioned, it was "International Convention Centre". 147:

an international organisation that was founded in 1984, in Savonlinna, Finland by Jari-Pekka Koikkalainen. The organisation consists of

402: 369: 354: 306: 273: 234: 209: 109: 47: 17: 801:"The dances in each postcard were wide-ranging and included parkour, ballet and street dance. The following locations were used:" 194:(maybe also written and compsed by... maybe also with how many points difference from 2nd place, and just which country it was). 90:

place in the actual Contest. It is very subjective information without a function. So I would plea for removal of this section.

611: 682:

Two "Netherlands" links with different targets, this makes sense to those who know what to expect here but not to all readers.

552: 868:" opening and interval acts." no ref, but if you merge this para with the next I suspect this particular issue goes away. 477: 398: 365: 350: 302: 269: 230: 205: 105: 903:

Look just fail it now so it to get over and done with it as we quite clearly see that it's nowhere near GA standard.

859:"since the current vote presentation system was" it was the "then-current" which reads poorly. So this needs rework. 923: 885: 649: 38: 871:"The second semi-final included Shalva Band with the song "A Million Dreams" and mentalist Lior Suchard." no ref. 630: 918: 898: 880: 645: 954: 928: 912: 890: 659: 556: 496: 469: 416: 406: 391: 373: 358: 320: 310: 287: 277: 262: 248: 238: 223: 213: 130: 113: 94: 908: 828: 540: 493: 548: 463: 444: 413: 388: 327: 317: 284: 259: 245: 220: 127: 100: 91: 759:"The Eurovision Village was the official Eurovision" probably better to put where it's located 440: 338: 950: 818: 904: 782:" in March to April 2019" either "from March to April 2019" or "in March and April 2019". 486: 544: 457: 174:

before the main Eurovision Song Contest, allowing all (its clubs and their members)

811:

here, I can't see any use for these flag icons other than decoration in this list.

700:"the first - from a professional jury, the second - from " en-dashes, not hyphens. 144:

Organisation Générale des Amateurs de l'Eurovision (more commonly known as OGAE),

946: 716:"2018, Prime Minister Netanyahu said " no need to repeat his political position. 688:

And you have San Marino linked, but not Italy, Russia, Switzerland nor Sweden...

150:

a network of over 40 Eurovision Song Contest fan clubs across Europe and beyond,

46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

804:"Albania-Banias" each entry should be a spaced en-dash, not an unspaced hyphen. 841: 753: 517:"United States: EBU Signs Deal to Bring Eurovision 2019 & 2020 to Netflix" 728:"restating the common talking point that " remove "the common talking point". 189:

Below is the top five overall results, after all of the votes had been cast.

637:. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review. 441:

https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Eurovision#OGAE_voting

808: 725:"who is closely connected to Prime Minister Netanyahu, ' not relevant. 797:"and ended it by throwing..." too many run-ons, split this sentence. 177:

allowing members from over 40 clubs to vote for their favourite songs

874:"The Grand Final i" it's called the Final or final everywhere else? 763:

telling us what went on there, since this is the Location section.

153:

and is a non-governmental, non-political, and non-profit company.

865:"perform two songs during " and then you go on to mention three. 850:"Assi Azar and Lucy Ayoub " no need to repeat their first names. 192:

The winner was Italy, with the song "Soldi performed by Mahmood

25: 694:

Israel is linked similarly to Netherlands, easter egg style.

379:

the entire Eurovision ranking nor the entire OGAE ranking.

537:

Added Yuval Cohen as Director, in exchange for payment.

856:

Semi-final draw table could use col scopes as a minimum.

749:

Sporadic reference placement across the candidate table.

794:" they did a themed dance" performed rather than "did". 943:

File_talk:Eurovision_Song_Contest_2019.svg#SVG version

740:"to hear the bid from Eilat" first I've heard of it. 679:

Five paras in the lead, MOS tops out at four paras.

752:Table missing a caption and row/col scopes, per 439:I took the discussion to the Project page. See 785:"the act travelling to a" each Eurovision act. 746:Haifa not even mentioned apart from the table. 697:Where are directors in the infobox referenced? 743:"about boycotting the event" on what grounds? 481:seems the best and obvious place for it, IMO. 8: 186:(rank) their favourite songs of the contest. 814:List is far too long in current form, use 566: 538: 862:"previous years the" comma after years. 597: 569: 507: 788:"own country. " ref after punctuation. 685:North Macedonia is linked second time. 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 779:"unveiled... unveiled" is repetitive. 691:" first Top 10 finish" why capital T? 635:Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2019/GA1 7: 165:tradition for the OGAE fan clubs, a 734:"a handful of " unnecessary fluff. 24: 533:Edit Change in exchange for money 515:Granger, Anthony (19 July 2019). 18:Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2019 853:Footnotes need to be referenced. 737:"scope out" unencyclopedic tone. 29: 791:"Play Button" why capitalised? 1: 837:"greenroom" or "green room"? 557:13:56, 21 January 2020 (UTC) 447:18:24, 10 March 2021 (UTC+1) 924:Stay indoors, stay safe!!!! 886:Stay indoors, stay safe!!!! 970: 929:07:34, 23 April 2020 (UTC) 913:01:10, 23 April 2020 (UTC) 891:15:37, 22 April 2020 (UTC) 834:to split it appropriately. 660:13:22, 21 April 2020 (UTC) 443:if you want to take part. 766:Same applies to EuroClub. 497:19:56, 20 July 2019 (UTC) 470:09:16, 20 July 2019 (UTC) 417:18:54, 20 June 2019 (UTC) 407:01:09, 16 June 2019 (UTC) 392:01:24, 16 June 2019 (UTC) 374:18:21, 15 June 2019 (UTC) 359:17:55, 15 June 2019 (UTC) 321:01:06, 15 June 2019 (UTC) 311:00:10, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 288:23:02, 13 June 2019 (UTC) 278:15:11, 13 June 2019 (UTC) 263:16:57, 13 June 2019 (UTC) 249:16:53, 13 June 2019 (UTC) 239:14:40, 13 June 2019 (UTC) 224:02:16, 13 June 2019 (UTC) 214:13:17, 12 June 2019 (UTC) 131:02:08, 13 June 2019 (UTC) 114:15:11, 13 June 2019 (UTC) 95:18:32, 11 June 2019 (UTC) 955:00:24, 26 May 2021 (UTC) 159:In what has become an 42:of past discussions. 204:What do you think? 941:Hello, please see 927: 889: 625: 624: 559: 543:comment added by 339:Life Is Beautiful 197:Here it is clean: 190: 184: 178: 172: 166: 160: 154: 148: 82: 81: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 961: 921: 919:The Rambling Man 902: 899:The Rambling Man 883: 881:The Rambling Man 833: 827: 823: 817: 646:The Rambling Man 579:Copyvio detector 567: 525: 524: 512: 491: 485: 466: 460: 331: 188: 182: 176: 170: 164: 158: 152: 146: 78: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 969: 968: 964: 963: 962: 960: 959: 958: 939: 896: 831: 825: 821: 815: 776: 707: 673: 629:This review is 621: 593: 565: 535: 530: 529: 528: 514: 513: 509: 487: 483: 464: 458: 454: 452:Netflix release 325: 87: 74: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 967: 965: 938: 935: 934: 933: 932: 931: 876: 875: 872: 869: 866: 863: 860: 857: 854: 851: 848: 845: 838: 835: 812: 805: 802: 798: 795: 792: 789: 786: 783: 780: 775: 772: 771: 770: 767: 764: 757: 750: 747: 744: 741: 738: 735: 732: 729: 726: 723: 720: 717: 714: 711: 706: 703: 702: 701: 698: 695: 692: 689: 686: 683: 680: 677: 672: 669: 664: 640: 639: 623: 622: 620: 619: 614: 609: 603: 600: 599: 595: 594: 592: 591: 589:External links 586: 581: 575: 572: 571: 564: 561: 534: 531: 527: 526: 506: 505: 501: 500: 499: 453: 450: 449: 448: 437: 436: 435: 434: 433: 432: 431: 430: 429: 428: 427: 426: 425: 424: 423: 422: 421: 420: 419: 384: 380: 361: 346: 342: 334: 298: 294: 255: 254: 253: 252: 251: 202: 198: 195: 140: 139: 135: 134: 133: 120: 86: 83: 80: 79: 72: 67: 62: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 966: 957: 956: 952: 948: 944: 936: 930: 925: 920: 916: 915: 914: 910: 906: 900: 895: 894: 893: 892: 887: 882: 873: 870: 867: 864: 861: 858: 855: 852: 849: 846: 843: 839: 836: 830: 820: 813: 810: 806: 803: 799: 796: 793: 790: 787: 784: 781: 778: 777: 773: 768: 765: 762: 758: 755: 751: 748: 745: 742: 739: 736: 733: 730: 727: 724: 721: 718: 715: 712: 709: 708: 704: 699: 696: 693: 690: 687: 684: 681: 678: 675: 674: 670: 668: 667: 662: 661: 657: 654: 651: 647: 644: 638: 636: 632: 627: 626: 618: 615: 613: 610: 608: 605: 604: 602: 601: 596: 590: 587: 585: 582: 580: 577: 576: 574: 573: 568: 562: 560: 558: 554: 550: 546: 542: 532: 522: 518: 511: 508: 504: 498: 495: 494: 492: 490: 480: 479: 478:Accessibility 474: 473: 472: 471: 467: 461: 451: 446: 442: 438: 418: 415: 410: 409: 408: 404: 400: 395: 394: 393: 390: 385: 381: 377: 376: 375: 371: 367: 362: 360: 356: 352: 347: 343: 340: 335: 329: 324: 323: 322: 319: 314: 313: 312: 308: 304: 299: 295: 291: 290: 289: 286: 281: 280: 279: 275: 271: 266: 265: 264: 261: 256: 250: 247: 242: 241: 240: 236: 232: 227: 226: 225: 222: 217: 216: 215: 211: 207: 203: 199: 196: 193: 187: 181: 175: 169: 163: 157: 151: 145: 142: 141: 136: 132: 129: 125: 121: 117: 116: 115: 111: 107: 102: 99: 98: 97: 96: 93: 84: 77: 73: 71: 68: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 940: 877: 769:What is IDT? 760: 665: 663: 652: 642: 641: 628: 617:Instructions 539:— Preceding 536: 520: 510: 502: 488: 482: 476: 455: 191: 185: 179: 173: 167: 161: 155: 149: 143: 123: 88: 75: 43: 37: 917:Very well. 844:first time. 829:div col end 631:transcluded 168:voting poll 156:conducts an 85:OGAE voting 36:This is an 905:HawkAussie 842:green room 754:MOS:ACCESS 584:Authorship 570:GA toolbox 503:References 345:viewpoint. 171:took place 840:And link 643:Reviewer: 607:Templates 598:Reviewing 563:GA Review 76:Archive 4 70:Archive 3 65:Archive 2 60:Archive 1 937:SVG logo 809:MOS:FLAG 705:Location 666:Comments 656:contribs 612:Criteria 553:contribs 545:Maorkap3 541:unsigned 521:Eurovoix 459:Lordtobi 183:vote for 124:in short 819:div col 39:archive 947:Sokuya 774:Format 761:before 475:Under 399:אומנות 366:אומנות 351:אומנות 303:אומנות 270:אומנות 231:אומנות 206:אומנות 162:annual 106:אומנות 633:from 489:AMBER 445:Hhl95 414:Hhl95 389:Hhl95 328:Hhl95 318:Hhl95 285:Hhl95 260:Hhl95 246:Hhl95 221:Hhl95 128:Hhl95 101:Hhl95 92:Hhl95 16:< 951:talk 909:talk 824:and 807:See 671:Lead 650:talk 549:talk 484:—♦♦ 403:talk 370:talk 355:talk 307:talk 274:talk 235:talk 210:talk 110:talk 122:So 953:) 945:. 911:) 832:}} 826:{{ 822:}} 816:{{ 658:) 555:) 551:• 519:. 468:) 405:) 372:) 357:) 309:) 276:) 237:) 212:) 180:to 112:) 949:( 926:) 922:( 907:( 901:: 897:@ 888:) 884:( 756:. 653:· 648:( 547:( 523:. 465:✉ 462:( 401:( 368:( 353:( 330:: 326:@ 305:( 272:( 233:( 208:( 108:( 50:.

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

Index