1898:
response"? Should the information about JJ Abrams and Rian
Johnson not be moved to a separate section or removed entirely? I would also note that it is demonstrably false to claim that Marcia Lucas was not instrumental into shaping the franchise into what it is today. Marcia Lucas wrote the opening title crawl for A New Hope, among many other contributions for which she was not properly credited. I have a hard time accepting the argument that the section exists only for George Lucas opinions when this is clearly not the case (Re: Rian Johnson and JJ Abrams being the subject of two paragraphs). "She's not a major part of the films" is simply untrue. She was one of the most important people in the creation of A New Hope; her importance to the franchise cannot be overstated. To
2456:. We simply don't know for sure what exactly the lower figures represent, which is why making assumptions and excluding any figure is not as simple as it might seem. Ideally the article body should not exclude figures but explain that there were much lower early estimates compared to the final cost, even if we cannot fully explain those differences (perhaps due cost overruns or expensive reshoots) but removing the lower figures might mislead readers thinking that had been the intended budget from the start. Even with published accounts we really don't know enough about the lower figures to casually exclude them. --
1244:
606:
1141:
1114:
665:
2590:, when in reality, it is probably less significant years or decades from now.And again, just to clarify, I wholeheartedly agree that the body should be complete with full, unfiltered coverage of both amounts. I think we just differ on which amount should be chosen for the infobox if we only have one listed (and there's an idea for having two listed there if anyone wants to take the initiative and try to get a parameter added...I would be happy to weigh in on any discussion). --
2586:
scenario is that the studio has to wait for the tax savings, and the report documenting those savings comes out much later. Furthermore, it's a rare insight into that part of the industry as Betty points out, so we don't see this too often. But should we really treat it any differently? Does reporting the pre-discounted amount benefit anyone in the long term? I'm failing to see the logic behind the argument or concern that we are ignoring something that is being deemed
2356:
released to the media at the time, or estimated when the film comes out usually under-estimate the cost of the film. The accounts are submitted annually, and in many cases after the film comes out, so there is often a long wait for a full set of accounts. But for better or for worse that is the expenditure that Disney submitted to the
British Government, so unless Disney is committing tax fraud that is what they spent on the three phases of production.
1602:
1313:
1151:
760:
655:
1292:
739:
634:
865:
844:
264:
966:
311:
1403:
481:
536:
512:
234:
770:
1256:
546:
1484:
1456:
1323:
1791:
2730:
2500:
all day long, but at least this article is in a decent state and includes some context in the article. "Save the full unfiltered coverage for the body" is a fine sentiment, but in practice the big problem is editors rushing to change the
Infobox, removing figures they find inconvenient and failing to
2471:
On the flipside, it's no accident that film production in the UK has seen an uptick in recent years. The tax break offerings are attractive, so studios spend in certain fashion knowing they are getting some of that back. Therefore, the gross spend is less informative, at least for the infobox and the
2355:
expenditure on development, distribution or other non-production activities. If it "goes back to how it was" then you would be simply ignoring factual information that is now available to us. The UK Film Tax Relief scheme offers a rare insight into the true cost of
Hollywood film-making. Most figures
2548:
I reiterate my previous point, the problem is editors over emphasizing the
Infobox and ignoring the article body. Discussions about adding new parameters to the Infobox templates (the answer is almost always no) are likely to be even less productive than all the past discussions trying to get people
1897:
Respectfully, if the section exists to give voice to George Lucas' opinions (as you've claimed), why do we have all of the information about JJ Abrams and Rian
Johnsons opinions/writing process? If the section exists to only discuss George Lucas opinions, perhaps it should be renamed "George Lucas'
2505:
and marketing (P&A) costs, merchandising cross promotion deals, pre-sales, and other complications mean the "full unfiltered coverage" is almost always limited and incomplete information (even in cases such as (even in exceptional cases where such as The Sony pictures hack, or the lawsuit over
2020:
I'll try to lay it out a bit more clearly: Critic A says "great action sequences", critic B says "great action sequences", and critic C says "great action sequences". Those are three individual sources. If these three reviews are our basis for our claim that the film "received positive reviews for
2638:
Reliable sources often only report the net figure i.e. the sum of money that the studio ultimately ends up spending on the film, and in such cases I generally think it is unnecessary to clarify it as a net figure (we may not know for sure). However, when a gross budget figure is being reported as
2622:
And why not just put both “net” and “gross” budget, since if you look at articles like The Dark Knight Rises and
Avengers Age of Ultron, they have both the net and gross profit. So why are we just doing net, if we’re not doing the other? Furthermore, if we’re only doing “net,” do we need the sign
2585:
by 20%. If I'm somehow able to do this across the board for all materials, then the cost to produce the product I'm trying to build gets cut by roughly 20%. Since the cost savings are immediate, I would report my total production cost with the 20% reduction factored in.The only difference in this
2166:
and no other films. (For example, John
Williams, Rick McCallum, Frank Oz or other prominent figures who've worked on the films). At present, this is not the case. The bits and pieces about their writing process/asking BB-8 and R2D2 to be switched could possibly be moved to a different section of
2146:
against Abrams. The wording sounds like the article agrees with the criticisms and that Abrams should indeed have to be defending his "oversights" and he should be ponying up the apologies he owed. I feel the entire second paragraph could be moved to the critical reception page, or to a separate
2189:
I would like to propose moving certain sentences from the second and third paragraphs to other sections of the page, and losing other sentences. However, I am mostly curious to see if others feel the same as I do. Please, if anyone has any thoughts, I would like to start a civil, respectful and
2138:
I believe this section of the page is something of a mess, for several reasons. The first paragraph that discusses George Lucas' opinions seem to fit, but everything else in this section reads to me as being unnecessary. I do not believe the validity of the sources or the legitimacy of the
2533:
into two separate ones: gross and net. You can even add logic that if one is used but not the other, the infobox will still default to displaying "Budget" only until the other parameter is filled in. Lots of ways to approach that option should the project choose to address that. --
2639:
well as the net figure then I think it is more helpful to the reader to include both figures with clarification. I suspect the reason only the net figure is listed is because of the discussion above, where only the net figure specifically was discussed. If you wish to emulate
2419:
Personally that's what I would do. The budget ranges are only intended to apply to estimates, and there is no point to them when there is a publicly available figure that has been audited by
Government tax inspectors. We may as well give readers the proper figure.
2175:. It was a request Johnson made before the movie was filmed. I would be fine if this section included any comments Johnson made about the finished film, but this reads as IMDB type trivia to me. It doesn't talk about his actual response to the actual film.
2501:
include anything at all in the article body, when the article body is supposed to be the main content not an afterthought, and the lead section and
Infobox are only supposed to summarize the key points that are _actually in the article_. It's complicated,
2510:
gives us more information than usual) it would be a mistake to presume we are anywhere close to having all the right information. I might argue further about the Infobox in the future but it is more important to first improve the article body. --
2686:
is "to summarize, but not supplant" the article body, so it is more important to first expand the article body to try to better explain the available figures and include both the gross total budget as well as the net final cost, which I have
2651:
and add it—someone else may revert you, but I won't. I accept there is an inconsistent approach on Knowledge, which is not ideal, but I don't think we should do something a certain way purely because some other articles do it in that way.
1031:
2150:
The third paragraph is full of information that again, seems highly irrelevant. It's a lot of J.J. Abrams and Rian Johnson complimenting each other and saying nice things about one another. How is this sentence from the article relevant-
2529:– No argument with the importance of making sure the article body contains the detailed coverage. 100% agree and thanks for taking care of that oversight. Perhaps down the road, the project can consider adding a new parameter, splitting
2618:
This is for User:Betty Logan, but is the (net) actually necessary? I’m asking because every other Disney Star Wars film doesn’t have the “net” sign like TFA does. And it uses the same article from Forbes. Just wanted to point it out.
2342:
labelled "The net costs of Disney's six UK Star wars productions". The figures are available from accounts submitted by Disney to the Uk Government, to obtain tax credits. The expenditure only relates to core expenditure (as noted by
1684:
391:
164:
1973:
The first part of the sentence should obviously be kept since it is supported by Metacritic in the article body. The "too similar" bit is also supported, though I would agree to remove it as it runs the risk of placing
421:
376:
2066:
that covers overall trends. There could be other sources in the real world that also summarize reviews in different ways, but editors cannot look at individual reviews and determine the trends themselves.
2323:
If the Forbes article (which could possibly be more focused on declaring superlatives than documenting accurate financials?) includes extra costs, I think we just should go back to the previous version.
2001:
just how much positive reception the film received. The lead is not currently substantially different than other film articles, either, and the claims seem to be generally backed up by reliable sources.
2490:, but the assumptions they're making about final cost doesn't change the up-front amount they have to spend. We can argue the semantics of the English language and the inherent problem of putting the
2581:
Well think about this logically. If I'm shopping around for a sale on a widget I'm looking to buy, and I spot one at a retailer for 20% off and purchase it there, then I've reduced my material cost
2563:
should be listed in the Infobox. Sigh.) Maybe an encyclopedia shouldn't be highlighting contentious "budget" estimates in the Infobox at all and only explaining the numbers in the article body with
2452:"there is no point to them when there is a publicly available figure that has been audited by Government tax inspectors" the earlier lower figures may represent the budget at which the project was
2298:
from Carolyn Reid making similar claims. The question is are these new numbers including marketing costs, or is that just production? As mentioned, the budget field is just for production costs. --
1379:
1559:
2883:
1080:
2182:' opinions about this film under the justification that her opinions were irrelevant, and that this section only exists for George Lucas to talk about his opinions. To quote Toa directly,
158:
1861:, for being an editor on A New Hope. She was also an editor on The Empire Strikes Back and Return Of The Jedi (one of the reverted falsely claims that she was "involved in one film".)
2749:
1539:
1514:
2147:
section titled something like "J.J. Abrams' response to criticism of the film". Or at the very least, it could be reworded and reworked so it doesn't seem as biased against Abrams.
1584:
1181:
2232:(which is actually from a Forbes contributor, Carolyn Reid) has jumped this all the way up to $ 447 million, but that figure appears to take into account marketing costs. Per the
2788:
1269:
1124:
615:
522:
406:
55:
2472:
footprint that it provides. Save the full unfiltered coverage for the body and keep it simple in the lead/infobox when possible. Use ranges when there is uncertainty. My 2¢ --
2833:
1198:
225:
2848:
816:
2913:
2888:
1274:
826:
1554:
1549:
1509:
1504:
1439:
Disputes over capitalization, André the Giant's height, and myriad other minor matters may not be consequential to most. But for some Wiki editors, it's a big deal.
2295:
2142:
The second paragraph deals exclusively with J.J. Abrams playing defense against criticism of the film, which is fine, but it's worded in such a way that it sounds
1997:
I'd oppose any change to the lead that emphasizes negative reviews over positive ones for a film that met with near-universal acclaim. In fact, I'd argue the lead
2878:
1579:
1574:
1569:
1544:
1534:
1529:
1234:
1224:
999:
2918:
2853:
2673:
2557:
2339:
2229:
436:
1905:
I would argue that Marcia Lucas is one of the ONLY people who deserves to be quoted in a discussion about previous Star Wars filmmakers giving their opinions.
2813:
1564:
1524:
1519:
1068:
2893:
2225:
1188:
221:
217:
213:
209:
205:
201:
2863:
2843:
2808:
919:
909:
792:
90:
2162:
The title "Response from Star Wars filmmakers" to me suggests that the information will deal with previous Star Wars filmmakers reacting to the film
2873:
2669:
warns not to cherry pick figures, excluding the gross spend from the Infobox still seems like cherry picking. The referenced article literally says
1193:
2695:
to include details in the article body. Maybe later we can revisit the Infobox and see about better reflecting the range of the highest and lowest
1849:) due to it allegedly not being notable enough to be included. I think her response should be kept as she (according to her Knowledge page) won an
2868:
2828:
721:
711:
322:
2679:. Was there consensus behind the hidden warning comment did just one editor decide to prioritize their own preference to list only the net cost?
1902:
by Will DiGravio , "You can’t tell the history of Star Wars, or 20th-century American film for that matter, without talking about Marcia Lucas".
2903:
2798:
1369:
995:
1879:
She's not a major part of the films. The section pretty much just exists to give George Lucas a space to vent about he didn't like the movie.
2487:
1771:
1753:
1673:
1655:
783:
744:
451:
179:
96:
2858:
2838:
2700:
2512:
2457:
2139:
information is suspect, however, I am questioning why the information is included on the page at all. Some of it sounds like IMDB trivia.
885:
146:
2032:
Toa Nidhiki05, your argument that inclusion is justified because other film articles feature similar sections is not much of an argument;
2908:
2568:
2210:
1164:
1119:
340:
2818:
2740:
2722:
1176:
2823:
2062:
individual reviews to come up with overall trends. I've revised the sentence to be based on the Rotten Tomatoes critics' consensus,
687:
2718:
2898:
2793:
1345:
1084:
1899:
140:
2803:
2167:
this page, as could a lot of the information here. Not to be too technical, but that doesn't even qualify as a response to the
872:
849:
686:
and its affiliated companies on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
564:
328:
110:
41:
2195:
988:
115:
31:
1172:
on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
136:
2112:
2045:
1987:
576:
568:
85:
2155:
Why is this included? Why would that not be moved to the page for the sequel instead? How is that a response to the film
1951:
for its screenplay, direction, lead performances, action sequences, musical score, special effects, and emotional weight,
2767:
1470:
1466:
1045:
Under Early Life. Fix grammar of "towns (plural) predominantly Protestant technical college" to "town's (possessive)..."
978:
678:
639:
492:
35:
1336:
1297:
1039:
289:
186:
76:
2228:.The highest part of the range was $ 350 million toward the end of that discussion back in 2016. It appears that the
2344:
2076:
1871:
775:
572:
559:
517:
233:
196:
2628:
2527:
I might argue further about the Infobox in the future but it is more important to first improve the article body.
2191:
2058:. There is no overarching source in the article body for most aspects of the sentence, and it violates policy to
1969:
Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source.
1716:"'I've Seen a Lot of Talk About the #Blackstormtrooper Outrage, But Not a Single Example of Anyone Complaining':
293:
244:
2683:
1411:
1056:
1007:
2704:
2516:
2461:
2265:, who were among the most active in the previous discussion (another editor was but has since been banned). --
2572:
2214:
2092:
2009:
1886:
1492:
1462:
683:
152:
120:
1928:
1910:
2624:
2184:"The section pretty much just exists to give George Lucas a space to vent about he didn't like the movie."
2033:
1816:
1421:
2666:
2657:
2425:
2361:
2236:
1862:
498:
310:
2750:
Knowledge:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 13 § TFA (Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens
884:
saga on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
2653:
2421:
2384:
2357:
2250:
1924:
1906:
2502:
1426:
1156:
1075:
2312:
That Forbes article actually says $ 533M (ÂŁ446M). Originally it was added incorrectly, but this was
2391:: Thanks for weighing in. Appreciate the feedback. So are we good with the $ 447 mil net figure? --
1919:
Edit: I incorrectly attributed the rewording of the title crawl to Marcia. Please see the attached
1824:
1243:
605:
297:
172:
66:
1344:
on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
791:
on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
2744:
2595:
2539:
2507:
2477:
2410:
2396:
2375:
2329:
2303:
2270:
2087:
2004:
1881:
249:
81:
1140:
1113:
2676:
2108:
2041:
1983:
1823:
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
1815:] The anchor (#Biggest opening day in U.S. and Canada) is no longer available because it was
1768:
1750:
1734:
1703:
1670:
1652:
1636:
1601:
1024:
664:
332:
62:
2186:
As reading both the second and third paragraphs will demonstrate, this is clearly not true.
2761:
2648:
2262:
1803:
272:
246:
263:
2774:
2708:
2661:
2632:
2623:(because the source editing already clarified this for editors to not change the budget)?
2599:
2576:
2543:
2520:
2481:
2465:
2429:
2414:
2400:
2379:
2365:
2333:
2307:
2291:
2274:
2218:
2199:
2116:
2098:
2080:
2059:
2049:
2015:
1991:
1975:
1964:
1932:
1914:
1892:
1873:
788:
17:
2244:
does not include marketing/promotional costs (e.g. advertisements, commercials, posters)
1613:
248:
2692:
2258:
2072:
2055:
1850:
1312:
1291:
1050:
965:
2782:
2591:
2550:
2535:
2496:
2473:
2406:
2392:
2388:
2371:
2325:
2299:
2266:
2254:
1854:
1169:
670:
759:
738:
654:
633:
2179:
2104:
2037:
1979:
1839:
1328:
864:
843:
2486:
The studios also spend hundreds of millions in the belief that they're making the
1607:
The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
563:. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can
2755:
2405:
And should we even have a range now? Seems like a known amount at this point. --
2209:
I think that $ 447 millions budget is Fake news. Forbes clearly make a mistake.
1261:
551:
2153:"In the same interview, Abrams said that he liked Snoke's death in the sequel."
1461:
This article has been viewed enough times in a single year to make it into the
1032:
Category:Star Wars articles that need to differentiate between fact and fiction
1920:
1402:
1318:
1251:
1146:
765:
660:
541:
535:
511:
1737:
1706:
1639:
2068:
1491:
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the
879:
1963:
trends. Unless we have a source summarizing general sentiments by critics,
1168:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the
769:
288:) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other
1715:
2691:
I hope no one will misunderstand this necessary change or mistake it for
2453:
2370:
Fine with me - I honestly only gave the Forbes article a quick glance. --
580:
2729:
1811:
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
1727:
Participations: International Journal of Audience and Reception Studies
2178:
A few months ago Toa Nidhiki05 reverted an edit that attempted to add
2567:(not that I expect such a radical change to happen anytime soon). --
1953:
although some critics found the film too similar to A New Hope (1977)
1649:
The Myth Awakens: Canon, Conservatism, and Fan Reception of Star Wars
1765:
White Mythic Space: Racism, the First World War, and ›Battlefield 1‹
1322:
2320:. Here's the last version before all those changes, for reference:
2747:. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at
1858:
1747:
Disney's Star Wars: Forces of Production, Promotion, and Reception
1341:
1667:
Racist America: Roots, Current Realities, and Future Reparations
1017:
1013:
1834:
Including Marcia Lucas in reception "From Star Wars filmmakers"
2351:
pre-production, principal photography and post production but
1785:
1596:
1478:
1450:
1397:
474:
258:
250:
26:
2559:
and editors have somehow come to the consensus that only the
2553:" actually means. (Here we have a reference literally saying
1947:
I suggest removing the following bit from the lead section:
1242:
604:
2025:
synthesizing. We need a source to do this type of analysis
984:
Tag the talk pages of Star Wars-related articles with the
1629:
Kinephanos: Journal of Media Studies and Popular Culture
876:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
2735:
2688:
2321:
2317:
2313:
2283:
1846:
1843:
954:
949:
944:
939:
1923:
which discusses Marcia Lucas contributions at length.
1422:"The Fight to Win the Pettiest Edit Wars on Knowledge"
171:
1842:' response to the movie was recently reverted twice (
2743:
to determine whether its use and function meets the
1340:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
787:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
682:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
1745:Proctor, William; McCulloch, Richard, eds. (2019).
2226:Talk:Star Wars: The Force Awakens/Archive 5#budget
2884:GA-Class United States articles of Low-importance
2131:Re: "Response from Star Wars filmmakers" section.
1720:, Canonical Fidelity and Non-Toxic Fan Practices"
994:banner. Update the classification of articles in
44:for general discussion of the article's subject.
579:. To improve this article, please refer to the
1000:Category:Unknown-importance Star Wars articles
338:If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
2736:TFA (Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens
2719:TFA (Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens
2064:which is the only passage in the article body
1270:WikiProject Film - American cinema task force
185:
8:
2789:Knowledge articles that use American English
2647:and include the gross budget as well, then
1651:. Eugene, Ore.: Wipf and Stock Publishers.
1614:"'Fan Girls Going Rogue': The Reception of
2834:GA-Class Disney articles of Mid-importance
2224:The last major budget discussion is here:
2054:Yes, that sentence violates the policy of
1286:
1108:
973:Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
927:
838:
733:
628:
575:. To use this banner, please refer to the
506:
352:
305:
276:, which has its own spelling conventions (
2103:Glad you're satisfied, Toa Nidhiki05. ;)
2034:other film articles can be just as flawed
1685:"Gender, Race, and Representation in the
1665:Feagin, Joe R.; Ducey, Kimberley (2018).
1647:Derry, Ken; Lyden, John C., eds. (2018).
2849:High-importance science fiction articles
2085:Erik's wording is more than acceptable.
1498:times. The weeks in which this happened:
2914:Knowledge pages referenced by the press
2889:Low-importance American cinema articles
1978:emphasis on that particular criticism.
1669:(4th ed.). New York: Routledge. p. 91.
1288:
1110:
840:
735:
630:
508:
2670:
2554:
2526:
2243:
1968:
1949:It was positively received by critics
1948:
1030:Remove any In-universe information at
996:Category:Unassessed Star Wars articles
2879:Low-importance United States articles
1767:. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. p. 126.
801:Knowledge:WikiProject Science Fiction
296:, this should not be changed without
7:
2919:Pages in the Knowledge Top 25 Report
2854:WikiProject Science Fiction articles
2246:". So this may need to be revisited.
1560:December 27, 2015 to January 2, 2016
1334:This article is within the scope of
1162:This article is within the scope of
870:This article is within the scope of
804:Template:WikiProject Science Fiction
781:This article is within the scope of
676:This article is within the scope of
557:This article is within the scope of
480:
478:
2814:American cinema task force articles
2671:"a total budget of $ 533.2 million"
2555:"a total budget of $ 533.2 million"
1209:Knowledge:WikiProject United States
497:It is of interest to the following
34:for discussing improvements to the
2894:WikiProject United States articles
2675:which is different from the final
2171:, it was a request made about the
1866:𝙨𝙥𝙞𝙙𝙚𝙧-𝙬𝙞𝙣𝙚-𝙗𝙤𝙩𝙩𝙡𝙚
1212:Template:WikiProject United States
25:
2864:Top-importance Star Wars articles
2844:GA-Class science fiction articles
2809:GA-Class American cinema articles
1412:mentioned by a media organization
1081:Articles with notability concerns
613:This article is supported by the
331:. If you can improve it further,
2728:
1789:
1763:Quiroga, Stefan Aguirre (2022).
1600:
1482:
1454:
1401:
1321:
1311:
1290:
1254:
1149:
1139:
1112:
964:
863:
842:
768:
758:
737:
663:
653:
632:
573:regional and topical task forces
544:
534:
510:
479:
309:
262:
232:
56:Click here to start a new topic.
2874:GA-Class United States articles
2753:until a consensus is reached.
2340:the table in the Forbes article
1540:November 29 to December 5, 2015
1515:November 30 to December 6, 2014
1420:Ben Lindbergh (July 15, 2021).
1374:This article has been rated as
1229:This article has been rated as
914:This article has been rated as
894:Knowledge:WikiProject Star Wars
821:This article has been rated as
716:This article has been rated as
2869:WikiProject Star Wars articles
2829:Mid-importance Disney articles
2021:its action sequences", we are
1933:03:03, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
1915:02:23, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
1893:16:33, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
1874:12:53, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
1585:January 31 to February 6, 2016
1465:annual list. This happened in
1455:
897:Template:WikiProject Star Wars
319:has been listed as one of the
1:
2904:Low-importance 2010s articles
2799:Media and drama good articles
2775:23:50, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
2709:06:16, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
2600:20:03, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
2577:19:29, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
2544:15:26, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
2521:12:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
2482:06:41, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
2466:06:16, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
2117:23:09, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
2099:20:09, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
2081:18:58, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
2050:16:14, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
2016:16:05, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
1992:15:53, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
1348:and see a list of open tasks.
1267:This article is supported by
888:and see a list of open tasks.
795:and see a list of open tasks.
690:and see a list of open tasks.
323:Media and drama good articles
53:Put new text under old text.
2242:template, the budget field "
1943:WP:SYNTH in the lead section
1749:. University of Iowa Press.
931:WikiProject Star Wars To-do:
696:Knowledge:WikiProject Disney
317:Star Wars: The Force Awakens
36:Star Wars: The Force Awakens
2859:GA-Class Star Wars articles
2839:WikiProject Disney articles
2662:06:44, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
2633:17:08, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
2338:The net figure is given in
1689:Franchise: An Introduction"
1612:Austin, Jessica R. (2018).
1354:Knowledge:WikiProject 2010s
784:WikiProject Science Fiction
699:Template:WikiProject Disney
61:New to Knowledge? Welcome!
2935:
2909:WikiProject 2010s articles
2190:communicative discussion.
1857:, and was nominated for a
1683:Harrison, Rebecca (2019).
1357:Template:WikiProject 2010s
1235:project's importance scale
920:project's importance scale
827:project's importance scale
776:Speculative fiction portal
722:project's importance scale
616:American cinema task force
589:Knowledge:WikiProject Film
18:Talk:Star Wars Episode VII
2819:WikiProject Film articles
2494:beside a label that says
2488:next billion dollar movie
2200:01:35, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
1955:. We cannot use multiple
1714:Proctor, William (2018).
1373:
1306:
1250:
1228:
1165:WikiProject United States
1134:
926:
913:
858:
820:
753:
715:
648:
612:
592:Template:WikiProject Film
529:
505:
461:
355:
351:
91:Be welcoming to newcomers
2824:GA-Class Disney articles
2741:redirects for discussion
2723:Redirects for discussion
2318:converted to net somehow
1170:United States of America
1057:Category:Star Wars stubs
807:science fiction articles
2899:GA-Class 2010s articles
2794:Knowledge good articles
2430:08:05, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
2415:14:06, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
2401:14:05, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
2380:18:35, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
2366:18:13, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
2334:17:53, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
2308:17:04, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
2288:Jurassic World Dominion
2275:16:47, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
2219:11:00, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
1696:Media Education Journal
1555:December 20 to 26, 2015
1550:December 13 to 19, 2015
1510:November 23 to 29, 2014
1505:April 27 to May 3, 2014
684:The Walt Disney Company
2804:GA-Class film articles
1580:January 24 to 30, 2016
1575:January 17 to 23, 2016
1570:January 10 to 16, 2016
1545:December 6 to 12, 2015
1535:October 25 to 31, 2015
1530:October 18 to 24, 2015
1410:This article has been
1247:
1215:United States articles
1085:WikiProject Notability
609:
487:This article is rated
86:avoid personal attacks
2667:Template:Infobox film
2641:The Dark Knight Rises
1246:
989:WikiProject Star Wars
873:WikiProject Star Wars
608:
422:Articles for deletion
407:Articles for deletion
392:Articles for deletion
377:Articles for deletion
329:good article criteria
226:Auto-archiving period
111:Neutral point of view
2503:Hollywood accounting
2192:Cinnamonrollsaregood
1959:reviews to identify
1565:January 3 to 9, 2016
1525:April 19 to 25, 2015
1520:April 12 to 18, 2015
1157:United States portal
452:Good article nominee
294:relevant style guide
290:varieties of English
116:No original research
2745:redirect guidelines
2739:has been listed at
1709:– via ResearchGate.
1183:Articles Requested!
565:join the discussion
292:. According to the
2508:Mad Max: Fury Road
2230:2023 Forbes source
1838:An edit including
1248:
900:Star Wars articles
679:WikiProject Disney
610:
493:content assessment
402:September 21, 2006
356:Article milestones
97:dispute resolution
58:
2684:WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE
2164:The Force Awakens
2157:The Force Awakens
1900:quote the article
1831:
1830:
1817:deleted by a user
1806:in most browsers.
1784:
1783:
1773:978-3-11-072930-6
1755:978-1-60938-644-3
1718:The Force Awakens
1675:978-1-351-38859-7
1657:978-1-5326-1973-1
1622:with Female Fans"
1616:The Force Awakens
1595:
1594:
1477:
1476:
1449:
1448:
1394:
1393:
1390:
1389:
1386:
1385:
1337:WikiProject 2010s
1285:
1284:
1281:
1280:
1107:
1106:
1103:
1102:
1099:
1098:
1095:
1094:
837:
836:
833:
832:
732:
731:
728:
727:
627:
626:
623:
622:
567:and see lists of
473:
472:
469:
468:
347:
304:
303:
257:
256:
77:Assume good faith
54:
16:(Redirected from
2926:
2773:
2738:
2732:
2682:Nonetheless the
2588:more significant
2532:
2241:
2235:
1869:
1825:Reporting errors
1793:
1792:
1786:
1777:
1759:
1741:
1724:
1710:
1693:
1679:
1661:
1643:
1626:
1604:
1597:
1486:
1485:
1479:
1458:
1457:
1451:
1441:
1436:
1434:
1405:
1398:
1380:importance scale
1362:
1361:
1358:
1355:
1352:
1331:
1326:
1325:
1315:
1308:
1307:
1302:
1294:
1287:
1264:
1259:
1258:
1257:
1217:
1216:
1213:
1210:
1207:
1159:
1154:
1153:
1152:
1143:
1136:
1135:
1130:
1127:
1116:
1109:
993:
987:
968:
961:
960:
928:
902:
901:
898:
895:
892:
867:
860:
859:
854:
846:
839:
809:
808:
805:
802:
799:
778:
773:
772:
762:
755:
754:
749:
741:
734:
704:
703:
700:
697:
694:
673:
668:
667:
657:
650:
649:
644:
636:
629:
597:
596:
593:
590:
587:
560:WikiProject Film
554:
549:
548:
547:
538:
531:
530:
525:
514:
507:
490:
484:
483:
482:
475:
462:Current status:
447:February 6, 2021
432:November 8, 2012
417:November 6, 2012
353:
336:
313:
306:
273:American English
269:This article is
266:
259:
251:
237:
236:
227:
190:
189:
175:
106:Article policies
27:
21:
2934:
2933:
2929:
2928:
2927:
2925:
2924:
2923:
2779:
2778:
2772:
2754:
2734:
2726:
2625:DougheGojiraMan
2616:
2549:to agree what "
2530:
2450:
2239:
2233:
2207:
2133:
1952:
1945:
1863:
1836:
1827:
1809:
1808:
1807:
1790:
1774:
1762:
1756:
1744:
1722:
1713:
1691:
1682:
1676:
1664:
1658:
1646:
1624:
1611:
1591:
1590:
1589:
1499:
1483:
1445:
1444:
1432:
1430:
1419:
1415:
1359:
1356:
1353:
1350:
1349:
1327:
1320:
1300:
1260:
1255:
1253:
1214:
1211:
1208:
1205:
1204:
1203:
1189:Become a Member
1155:
1150:
1148:
1128:
1122:
1091:
991:
985:
959:
899:
896:
893:
890:
889:
852:
823:High-importance
806:
803:
800:
798:Science Fiction
797:
796:
789:science fiction
774:
767:
748:High‑importance
747:
745:Science Fiction
702:Disney articles
701:
698:
695:
692:
691:
669:
662:
642:
594:
591:
588:
585:
584:
550:
545:
543:
520:
491:on Knowledge's
488:
437:Deletion review
298:broad consensus
253:
252:
247:
224:
132:
127:
126:
125:
102:
72:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
2932:
2930:
2922:
2921:
2916:
2911:
2906:
2901:
2896:
2891:
2886:
2881:
2876:
2871:
2866:
2861:
2856:
2851:
2846:
2841:
2836:
2831:
2826:
2821:
2816:
2811:
2806:
2801:
2796:
2791:
2781:
2780:
2758:
2725:
2715:
2714:
2713:
2712:
2711:
2701:109.77.196.205
2699:estimates. --
2680:
2615:
2612:
2611:
2610:
2609:
2608:
2607:
2606:
2605:
2604:
2603:
2602:
2565:proper context
2513:109.77.196.205
2492:final net cost
2458:109.77.196.205
2449:
2446:
2445:
2444:
2443:
2442:
2441:
2440:
2439:
2438:
2437:
2436:
2435:
2434:
2433:
2432:
2403:
2296:similar source
2247:
2206:
2203:
2132:
2129:
2128:
2127:
2126:
2125:
2124:
2123:
2122:
2121:
2120:
2119:
2030:
1950:
1944:
1941:
1940:
1939:
1938:
1937:
1936:
1935:
1903:
1835:
1832:
1829:
1828:
1822:
1821:
1820:
1804:case-sensitive
1798:
1797:
1796:
1794:
1782:
1781:
1780:
1779:
1778:
1772:
1760:
1754:
1742:
1733:(1): 160–179.
1711:
1680:
1674:
1662:
1656:
1644:
1608:
1605:
1593:
1592:
1588:
1587:
1582:
1577:
1572:
1567:
1562:
1557:
1552:
1547:
1542:
1537:
1532:
1527:
1522:
1517:
1512:
1507:
1501:
1500:
1490:
1489:
1487:
1475:
1474:
1459:
1447:
1446:
1443:
1442:
1416:
1409:
1408:
1406:
1392:
1391:
1388:
1387:
1384:
1383:
1376:Low-importance
1372:
1366:
1365:
1363:
1360:2010s articles
1346:the discussion
1333:
1332:
1316:
1304:
1303:
1301:Low‑importance
1295:
1283:
1282:
1279:
1278:
1275:Low-importance
1266:
1265:
1249:
1239:
1238:
1231:Low-importance
1227:
1221:
1220:
1218:
1202:
1201:
1196:
1191:
1186:
1179:
1177:Template Usage
1173:
1161:
1160:
1144:
1132:
1131:
1129:Low‑importance
1117:
1105:
1104:
1101:
1100:
1097:
1096:
1093:
1092:
1090:
1089:
1088:
1087:
1059:
1046:
1035:
1020:
1008:Citing sources
1003:
972:
970:
969:
958:
957:
952:
947:
942:
936:
933:
932:
924:
923:
916:Top-importance
912:
906:
905:
903:
886:the discussion
868:
856:
855:
853:Top‑importance
847:
835:
834:
831:
830:
819:
813:
812:
810:
793:the discussion
780:
779:
763:
751:
750:
742:
730:
729:
726:
725:
718:Mid-importance
714:
708:
707:
705:
688:the discussion
675:
674:
658:
646:
645:
643:Mid‑importance
637:
625:
624:
621:
620:
611:
601:
600:
598:
556:
555:
539:
527:
526:
515:
503:
502:
496:
485:
471:
470:
467:
466:
459:
458:
455:
448:
444:
443:
440:
433:
429:
428:
425:
418:
414:
413:
410:
403:
399:
398:
395:
388:
387:April 21, 2006
384:
383:
380:
373:
372:March 10, 2006
369:
368:
365:
362:
358:
357:
349:
348:
314:
302:
301:
267:
255:
254:
245:
243:
242:
239:
238:
192:
191:
129:
128:
124:
123:
118:
113:
104:
103:
101:
100:
93:
88:
79:
73:
71:
70:
59:
50:
49:
46:
45:
39:
24:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2931:
2920:
2917:
2915:
2912:
2910:
2907:
2905:
2902:
2900:
2897:
2895:
2892:
2890:
2887:
2885:
2882:
2880:
2877:
2875:
2872:
2870:
2867:
2865:
2862:
2860:
2857:
2855:
2852:
2850:
2847:
2845:
2842:
2840:
2837:
2835:
2832:
2830:
2827:
2825:
2822:
2820:
2817:
2815:
2812:
2810:
2807:
2805:
2802:
2800:
2797:
2795:
2792:
2790:
2787:
2786:
2784:
2777:
2776:
2770:
2769:
2764:
2763:
2757:
2752:
2751:
2746:
2742:
2737:
2733:The redirect
2731:
2724:
2720:
2716:
2710:
2706:
2702:
2698:
2694:
2690:
2685:
2681:
2678:
2674:
2672:
2668:
2665:
2664:
2663:
2659:
2655:
2650:
2646:
2645:Age of Ultron
2642:
2637:
2636:
2635:
2634:
2630:
2626:
2620:
2613:
2601:
2597:
2593:
2589:
2584:
2580:
2579:
2578:
2574:
2570:
2569:109.79.171.34
2566:
2562:
2558:
2556:
2552:
2547:
2546:
2545:
2541:
2537:
2528:
2524:
2523:
2522:
2518:
2514:
2509:
2504:
2499:
2498:
2493:
2489:
2485:
2484:
2483:
2479:
2475:
2470:
2469:
2468:
2467:
2463:
2459:
2455:
2447:
2431:
2427:
2423:
2418:
2417:
2416:
2412:
2408:
2404:
2402:
2398:
2394:
2390:
2386:
2383:
2382:
2381:
2377:
2373:
2369:
2368:
2367:
2363:
2359:
2354:
2350:
2346:
2345:guidance here
2341:
2337:
2336:
2335:
2331:
2327:
2322:
2319:
2315:
2311:
2310:
2309:
2305:
2301:
2297:
2293:
2289:
2285:
2284:recent change
2281:
2278:
2277:
2276:
2272:
2268:
2264:
2260:
2256:
2252:
2248:
2245:
2238:
2231:
2227:
2223:
2222:
2221:
2220:
2216:
2212:
2211:151.28.43.200
2204:
2202:
2201:
2197:
2193:
2187:
2185:
2181:
2176:
2174:
2170:
2165:
2160:
2158:
2154:
2148:
2145:
2140:
2136:
2130:
2118:
2114:
2110:
2106:
2102:
2101:
2100:
2097:
2096:
2095:
2091:
2090:
2084:
2083:
2082:
2078:
2074:
2070:
2065:
2061:
2060:WP:SYNTHesize
2057:
2053:
2052:
2051:
2047:
2043:
2039:
2035:
2031:
2028:
2024:
2019:
2018:
2017:
2014:
2013:
2012:
2008:
2007:
2000:
1996:
1995:
1994:
1993:
1989:
1985:
1981:
1977:
1971:
1970:
1966:
1962:
1958:
1954:
1942:
1934:
1930:
1926:
1922:
1918:
1917:
1916:
1912:
1908:
1904:
1901:
1896:
1895:
1894:
1891:
1890:
1889:
1885:
1884:
1878:
1877:
1876:
1875:
1872:
1870:
1868:
1867:
1860:
1856:
1852:
1851:Academy Award
1848:
1845:
1841:
1833:
1826:
1818:
1814:
1813:
1812:
1805:
1801:
1795:
1788:
1787:
1775:
1770:
1766:
1761:
1757:
1752:
1748:
1743:
1739:
1736:
1732:
1728:
1721:
1719:
1712:
1708:
1705:
1701:
1697:
1690:
1688:
1681:
1677:
1672:
1668:
1663:
1659:
1654:
1650:
1645:
1641:
1638:
1634:
1630:
1623:
1621:
1617:
1610:
1609:
1606:
1603:
1599:
1598:
1586:
1583:
1581:
1578:
1576:
1573:
1571:
1568:
1566:
1563:
1561:
1558:
1556:
1553:
1551:
1548:
1546:
1543:
1541:
1538:
1536:
1533:
1531:
1528:
1526:
1523:
1521:
1518:
1516:
1513:
1511:
1508:
1506:
1503:
1502:
1497:
1494:
1493:Top 25 Report
1488:
1481:
1480:
1472:
1468:
1464:
1463:Top 50 Report
1460:
1453:
1452:
1440:
1429:
1428:
1423:
1418:
1417:
1413:
1407:
1404:
1400:
1399:
1396:
1381:
1377:
1371:
1368:
1367:
1364:
1347:
1343:
1339:
1338:
1330:
1324:
1319:
1317:
1314:
1310:
1309:
1305:
1299:
1296:
1293:
1289:
1276:
1273:(assessed as
1272:
1271:
1263:
1252:
1245:
1241:
1240:
1236:
1232:
1226:
1223:
1222:
1219:
1206:United States
1200:
1197:
1195:
1192:
1190:
1187:
1185:
1184:
1180:
1178:
1175:
1174:
1171:
1167:
1166:
1158:
1147:
1145:
1142:
1138:
1137:
1133:
1126:
1121:
1120:United States
1118:
1115:
1111:
1086:
1082:
1079:
1077:
1073:
1072:
1070:
1066:
1064:
1060:
1058:
1055:
1053:
1052:
1047:
1044:
1042:
1041:
1036:
1033:
1029:
1027:
1026:
1021:
1019:
1015:
1012:
1010:
1009:
1004:
1001:
997:
990:
983:
981:
980:
975:
974:
971:
967:
963:
962:
956:
953:
951:
948:
946:
943:
941:
938:
937:
935:
934:
930:
929:
925:
921:
917:
911:
908:
907:
904:
887:
883:
882:
881:
875:
874:
869:
866:
862:
861:
857:
851:
848:
845:
841:
828:
824:
818:
815:
814:
811:
794:
790:
786:
785:
777:
771:
766:
764:
761:
757:
756:
752:
746:
743:
740:
736:
723:
719:
713:
710:
709:
706:
689:
685:
681:
680:
672:
671:Disney portal
666:
661:
659:
656:
652:
651:
647:
641:
638:
635:
631:
618:
617:
607:
603:
602:
599:
595:film articles
582:
578:
577:documentation
574:
570:
566:
562:
561:
553:
542:
540:
537:
533:
532:
528:
524:
519:
516:
513:
509:
504:
500:
494:
486:
477:
476:
465:
460:
456:
454:
453:
449:
446:
445:
441:
439:
438:
434:
431:
430:
426:
424:
423:
419:
416:
415:
411:
409:
408:
404:
401:
400:
396:
394:
393:
389:
386:
385:
381:
379:
378:
374:
371:
370:
366:
363:
360:
359:
354:
350:
345:
343:
342:
334:
330:
326:
325:
324:
318:
315:
312:
308:
307:
299:
295:
291:
287:
283:
279:
275:
274:
268:
265:
261:
260:
241:
240:
235:
231:
223:
219:
215:
211:
207:
203:
200:
198:
194:
193:
188:
184:
181:
178:
174:
170:
166:
163:
160:
157:
154:
151:
148:
145:
142:
138:
135:
134:Find sources:
131:
130:
122:
121:Verifiability
119:
117:
114:
112:
109:
108:
107:
98:
94:
92:
89:
87:
83:
80:
78:
75:
74:
68:
64:
63:Learn to edit
60:
57:
52:
51:
48:
47:
43:
37:
33:
29:
28:
19:
2766:
2760:
2748:
2727:
2721:" listed at
2696:
2644:
2640:
2621:
2617:
2587:
2582:
2564:
2560:
2506:the cost of
2495:
2491:
2451:
2352:
2348:
2287:
2279:
2237:Infobox film
2208:
2188:
2183:
2180:Marcia Lucas
2177:
2172:
2168:
2163:
2161:
2156:
2152:
2149:
2143:
2141:
2137:
2135:Hello all,
2134:
2093:
2088:
2086:
2063:
2026:
2022:
2010:
2005:
2003:
1998:
1972:
1960:
1956:
1946:
1887:
1882:
1880:
1865:
1864:
1855:Saturn Award
1840:Marcia Lucas
1837:
1810:
1802:Anchors are
1799:
1764:
1746:
1730:
1726:
1717:
1702:(2): 16–19.
1699:
1695:
1686:
1666:
1648:
1635:(1): 46–66.
1632:
1628:
1619:
1615:
1495:
1438:
1431:. Retrieved
1425:
1395:
1375:
1335:
1329:2010s portal
1268:
1230:
1194:Project Talk
1182:
1163:
1083:, listed at
1074:
1069:things to do
1062:
1061:
1049:
1048:
1038:
1037:
1023:
1022:
1006:
1005:
977:
976:
915:
878:
877:
871:
822:
782:
717:
677:
614:
558:
499:WikiProjects
464:Good article
463:
450:
435:
420:
405:
390:
375:
339:
337:
333:please do so
321:
320:
316:
285:
281:
277:
270:
229:
195:
182:
176:
168:
161:
155:
149:
143:
133:
105:
30:This is the
2693:bold change
2654:Betty Logan
2583:immediately
2422:Betty Logan
2385:Betty Logan
2358:Betty Logan
2316:, and then
2263:PrimeHunter
2251:Betty Logan
1999:understates
1925:Greycouch55
1907:Greycouch55
1262:Film portal
552:Film portal
271:written in
159:free images
42:not a forum
2783:Categories
2448:Revisiting
2292:TropicAces
1957:individual
1427:The Ringer
1076:Notability
1067:* See the
581:guidelines
569:open tasks
427:Redirected
327:under the
2649:WP:BEBOLD
2259:Depauldem
2094:Nidhiki05
2011:Nidhiki05
1967:applies:
1888:Nidhiki05
1738:1749-8716
1707:0268-1951
1687:Star Wars
1640:1916-985X
1620:Rogue One
891:Star Wars
880:Star Wars
850:Star Wars
99:if needed
82:Be polite
32:talk page
2677:net cost
2592:GoneIn60
2561:net cost
2536:GoneIn60
2474:GoneIn60
2454:greenlit
2407:GoneIn60
2393:GoneIn60
2389:Fru1tbat
2372:Fru1tbat
2353:excludes
2349:includes
2326:Fru1tbat
2300:GoneIn60
2294:cites a
2267:GoneIn60
2255:Fru1tbat
2249:Pinging
2113:contribs
2046:contribs
1988:contribs
1965:WP:SYNTH
1433:June 11,
1040:Copyedit
523:American
489:GA-class
442:Endorsed
341:reassess
286:traveled
197:Archives
67:get help
40:This is
38:article.
2531:|budget
2105:Throast
2077:contrib
2056:WP:NPOV
2038:Throast
2023:clearly
1980:Throast
1961:general
1819:before.
1378:on the
1233:on the
1025:Cleanup
945:history
918:on the
825:on the
720:on the
412:Deleted
397:Deleted
382:Deleted
364:Process
282:defense
230:30Â days
165:WPÂ refs
153:scholar
2756:Utopes
2697:budget
2689:(diff)
2551:budget
2497:budget
2347:). It
2261:, and
2205:Budget
2173:script
1199:Alerts
1125:Cinema
979:Assess
693:Disney
640:Disney
495:scale.
457:Listed
367:Result
137:Google
2687:done.
2314:fixed
2280:Note:
2144:very
1976:undue
1921:essay
1859:BAFTA
1723:(PDF)
1692:(PDF)
1625:(PDF)
1351:2010s
1342:2010s
1298:2010s
1071:page
1063:Other
1051:Stubs
955:purge
950:watch
278:color
180:JSTOR
141:books
95:Seek
2768:cont
2762:talk
2705:talk
2658:talk
2629:talk
2614:Net?
2596:talk
2573:talk
2540:talk
2517:talk
2478:talk
2462:talk
2426:talk
2411:talk
2397:talk
2376:talk
2362:talk
2330:talk
2304:talk
2271:talk
2215:talk
2196:talk
2169:film
2109:talk
2073:talk
2069:Erik
2042:talk
1984:talk
1929:talk
1911:talk
1853:and
1800:Tip:
1769:ISBN
1751:ISBN
1735:ISSN
1704:ISSN
1671:ISBN
1653:ISBN
1637:ISSN
1618:and
1471:2016
1469:and
1467:2015
1435:2024
1018:Sith
1014:Jedi
998:and
940:edit
817:High
586:Film
571:and
518:Film
361:Date
173:FENS
147:news
84:and
2643:or
2290:by
2286:at
2089:Toa
2079:)
2029:us.
2027:for
2006:Toa
1883:Toa
1370:Low
1225:Low
910:Top
712:Mid
187:TWL
2785::
2765:/
2707:)
2660:)
2631:)
2598:)
2575:)
2542:)
2519:)
2480:)
2464:)
2428:)
2413:)
2399:)
2387:,
2378:)
2364:)
2332:)
2324:--
2306:)
2282:A
2273:)
2257:,
2253:,
2240:}}
2234:{{
2217:)
2198:)
2159:?
2115:)
2111:|
2075:|
2048:)
2044:|
2036:.
1990:)
1986:|
1931:)
1913:)
1731:15
1729:.
1725:.
1700:65
1698:.
1694:.
1631:.
1627:.
1496:17
1437:.
1424:.
1277:).
1123::
1016:,
992:}}
986:{{
521::
344:it
335:.
284:,
280:,
228::
220:,
216:,
212:,
208:,
204:,
167:)
65:;
2771:)
2759:(
2717:"
2703:(
2656:(
2627:(
2594:(
2571:(
2538:(
2525:"
2515:(
2476:(
2460:(
2424:(
2409:(
2395:(
2374:(
2360:(
2328:(
2302:(
2269:(
2213:(
2194:(
2151:'
2107:(
2071:(
2040:(
1982:(
1927:(
1909:(
1847:2
1844:1
1776:.
1758:.
1740:.
1678:.
1660:.
1642:.
1633:8
1473:.
1414::
1382:.
1237:.
1078::
1065::
1054::
1043::
1034:.
1028::
1011::
1002:.
982::
922:.
829:.
724:.
619:.
583:.
501::
346:.
300:.
222:6
218:5
214:4
210:3
206:2
202:1
199::
183:·
177:·
169:·
162:·
156:·
150:·
144:·
139:(
69:.
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.