Talk:Planet of the Apes/Archive 2

779:

born to apes from the future. In 1983 a disease killed the cats and dogs and in 1991 the apes revolted. "RotPotA" takes place in 2011 and none of those things had happened in this film. There is a George Taylor mentioned, but he blasts off in a ship called "Icarus" in 2011, so it is not the same Taylor or the same ship. Since it is not taking place earlier within the original franchise series, it is not a prequel and the writers don't call it a prequel, they specifically mention reinvention and reboot. Yes, Burton used reinvention and that film was a reinvention, that does not preclude this film being a reinvention also. I don't see anyone having an "aversion" to the term prequel, I (and I presume others) want the statements to be be factual and match what is stated in the article. The writers explicitly indicate that it is a different Caesar as well. Where do you think "RotPotA" suggests that Caesar was born from parents from the future and the events take place before 1972? That would be required to be a prequel to the original series.

382:. AmritasyaPutra says "excluding one over the other is not justified", which is not what this dispute was about. Everything that follows is affected by that. AmritasyaPutra then says "I am unfit to comment on whether there is a perfect balance or not between those two words", but goes ahead and posits an opinion anyway, affected by the idea of your primary argument that brought him/her here. This shows why you're supposed to post neutral, accurate notices. This opinion from one person should not be used to justify removing the text that was the actual topic of the dispute. Being an administrator, you should have recognized this yourself. Once I pointed this out above you should have reposted your request to accurately reflect what was happening here. - 2369:, the issue with using "reboot", by itself, is that it implies it's clear cut the writers intended this to be a reboot. However, in the actual source, when that comes up they're totally non-committal, and in fact they spend a full quarter of the interview discussing various possible conceptions. Most importantly, they spend a good bit of time discussing the film as a prequel leading up to the events of the Charlton Heston film (this is also borne out in the film itself; it's the "Rise" of the ape planet we saw in the Heston film, and Heston's space mission appears). This is why the original wording gave the broader " conceived of the film as a reboot or prequel". 122:. To summarize my position, I felt the former version best follows the cited source. Gothicfilm would like to change the wording to say the film "was conceived as a reboot of the original series". In my opinion, saying unequivocally that the film was "conceived as a reboot" misrepresents the source, since roughly 1/4 of the interview is Jaffa and Silver talking about various possible conceptions of how the film is related to the original, and they're specifically non-committal about it being a "reboot". 1446:: "...it could lead to apes taking over the planet and, perhaps, getting Colonel Taylor on that beach in thirty-nine hundred years"; "...it does explain how the apes took over , but this is a different Caesar we're looking at". He then says, "So it's really kind of hard to put a label on it" and " it's kind of tough to put a specific word to it". Once gain, stating that the movie was unequivocally conceived as a "reboot", or implying the same through cherry-picked quotes, mischaracterizes the source. 610:

at all in any context. Prequel is mentioned by the interviewer but not by the writers, and it seems to me we should be paraphrasing what the writers are saying. And further in the article there is talk about the idea of redoing the "original" as a sequel to this and how this film's Caesar is different than the Caesar from the original series which is also pretty definitive that it is not a prequel to that series or the Wahlberg film (and that would also be my

31: 3502:, the restored material really doesn't seem encyclopedic, at least not for an article on the entire franchise. The only source seems to be a pop culture blog, which at most would be reliable for the authors' own opinions, not for establishing the historical or social importance of this particular fictional object. And it doesn't verify all the material attributed to it anyway. And either way it seems to receive serious 315: 3325:

Rick Jaffa was happy with reinvention and reboot. He never disavowed that. Cúchullain's demand that the word reboot not be included is going against the source, and the writer's quote which he delivered before the interviewer muddied the issue. Jaffa and Silver didn't want to argue with him about it, so they went along. But they never called

2627:

happened in this film. There is a George Taylor mentioned, but he blasts off in a ship called "Icarus" in 2011, so it is not the same Taylor or the same ship. Since it is not taking place earlier within the original franchise series, it is not a prequel and the writers don't call it a prequel, they specifically mention reinvention and reboot.

2042:"Reboot" by itself isn't going to work any better than the last thirty times you suggested it. We can go with a different word that doesn't have such a specific meaning. How about, "Jaffa and Silver conceived the film as a way to restart the franchise by reinventing the story of the chimpanzee Caesar, the lead character of 1900:, and hoped it would launch a new series of sequels." Gothicfilm et al then tried to remove the word "prequel" (which makes it sound like the writers were unambiguously going for a reboot, though that's not borne out by the source) and then tried to insert quotes from the interview about reboots. This already went through 2112:

quote - now a moot point, as the discussion has changed much since then, and another who hasn't made a real opinion either way, and has twice suggested it's a prequel to the 2001 film, which no source backs up. Your determination to put "prequel" in is inexplicable. The writers never called it that. -

229:. They all agree it is a reimagining, (which means reboot), and the top-billed writer says "I guess, if I had to pick, I would say reboot." Why Cuchullain is so determined to continue this debate and make it sound like the interview left it with a perfect balance between the two terms is beyond me. - 3838:

It has been a long time since I have seen "Beneath". I know they used the original ship plot as "Brent's ship", but was it also used as Taylor's ship in that film as well or only as Brent's ship? In "Escape" it was not only the prop, but was also supposed to be Taylor's ship rebuilt. In the TV series

3324:

That's not the issue here. No one is proposing that. At least that version was accurate. This is supposed to be an article on the whole franchise. Cúchullain keeps wanting to make it sound like the writers were non-committal. I don't see that. They simply went with where the interviewer wanted to go.

1499:

So he goes from reinvention to reboot without saying anything about prequel. That's really it right there. He is clear about its being a reinvention/reboot. Reinvention was a term coined for the 2001 film for some reason that really means the same thing. (Prequel also has a precise meaning - it is in

1366:

is for the editors not to revert, but to edit what it is there to get to a consensus. What in the statements I put in did you feel was inaccurate based on the cited material? I can't quote the entire article (that is the reason we cite it), I must select representative statements to summarize what is

1292:

and change the article to accurately reflect what is stated in the article. That segment is discussing what the writers say and if someone believes it misrepresents what the citation says, I see not reason to argue about it. If you want to add other comments with other sources, you are always welcome

831:

3857:

to it. Looking at it, I'm not sure a toy model magazine would be a reliable source for this. Either way, the article clearly indicates it was the prop that was used again as the ship flown by Brent, the second astronaut. Taylor's ship doesn't appear as such. The magazine also says the prop reappears

3778:

The Shared plot elements section had two entries - Taylor's spacecraft and Forbidden Zone - until Cúchullain removed one of them. Now he uses the argument the other should be removed because it's alone, failing to mention it's only alone because he made it that way. An argument could be advanced for

1625:

No, I haven't lost consensus, you've just worn me down to the point that I'm not willing to continue this silly debate about an extremely minor point any more. At any rate, your feelings about the term "prequel" are clear, but even you can't argue the term doesn't appear in that source. I guess your

663:

One additional comment, the current wording the article ("conceived the film as a reboot or prequel to the original" comes across in the article as they could not decide (since the concepts are either/or) the film was going to be and there is no sense in the article to me that this is implied. To me

609:

Based on the citation given in the article I would change the line to "Jaffa and Silver conceived the film as a reinvention or reboot of the franchise, and hoped it would launch a new series of sequels." since that is indicated in the cited interview. . But I see no need for prequel to be mentioned

3759:

I agree. As I stated, I have no problem removing the "shared plot elements" section with the single item on Taylor ship. I expanded it to try to update the information and try and make it more "franchise relevant" if the consensus is to keep it, but my vote would be for removal of all that material

3052:

If you want to discuss what other sources say you need to cite other sources. This debate was what the screenwriters were saying. And the larger paraphrasing I listed with the comment about the original film had the writer's thoughts on "connecting" to the original film. The article indicates to me

2174:

Look, we're not using that source to say the writers unambiguously conceived of the film as a reboot, because that's a total mischaracterization of the source and there's further no consensus for it. If you want it to say "reboot" based on that source, we have give the full picture, sorry about it.

127:

where Jaffa says "I guess, if I had to pick, I would say reboot". Again, I don't feel this is necessary or representative of the entire discussion, in which both Jaffa and Silver discuss several other possible interpretations, any of which could be quoted just as easily. In my opinion, just leaving

3540:

I disagree. At the time of the only discussion, the article in general was in a very poor state. That's not the case anymore, but this section is still poor. The material is out of place in the current article, and the (pretty weak) source doesn't verify all of that information - including that it

3171:

Jaffe indicated that "it's a reinvention" and if he had to pick between calling it a prequel or a reboot he would say it is a reboot: "It's a different story of who Caesar is, and how he came to be. So it's really kind of hard to put a label on it. We are hopefully rebooting it." He went on to say

2626:

Officially in the original film series, George Taylor took off in 1972 in a ship semi-officially called "Liberty 1". In 1973, Caesar is born to apes from the future. In 1983 a disease killed the cats and dogs and in 1991 the apes revolted. "RotPotA" takes place in 2011 and none of those things had

2248:

this article, and you do not have consensus. "Reboot" is an accurate characterization of how the writers conceived it. The prequel question was brought up by the interviewer two years after they conceived it. And I wouldn't say it's "unambiguously" a reboot, just that it's a reboot. Very little is

1384:

1147:

Originally you said this was about what the writers intended for the film as seen in that one interview. Now you're changing to this WP article should say they intended it as a prequel (or a reboot) even though, as AbramTerger pointed out, they never called it a prequel, because some other sources

1068:

778:

is that rare film that is a prequel, a sequel to, and reboot of the original film series] "RotPotA" is NOT set "prior to the events of the original installments". Officially in the original film series, George Taylor took off in 1972 in a ship semi-officially called "Liberty 1". In 1973, Caesar is

702:

called it until it was pointed out Tim Burton said the same thing about his movie. The interview does mention the term "prequel". And moreover, right after Jaffa says "reboot" ("I guess", "if I had to pick", "it's hard to say", etc.), Silver asks the interviewer what he thinks, and he says he sees

329:

I have read the discussion here and on user talk page. Sources are present for both prequel and reboot and there is no official declaration, so excluding one over the other is not justified. I am unfit to comment on whether there is a perfect balance or not between those two words but the proposed

3506:

for an item that's so minor. Greene and Russo et al barely even mention Taylor's ship even though they discuss all sorts of other things in considerable detail. Barring an upswing in consensus, we'd best remove the material or move it elsewhere (and if it's kept it needs to be rewritten with much

3223:

I think "restart" is a poor choice, since neither author uses the term in the cited article. Jaffa explicitly uses the term "reboot" twice: (eg "I would say reboot." and more importantly: "We are hopefully rebooting it." which is part of what you are paraphrasing). Paraphrasing is best is when it

2718:

by a reliable author gives a pretty good explanation of all the different ways the film relates to previous entries in the series. It would be a very nice source to add here and to the film's article, but I would expect to see this same level of intransigence against such an addition, and I don't

773:

It is rare for a Prequel to be the same as a reboot as a reboot suggests that they are reinventing the franchise (ie a new storyline unconnected to the original) and prequel suggests that it is takes place in the same story but at an earlier time in the series. ] is sequel and prequel with events

3248:

I agree that 'restart' is a poor choice. The correct term is 'Reboot' and that should remain. This issue was settled years ago when RISE came out. The only reason that it is even being discussed now is because one editor, based on personal opinion only, is trying to fit a square peg into a round

2267:

I have to agree - I see no difference between the meaning of "rework", "reinvention", or "reboot" in the context of a film taking a new approach to a previously established series. If some sources have described it as a prequel, perhaps we could say, "Some sources described it as a prequel" with

2111:

is an encyclopedic term with a full article people can click on. That's what belongs in the article. "Sort of"(s) don't belong in a franchise article that's supposed to succinctly sum up what it is. We've got three people who agree with that. You've got one who only commented once on including a

1504:(That means reboot.) They then discuss various possibilities. Jaffa has already answered what he thinks it is: Reinvention/reboot. He remains polite with the interviewer and they speculate, etc. What he does not do is say he answered the question, can we move on? That would be bad form and rude. 836:(That means reboot.) They then discuss various possibilities. Jaffa has already answered what he thinks it is: Reinvention/reboot. He remains polite with the interviewer and they speculate, etc. What he does not do is say he answered the question, can we move on? That would be bad form and rude. 748:

Prequel and reboot are not mathematical terms; something can be both at the same time. By definition, a prequel is set prior to the events of the original installment, while a reboot revisits some elements of earlier installments but changes them. The new series revisits some of the "rise of the

4126:

There's no indication it would meet ELYES, particularly if it meets ELMAYBE - checking a couple of articles, I'm not seeing consistent neutrality, and accuracy is questionable given that they cite both us and other user-generated sites. It also fails ELNO, as it has very few active contributors

1523:

If we're going to represent what the writer's intentions were, not the interviewer's, we should go by the full Jaffa quote I gave above. It is a good summation of how he saw the film. "Prequel" only came up because of questions from the interviewer, but Jaffa never disavowed that first response

1307:

For the umpteenth time, the given source does prominently include the writers talking about the script in terms of being a prequel. The other sources just prove that this isn't a particularly outrageous thing to say, no matter a few Knowledge editors' personal definition of the term. "Reboot or

878:

A movie being both a reboot and a prequel may be rare, but so are blockbuster movies about talking apes. At least outside of this franchise. Regardless of your interpretation, or mine, or what happened in the original sequels, or prequels, or whatever you want to call them, the cited source and

855:

251:

So you no longer want to remove the term "prequel"? Fine, the 3O volunteer can help resolve the disputed added line. I consider it a bad move; at best it's unnecessary and redundant with the phrase "reboot or sequel"; at worst it makes an implication that's not an accurate representation of the

1822:

Can you provide a diff for the "original version" to which you refer? I would agree that this could be considered a prequel to the 2001 film, but as an origin story I agree with the contention that it conflicts with existing origin story material in the original series. Of course, if there are

3172:

that they wanted "to approach this in a very realistic way. Meaning, what's going on in our world today, that if the right dominoes were to line up, touch each other, it could lead to apes taking over the planet and, perhaps, getting Colonel Taylor on that beach in thirty-nine hundred years."

2372:

However, Gothic film and company are so averse to saying "prequel" that that won't work without further dispute resolution (we've already been there once, and I don't have to patience to do it again). To avoid implying that they saw it as a cut-and-dry "reboot", my suggestion is to go with

1975:

series, and hoped it would launch a new series of sequels" which would be most accurate. You could then mention the new Caesar, as "Rise" is closest to the fourth film, and they do talk about that. "They reinvented the story of the chimpanzee Caesar, the lead character in the fourth film

1520:, but has plenty of inconsistencies with its fictional universe, as it does with the first film. The fact a reboot or remake has allusions to the original does not make it a prequel. They're just allusions. The 2001 film had several of them, but no one claims it's in the same universe. 852:, but has plenty of inconsistencies with its fictional universe, as it does with the first film. The fact a reboot or remake has allusions to the original does not make it a prequel. They're just allusions. The 2001 film had several of them, but no one claims it's in the same universe. 4068:

Hmm, I can see that there'd be a difference between including the link at the novel's article, and including it here at a comprehensive article on the series. Again, I've found it to be a useful, mainly accurate website on this topic that wouldn't be a suitable source, a good case for

3189:

We don't need to insert a bunch of quotes saying the same thing. What do you think of the compromise wording that gets around it altogether: "Jaffa and Silver conceived the film as a way to restart the franchise by reinventing the story of the chimpanzee Caesar, the lead character of

649:. So this idea the writers were calling it a prequel anywhere near as much as a reboot is not accurate. But if it's brought up, it needs to be indicated that this interview left it more of a reboot than a prequel. However I would more prefer the wording AbramTerger suggests above. - 1768:

What? You haven't responded to the suggestion at all, you've just added more comments about what the word "prequel" means to you. What do you object to about the wording "Jaffa and Silver conceived the film as a way to restart the franchise by reworking the story of the chimpanzee

3862:(as Taylor's original ship) and the TV show (as the new astronauts' ship), but I don't think that's accurate, it looks totally different. The article contains some other errors (for instance saying Pierre Boulle's novel came out in 1958) that don't do much for its credibility.-- 1659:

Three are firmly against your position. And I have nothing against the term prequel. But it is out of place to mention every term the film could "Sort of" be put in. I recently argued against calling another film a reboot. But here it is most appropriate. I'm all for calling

1702:, and by the discussion resolution representative. I'm sure the others are even less inclined than I am to continue this draining debate with you. Please answer my question about my suggestion. For the interview portion, I don't see how the wording could be objectionable.-- 3839:

it was only the prop. If Taylor's ship is not in "Beneath", then I think there is even less argument for the inclusion of this section. The only "shared plot elements" would be the Taylor's ship in "PotA" and in "Escape". It is about the shared plot, not the shared prop...

1493:"Well, it's funny. We were interviewed on the set last summer, and I said, "Well, it's a reinvention," and someone quickly said, "Well, that's exactly what Tim Burton told me in 2001," you know? So, it's really hard to say. I guess, if I had to pick, I would say reboot." 825:"Well, it's funny. We were interviewed on the set last summer, and I said, "Well, it's a reinvention," and someone quickly said, "Well, that's exactly what Tim Burton told me in 2001," you know? So, it's really hard to say. I guess, if I had to pick, I would say reboot." 1541:

I will offer one suggestion in the hopes of not excising important information due to this dispute over the word "prequel". We could use the source to say "Jaffa and Silver conceived the film as a way to restart the franchise by reworking the story of the chimpanzee

3620:

I disagree. The point of the section is shared elements in the films/TV series. Taylor's ship is one of those elements. It appears in 3 films and the first episode of the TV show. No argument that the section could use improvement but it shouldn't be eliminated.

2514:

Well, it's funny. We were interviewed on the set last summer, and I said, "Well, it's a reinvention," and someone quickly said, "Well, that's exactly what Tim Burton told me in 2001," you know? So, it's really hard to say. I guess, if I had to pick, I would say

1553:

source, the only one I've found that gets into this rather esoteric debate directly and in detail: "The film's complex connections to previous entries in the series caused confusion as to its exact relationship; critic Devin Feraci writes that it is at once a

3711:

I have expanded and updated that section. I still believe, if we want the section on "Shared plot elements" we need more than one element. I did not keep any references to the model kits since none that I saw looked to be licensed, so would not be considered

4028:, among others, link to comparable Wikia sites, and to be honest I found this one much more useful than those in that it includes background material and sources that could be incorporated here. Depending on what others feel, I'd like to restore the link.-- 1287:

I don't see where anyone is citing those sources in the article. If you want to add additional comments from those sources, that is separate question to what wording is used for that section based on the article cited. I sense enough of a consensus to be

640:

That was indeed my original point - since the film was clearly a reboot once it got a green light, there's no need to open the prequel issue in this franchise article. It's a small detail that is unneeded here. Jaffa's first response on the topic is

3801:

The single other entry was even worse than this one, as it was totally uncited. In any case, the material is still trivial indiscriminate info and receives undue weight being here. Have you seen such a section in other quality articles on media

707:

as standing separate as something that could happen after these events, and he specifically hopes they would not remake it (so basically, the new film is its prequel). Both writers explicitly agree with him, and Jaffa elaborates at length on

3739:

information. How do you propose to resolve that? I see no other GA or FA quality article on a media franchise that has a section on "shared plot elements"; in fact policy advises us against dwelling on plot at the expense of other important

220:

I am troubled by him filing a request and posting here implying I am now trying to do anything more than that. And the interview he favors as a source does not leave the reader with the impression there was a perfect balance between

3053:

that they were trying to created a different starting point than the original film series to get to a similar future that the the original film had portrayed. But (for reasons I do not understand) you did not like Jaffa's comments.

1509:

Silver asks the interviewer what he thinks, and he says he sees Planet as standing separate as something that could happen after these events, and he specifically hopes they would not remake it (so basically, the new film is its

841:

252:

source. Again, we could create entirely different implications by cherry-picking other lines from the same source (like the previous line). It's also just bad writing as it disrupts the flow of the sentence and paragraph.--

2046:, and hoped it would launch new series of sequels." This leaves out the reboot/prequel/whatever identification for now; if necessary we can return to that at some point, using a less over-parseable source, in the future.-- 986:

I'd object to removing the well-cited term "prequel" and stating with uncitable unequivocality that "Jaffa and Silver conceived of the film as a reboot", as I did when Gothicfilm first suggested it above, and for the same

3525:

Earlier consensus was for keeping it. That one particular book does not discuss it at length is not important. The section is small and near the bottom. It regards several films and the TV show, so it belongs here. -

1745:

I have twice posted five paragraphs on how it is objectionable. But you just ignore that, repeating your points as if no one ever disputed them. The writers never call it a prequel. The correct encyclopedic term for

3329:

a prequel. The article should not go off on tangents about "Sort of"(s) regarding this one film. I would endorse AbramTerger's wording in bold three paragraphs above, and I believe SonOfThornhill would as well. -

2907:

It would be easy enough to communicate what the author says. This is definitely encyclopedic, and reliably sourced, much more so than some of the trivia that's in the article now. We can return to the topic

2701:. The new series may eventually do a film with a similar premise to the 1968 film, but it would be within its own fictional universe. because its fictional universe is incompatible with the 1968 original. - 1626:

decision is whether it's better to remove the term "reboot", which everyone agrees is at least part of the film's identity and is useful for readers to know, or consent to adding what else the sources say.--

1454:

need to add quotes here. Simply telling people the writers "conceived the film as a reboot or prequel" already says it all without us disrupting the flow of the paragraph, and without the risk of us skewing

1166:

The source does discuss the film as conceived as a possible prequel to Planet, among other things. I'm merely pointing out this position is hardly unusual, regardless of your personal interpretation of the

899:

article (which I haven't tried to include as I don't know if this is worth article space here) sums up it up pretty well: the movie is several things at the same time, and we don't need to obfuscate that

1418:. To repeat myself yet again, right after Jaffa says "reboot" ("I guess", "if I had to pick", "it's hard to say", etc.), Silver asks the interviewer what he thinks, and the interviewer says he sees 2107:

There is no controversy that it's a reboot. The controversy is you want to add in "Sort of" possibilities. "If I had to pick, I would say reboot" is a definitive statement Jaffa never disavowed.

1312:. Selecting quotes that suit our position while ignoring others that don't is cherry-picking. It misrepresents the source, it's redundant considering that "reboot" is already mentioned, it's far 2458:

The only reason the interview spent time on discussing various possible conceptions was because the interviewer brought that up and clearly wanted to spend time on it. Rick Jaffa was happy with:

4008:

element that it presents "neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Knowledge article..." and well as the

3639:. It doesn't even follow the source accurately. It may be an interesting footnote for another article, but it adds nothing to an encyclopedic coverage of the Planet of the Apes franchise.-- 1591:

Glad to see you willing to compromise now that you've lost Consensus, after refusing until now to bend one inch. I don't see any need for saying it's a potential prequel to the original

1549:" This tells us key information about how the series was conceived, but tells us nothing of its relationship to the other films, which may be a significant omission. For that we can use 3035:. Again, it wouldn't be hard to represent what he says (assuming folks can avoid reading their personal interpretations into it). However, I'm not going to pursue this at present.-- 4012:

element of sites that "fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." The only elements of

3368:

Fine. I'm done. I have no more energy for trying to work with you, you can have your way. I'm going back to working on the article now; you can go back to whatever it is you do.--

1823:

sources that describe it as a prequel to the original film, we can note the comments of those sources, but placed in the context of the comments made by the authors themselves.

4020:

12; it's an open wiki, but it's stable and has a substantial number of contributors. At any rate, I don't see these as mandates against linking what seems to be a useful site.

3962:

You are welcome. If it is incorporated, I agree that perhaps a stronger reference should be found, especially if you think that the source may have used unreliable information

720:

imply "either/or"). They developed an idea, but aren't sure quite how to describe it (clearly). Plenty of other sources about the movie and its development call it a "prequel",

281:

I was trying not to be verbose. The wording can be changed, but the point remains: the source does not leave the reader with the impression there was a perfect balance between

1222:

The sources that use the term prequel are articles written by people that are not involved the films. The quotes from the actual writer and producers trump whatever they say.

3682:

That is your opinion. I don't agree with it. It is an important part of the franchise, in that it is what initiates the plots of the 3 films and TV series it is featured in.

1004:

It might be considered a "prequel" to the 2001 film. As for the "reboot" versus "reinvention" issue, if there's a difference between those terms I'd like to know what it is.

4127:(particularly as compared to the Star Wars and Star Trek wikis), and ELNEVER, as it violates copyright and well exceeds fair use in its incorporation of non-free materials. 3031:

It's a good summary of the types of things very many other sources say about how the movie connects to previous entries. It would be worth a line here, and probably more at

398:

I'm sorry you're unhappy, but the 3O request was as neutral as I could make it, and was based on your edits and comments in our (extremely long) discussion on the topic).--

1362:

The writers do not speak of it as a sequel. They mention what I had in there which seemed acceptable to 3 of the 4 people discussing it making it a consensus. The goal of

1395:

how would you edit the proposal to "cherry pick" less? what quotes would you use?. I have removed the inaccurate material that does not represent the cited material.

1152:

a reboot than a prequel.) You cannot make it sound like the writers said something they did not because other sources (who did not interview them) used that term. -

3067:

I have no problem with what Jaffa's comments, just with the reductive interpretation of them by some editors. Here, however, we were discussing a different source,

1566:." We could even throw in there that "Most sources called it a 'reboot'..." if you could find a source that speaks to such a consensus among writers on the topic.-- 1316:

of something of trivial significance, and it has the additional effect of disrupting the flow of the writing. The exact same approach was already rejected through

3731:

It's nice to see someone take some initiative to actually work on the article. However, this is still very weak tea. This trivial topic is now receiving totally

1500:

the fictional universe of the original.) After that they engage in a conversation, asking the interviewer what he would call it. The first thing he says is

832:

the fictional universe of the original.) After that they engage in a conversation, asking the interviewer what he would call it. The first thing he says is

1032:

is an encyclopedic term with a full article. Reinvention is not and has no article. But "reboot" and "reinvention" mean the same thing in this context. -

194:

film inspired by news articles on apes raised as humans, which they successfully pitched to 20th Century Fox. Jaffa and Silver conceived the film as a

166:

film inspired by news articles on apes raised as humans, which they successfully pitched to 20th Century Fox. Jaffa and Silver conceived the film as a

3071:. It would add some great info to the article, but I'm not going forward with it because I have no patience for another pedantic debate right now.-- 1320:. Clearly we're getting nowhere. We can either move on and return to improving the article, or we can go to the next level of dispute resolution.-- 3279:

On the contrary, I want to follow what the source says source than reading my own personal interpretation into it. And the article currently says

2809:

Again, that article speculates about it being "Sort of" a prequel and "Sort of" a remake. Not quite encyclopedic. But then even it concludes with

1487:

a reboot than a prequel. But Cúchullain claims this is about the writers' intentions, so lets focus on that. When first asked, Rick Jaffa says:

819:

a reboot than a prequel. But Cúchullain claims this is about the writers' intentions, so lets focus on that. When first asked, Rick Jaffa says:

4000:, I don't see the problem with this link. I referred to it as I expanded this article, and it seems to easily pass multiple different parts of 3566:

You don't need a source for a plot detail which is readily apparent in four of the films and the TV show. The section could use improvement. -

3217:"Jaffa and Silver conceived the film as a way to reboot the franchise by reinventing the story of the chimpanzee Caesar, the lead character of 1988:

will agree to that. There's no reason to mention other "Sort of" possibilities like prequel. The writers never actually called it a prequel. -

664:"reinvention or reboot" is not either/or concepts but synonyms for the same concept and as mentioned earlier, the words used in the article. 3937:

My thoughts exactly. Thanks, Abram. Perhaps some of the prop info can be incorporated in a more direct way in the "Production" sections of

1385:

that "we tried really hard to create a story that would stand on its own and yet also pay homage and honor the movies that came before us."

1069:

that "we tried really hard to create a story that would stand on its own and yet also pay homage and honor the movies that came before us."

920:

That article speculates about it being "Sort of" a prequel and "Sort of" a remake. Not quite encyclopedic. But then even it concludes with

3580:

You absolutely do need sources to determine whether material is noteworthy enough to include in a particular article and is given its

1308:

prequel" is an accurate representation of the entirety of the source, and several editors have agreed, including one weighing in for

895:

and we've got the writers themselves talking about the picture in those terms. As such, there's no simply reason to avoid the word.

731:

this one just happens to speak specifically to how it was conceived. I really don't understand the aversion to the term "prequel".--

71: 59: 1410:

Great, now you've removed the sentence on how the film came about and explaining how it's connected to the other series. Wonderful.

716:. Additionally, I disagree that "prequel or reboot" implies an "either/or" proposition (especially if "reinvention or reboot" does 4148: 4116: 4080: 4035: 3952: 3869: 3809: 3747: 3646: 3594: 3548: 3514: 3466: 3375: 3294: 3201: 3078: 3042: 2915: 2726: 2380: 2182: 2053: 1921: 1782: 1709: 1633: 1573: 1462: 1327: 1174: 1109: 994: 910: 738: 585: 518: 459: 405: 360: 259: 135: 3541:

was featured in several films or the TV show. It will never hold up in GA and FA reviews, which is what I ultimately hope for.--

2244:

No, we don't have to give a full picture with "Sort of"(s) on what's supposed to be a brief description of the film. You do not

1090: 725: 4047: 3899:

I removed that section. If it only ties the first and 3rd it is not really shared too much as a plot element in the franchise.

1086: 721: 100: 90: 3779:

keeping and improving both, but if only one is kept than of course you don't keep it under a Shared plot elements header. -

2268:

appropriate references, although I am frankly confused as to what, in the history of this franchise, it would be a prequel

511:

doing exactly that. So... Either way, the 3O volunteer weighed in on your idea to add a quote as well. Time to let it go.--

174:, (though Jaffa said "I guess, if I had to pick, I would say reboot"), and hoped it would launch a new series of sequels. 3068: 2715: 1550: 1096: 896: 3585: 187: 159: 3215:

No we don't need the quotes. I was trying to address your issues with the "sort-of prequel aspect". I could live with:

431:

You should have worded it based on where the dispute was at that time. And I could have easily made it more neutral. -

3287:

before any real encyclopedic information had been added, because it was so perfect it couldn't possibly be improved?--

1770: 1543: 3009:

What that article really does is bring up and then dismiss the "Sort of"s. As such, its points could be added to the

944:"Jaffa and Silver conceived the film as a reboot of the franchise and hoped it would launch a new series of sequels." 3174:

That is the most I see as a "sort-of prequel" statements. Or please, edit the statement and propose something else.

1773: 1547: 105: 38: 1088: 723: 1092: 727: 698:

I'd object to using "reinvention", since (1) it doesn't really mean anything, and (2) Jaffas says that's what he

2571:"Rise" refers to events in that film itself - the Conquest - not the 1968 film. As AbramTerger wrote well above: 3736: 3687: 3626: 3418: 3254: 2175:

However, we can go forward with the compromise wording that avoids the problematic terms. Is that acceptable?--

1227: 330:

statement by Cúchullain satisfy me as a reader. The quote, IMHO, should not be added to the article. Regards.

3413:

Please, you've been the one with the my way or the highway additude on an issue the was resolved years ago.

2373:

alternative wording that doesn't have such a specific meaning as "reboot", which they're ambivalent about.--

560:

The endorsement was days later, after you refused to accept my compromise - that was all I was trying to do

47: 17: 1479:

has no continuity with the original series. There are numerous inconsistencies in its fictional universe.

811:

has no continuity with the original series. There are numerous inconsistencies in its fictional universe.

1066:

The cited article does not call the film a prequel. How about having more of what the article indicates:

3967: 3904: 3844: 3765: 3721: 3503: 3459:

LOL, "resolved years ago"? I guess that explains why the articles have been in such a wonderful state.--

3229: 3179: 3058: 1698:

The original version is supported by me, the article's primary contributor; by univolved content editor

1400: 1298: 1076: 951: 784: 669: 619: 1512:

That does not make it a prequel. That would make it a series reboot. Particularly since the premise of

1473:

I already answered this above. Since you are acting as if these points weren't made, I'll repeat them:

844:

That does not make it a prequel. That would make it a series reboot. Particularly since the premise of

3963: 3900: 3840: 3761: 3717: 3225: 3175: 3054: 1981: 1430:

is its prequel). He further specifically says hopes they would not do anything else with the original

1396: 1382:

can you both live with the statement I had in as representing Jaffe's remarks in the cited interview:

1294: 1072: 947: 780: 665: 615: 4145: 4132: 4113: 4077: 4055: 4032: 3949: 3866: 3806: 3784: 3744: 3643: 3591: 3571: 3545: 3531: 3511: 3463: 3372: 3335: 3291: 3198: 3075: 3039: 3022: 2912: 2818: 2723: 2706: 2377: 2357: 2258: 2179: 2117: 2050: 1993: 1918: 1876: 1779: 1759: 1706: 1669: 1630: 1604: 1570: 1529: 1459: 1324: 1171: 1157: 1106: 1037: 991: 969: 929: 907: 861: 735: 654: 582: 569: 515: 498: 456: 436: 402: 387: 357: 294: 256: 234: 132: 119: 3833: 3683: 3622: 3581: 3414: 3250: 3140: 1985: 1414:

For the last time, the writers do indeed discuss the film in terms of being a potential prequel to

1370: 1223: 507:

At no point did you say, "Ok, I no longer want to excise the term 'prequel'", and in fact you just

350: 331: 3224:

uses the words from the citation instead of putting proverbial words into their proverbial mouths.

946:

since there seems to be objections to their use of "reinvention" and they never mention "prequel".

3015:

It’s essentially creating a new timeline that would allow Fox to explore Planet of the Apes again

2811:

It’s essentially creating a new timeline that would allow Fox to explore Planet of the Apes again

922:

It’s essentially creating a new timeline that would allow Fox to explore Planet of the Apes again

873: 447: 1871:

Why do you keep wanting to call it a prequel to the 2001 film? No source I've seen says that. -

1595:- because it isn't. It is not consistent with its fictional universe. And far more sources call 1094: 729: 4106: 4009: 3735:

in an article that covers the entire franchise, and is out of place enough that it feels like

1904:, where the volunteer favored the original wording over removing "prequel" or adding a quote. 3137:

I see no reason to keep rehashing the arguments. Let's discuss what people want as wording.

2352:

That's because it isn't a prequel to anything. It started its own new fictional universe. -

2282: 2250: 2108: 1968: 1893: 1833: 1751: 1555: 1480: 1313: 1029: 1014: 812: 775: 763: 195: 167: 95: 4101:, could you explain the problem with the the Wikia link? As I said above, it seems to pass 3587:

by a blog doesn't cut it, especially when we have so many high quality sources available.--

1387:? If so lets put it in an move on to other things. If not, lets decide on some compromises 4153: 4142: 4136: 4128: 4121: 4110: 4102: 4098: 4085: 4074: 4070: 4059: 4051: 4040: 4029: 4005: 3971: 3957: 3946: 3908: 3874: 3863: 3848: 3814: 3803: 3788: 3780: 3769: 3752: 3741: 3732: 3725: 3691: 3651: 3640: 3636: 3630: 3599: 3588: 3575: 3567: 3553: 3542: 3535: 3527: 3519: 3508: 3471: 3460: 3422: 3380: 3369: 3339: 3331: 3299: 3288: 3258: 3233: 3206: 3195: 3183: 3156: 3148: 3083: 3072: 3062: 3047: 3036: 3026: 3018: 2920: 2909: 2822: 2814: 2720: 2710: 2702: 2385: 2374: 2361: 2353: 2287: 2262: 2254: 2187: 2176: 2121: 2113: 2058: 2047: 1997: 1989: 1926: 1915: 1880: 1872: 1838: 1787: 1776: 1763: 1755: 1714: 1703: 1673: 1665: 1638: 1627: 1608: 1600: 1578: 1567: 1533: 1525: 1467: 1456: 1404: 1390: 1377: 1332: 1321: 1302: 1282: 1231: 1179: 1168: 1161: 1153: 1114: 1103: 1080: 1041: 1033: 1019: 999: 988: 973: 965: 955: 933: 925: 915: 904: 865: 857: 788: 768: 743: 732: 673: 658: 650: 623: 590: 579: 573: 565: 523: 512: 502: 494: 464: 453: 440: 432: 410: 399: 391: 383: 365: 354: 337: 298: 290: 264: 253: 238: 230: 140: 129: 128:

it as "reboot or prequel," without the quote, adequately covers the writers' discussion.--

109: 3854: 4013: 564:. Which should be readily apparent to anyone who reads that part of the discussion. - 2245: 1967:

I don't like "rework". I'd rather go with "Jaffa and Silver conceived the film as a

1363: 1289: 903:

I'm going back to editing the article now. I'll check the talk page again tomorrow.--

493:

At that time I was saying I wanted to add in that quote. That was perfectly clear. -

3249:

hole. Leave the article as is. We don't need to change it to make one person happy.

4001: 3713: 1901: 1317: 1309: 611: 375: 320: 149: 85: 643:

We were interviewed on the set last summer, and I said, "Well, it's a reinvention"

4141:

Thanks for the explanation. I didn't catch the copyright issues with the site.--

3164: 2366: 2273: 2249:

completely unambiguous, and people know that. There's no reason to deny readers

1885: 1824: 1699: 1005: 754: 46:

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

314: 3013:

article if carefully worded, and as long as it comes to the same conclusion:

1502:

From where I sit, it stands apart from the movies that are already out there.

1102:(often alongside it being a "reboot"). There's no getting around that fact.-- 834:

From where I sit, it stands apart from the movies that are already out there.

4025: 4021: 1914:

suggestion regarding possible ways forward, as I'm at my wits end on this.--

1098:

do indeed discuss the article in terms of being a prequel to the original

1892:. The sentence in question is "Jaffa and Silver conceived the film as a 1422:

as standing separate as something that could happen after the events of

4046:

We went through a long process over this months ago, as you can see at

1434:(ie, the "rebooting" shouldn't extend to that part of the narrative). 774:

that take place before the first film and some taking place after it.

214:(though Jaffa said "I guess, if I had to pick, I would say reboot"). 2697:, but it seems the third reboot film will be a direct follow-up to 4016:

I see it coming against are the fact are 11 (it's a fansite) and

1438:

with this take. Jaffa then goes on to discuss the possibility of

1483:

has a precise meaning, and that is it. Far more sources called

815:

has a precise meaning, and that is it. Far more sources called

614:

assessment from seeing the original franchise and these films).

3760:

if there are no other "shared plot elements" in the franchise.

1148:

called it a prequel? (And even though far more sources called

452:

Perhaps you should have just been clearer in the discussion.--

25: 3283:

at all. Is that what you want? Should it just be restored to

1293:

to edit as long as you represent what the citation indicates.

124:

In addition, Gothicfilm has added a quote from the interview

108:

or whether it can only be called a "reboot". Additionally,

2813:. That means reboot. It gives no "Sort of" on that one. - 924:. That means reboot. It gives no "Sort of" on that one. - 374:

This was a response to your less-than-neutral posting at

3997: 3584:. Being called one of the "top 75 spaceships in movies" 3499: 3284: 2253:, which is an encyclopedic term with a full article. - 1911: 1908: 1905: 1889: 508: 125: 113: 202:, and hoped it would launch a new series of sequels. 3221:, and hoped it would launch a new series of sequels." 3194:, and hoped it would launch new series of sequels."-- 378:

where you made it sound like I was arguing to delete

1980:, but gave him a new background history." I believe 3853:You're the one that added the source. I've found a 1085:

The cited article and various others I've linked to

4050:. I would be for restoring it, as I was before. - 148:For the record, by the time Cuchullain put in his 1907:Now, Abram Terger has deleted the entire passage. 118:Previous discussion can be found on my talk page 753:(even if not in the first film of that series). 4109:and is similar to what's done on other sites.-- 3635:It's the only thing in that section, and it's 647:I guess, if I had to pick, I would say reboot 8: 152:request, this dispute was strictly between: 1562:, and a potential prequel to the original 208:the only difference being the inclusion of 1664:a series reboot. Or at least a reboot. - 88:for a dispute over whether we should say 1888:, the original wording is what I added 883:as a potential prequel to the original 94:was conceived of by the writers as a " 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 749:apes" ground covered by the original 116:quote, which I don't find beneficial. 7: 1560:Conquest of the Planet of the Apes 24: 1558:of the series, a loose remake of 1524:calling it reinvention/reboot. - 856:calling it reinvention/reboot. - 4073:. We'll see what others think.-- 313: 29: 4048:Talk:Planet of the Apes (novel) 1516:is closest to the fourth film, 848:is closest to the fourth film, 4154:15:19, 25 September 2014 (UTC) 4137:14:19, 25 September 2014 (UTC) 4122:13:07, 25 September 2014 (UTC) 3017:- the definition of reboot. - 349:Thanks so much for your help, 190:developed a concept for a new 162:developed a concept for a new 91:Rise of the Planet of the Apes 1: 4086:23:20, 2 September 2014 (UTC) 4060:21:29, 2 September 2014 (UTC) 4041:21:07, 2 September 2014 (UTC) 3992:Planet of the Apes Wikia link 3972:21:23, 8 September 2014 (UTC) 3958:18:19, 8 September 2014 (UTC) 3909:17:57, 8 September 2014 (UTC) 3875:13:58, 8 September 2014 (UTC) 3849:09:55, 8 September 2014 (UTC) 3815:18:52, 6 September 2014 (UTC) 3789:18:23, 6 September 2014 (UTC) 3770:17:07, 6 September 2014 (UTC) 3753:17:02, 6 September 2014 (UTC) 3726:12:06, 6 September 2014 (UTC) 3692:01:01, 6 September 2014 (UTC) 3652:14:15, 5 September 2014 (UTC) 3631:10:46, 5 September 2014 (UTC) 3600:23:16, 2 September 2014 (UTC) 3576:21:41, 2 September 2014 (UTC) 3554:21:33, 2 September 2014 (UTC) 3536:21:26, 2 September 2014 (UTC) 3520:21:20, 2 September 2014 (UTC) 3472:20:58, 7 September 2014 (UTC) 3423:19:49, 7 September 2014 (UTC) 3381:18:56, 7 September 2014 (UTC) 3340:18:12, 7 September 2014 (UTC) 3300:17:09, 7 September 2014 (UTC) 3259:16:19, 7 September 2014 (UTC) 3234:15:24, 7 September 2014 (UTC) 3207:15:05, 7 September 2014 (UTC) 3184:09:29, 7 September 2014 (UTC) 3084:13:58, 8 September 2014 (UTC) 3063:09:49, 8 September 2014 (UTC) 3048:20:58, 7 September 2014 (UTC) 3027:20:22, 7 September 2014 (UTC) 2921:19:49, 7 September 2014 (UTC) 2823:19:42, 7 September 2014 (UTC) 2711:18:12, 7 September 2014 (UTC) 2386:15:05, 7 September 2014 (UTC) 2362:04:11, 7 September 2014 (UTC) 2288:04:07, 7 September 2014 (UTC) 2263:04:00, 7 September 2014 (UTC) 2188:03:45, 7 September 2014 (UTC) 2122:03:35, 7 September 2014 (UTC) 2059:03:07, 7 September 2014 (UTC) 1998:02:48, 7 September 2014 (UTC) 1927:00:04, 7 September 2014 (UTC) 1881:21:19, 6 September 2014 (UTC) 1839:21:11, 6 September 2014 (UTC) 1788:00:04, 7 September 2014 (UTC) 1764:21:15, 6 September 2014 (UTC) 1715:19:43, 6 September 2014 (UTC) 1674:19:15, 6 September 2014 (UTC) 1639:18:52, 6 September 2014 (UTC) 1609:18:33, 6 September 2014 (UTC) 1579:18:10, 6 September 2014 (UTC) 1534:18:34, 6 September 2014 (UTC) 1468:17:35, 6 September 2014 (UTC) 1436:Both writers explicitly agree 1405:17:10, 6 September 2014 (UTC) 1333:14:24, 6 September 2014 (UTC) 1303:10:51, 6 September 2014 (UTC) 1232:01:08, 6 September 2014 (UTC) 1180:00:47, 6 September 2014 (UTC) 1162:00:19, 6 September 2014 (UTC) 1115:23:53, 5 September 2014 (UTC) 1081:23:24, 5 September 2014 (UTC) 1042:22:47, 5 September 2014 (UTC) 1020:22:41, 5 September 2014 (UTC) 1000:22:38, 5 September 2014 (UTC) 974:22:35, 5 September 2014 (UTC) 964:Yes, I would endorse that. - 956:22:17, 5 September 2014 (UTC) 934:22:33, 5 September 2014 (UTC) 916:22:11, 5 September 2014 (UTC) 866:22:04, 5 September 2014 (UTC) 789:21:27, 5 September 2014 (UTC) 769:18:42, 5 September 2014 (UTC) 744:14:08, 5 September 2014 (UTC) 674:09:38, 5 September 2014 (UTC) 659:00:01, 5 September 2014 (UTC) 624:23:18, 4 September 2014 (UTC) 591:00:47, 6 September 2014 (UTC) 574:00:07, 6 September 2014 (UTC) 524:23:53, 5 September 2014 (UTC) 503:22:22, 5 September 2014 (UTC) 465:22:11, 5 September 2014 (UTC) 441:21:06, 5 September 2014 (UTC) 411:14:08, 5 September 2014 (UTC) 392:20:58, 4 September 2014 (UTC) 366:15:09, 4 September 2014 (UTC) 338:12:53, 4 September 2014 (UTC) 299:04:00, 4 September 2014 (UTC) 265:03:48, 4 September 2014 (UTC) 239:03:28, 4 September 2014 (UTC) 141:02:22, 4 September 2014 (UTC) 1028:a prequel to the 2001 film. 188:Rick Jaffa and Amanda Silver 160:Rick Jaffa and Amanda Silver 1896:or prequel to the original 1599:a reboot than a prequel. - 1442:leading up to the original 1024:I have seen no source call 198:or prequel to the original 170:or prequel to the original 98:or prequel of the original 4178: 2719:have the energy for that. 2693:has a similar premise to 2685:has a similar premise to 879:plenty of others discuss 712:as a possible future of 186:In 2006, screenwriters 158:In 2006, screenwriters 18:Talk:Planet of the Apes 3637:poorly sourced trivia 942:Can we all live with 645:. Then later he says 321:third opinion request 42:of past discussions. 4004:. It fulfills the 3507:better sources).-- 1973:Planet of the Apes 1593:Planet of the Apes 1564:Planet of the Apes 1318:dispute resolution 1310:dispute resolution 1100:Planet of the Apes 891:itself references 885:Planet of the Apes 192:Planet of the Apes 164:Planet of the Apes 101:Planet of the Apes 4151: 4119: 4083: 4038: 3955: 3872: 3812: 3750: 3737:WP:INDISCRIMINATE 3649: 3597: 3551: 3517: 3469: 3378: 3297: 3204: 3081: 3045: 2918: 2729: 2383: 2185: 2056: 1924: 1785: 1712: 1636: 1576: 1465: 1330: 1314:too much coverage 1177: 1112: 997: 913: 877: 741: 588: 521: 462: 451: 408: 363: 343: 342: 262: 138: 84:I've requested a 77: 76: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 4169: 4149: 4117: 4081: 4036: 3953: 3870: 3837: 3810: 3748: 3647: 3595: 3549: 3515: 3467: 3376: 3295: 3202: 3168: 3160: 3152: 3144: 3079: 3043: 2916: 2727: 2381: 2280: 2251:Reboot (fiction) 2183: 2109:Reboot (fiction) 2054: 1971:of the original 1922: 1831: 1783: 1752:Reboot (fiction) 1710: 1634: 1574: 1507:Cúchullain says 1481:Reboot (fiction) 1463: 1394: 1381: 1374: 1328: 1286: 1175: 1110: 1030:Reboot (fiction) 1012: 995: 911: 871: 839:Cúchullain says 813:Reboot (fiction) 761: 739: 586: 519: 460: 445: 406: 361: 334: 317: 310: 309: 260: 136: 80:"Reboot" dispute 68: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 4177: 4176: 4172: 4171: 4170: 4168: 4167: 4166: 3996:In response to 3994: 3831: 3496: 3162: 3154: 3146: 3138: 2274: 1825: 1388: 1375: 1368: 1367:in the article. 1280: 1006: 755: 332: 110:User:Gothicfilm 82: 64: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 4175: 4173: 4165: 4164: 4163: 4162: 4161: 4160: 4159: 4158: 4157: 4156: 4091: 4090: 4089: 4088: 4063: 4062: 3993: 3990: 3989: 3988: 3987: 3986: 3985: 3984: 3983: 3982: 3981: 3980: 3979: 3978: 3977: 3976: 3975: 3974: 3922: 3921: 3920: 3919: 3918: 3917: 3916: 3915: 3914: 3913: 3912: 3911: 3886: 3885: 3884: 3883: 3882: 3881: 3880: 3879: 3878: 3877: 3834:SonOfThornhill 3822: 3821: 3820: 3819: 3818: 3817: 3794: 3793: 3792: 3791: 3773: 3772: 3756: 3755: 3709: 3708: 3707: 3706: 3705: 3704: 3703: 3702: 3701: 3700: 3699: 3698: 3697: 3696: 3695: 3694: 3684:SonOfThornhill 3665: 3664: 3663: 3662: 3661: 3660: 3659: 3658: 3657: 3656: 3655: 3654: 3623:SonOfThornhill 3609: 3608: 3607: 3606: 3605: 3604: 3603: 3602: 3559: 3558: 3557: 3556: 3504:WP:UNDUEWEIGHT 3495: 3492: 3491: 3490: 3489: 3488: 3487: 3486: 3485: 3484: 3483: 3482: 3481: 3480: 3479: 3478: 3477: 3476: 3475: 3474: 3440: 3439: 3438: 3437: 3436: 3435: 3434: 3433: 3432: 3431: 3430: 3429: 3428: 3427: 3426: 3425: 3415:SonOfThornhill 3396: 3395: 3394: 3393: 3392: 3391: 3390: 3389: 3388: 3387: 3386: 3385: 3384: 3383: 3353: 3352: 3351: 3350: 3349: 3348: 3347: 3346: 3345: 3344: 3343: 3342: 3311: 3310: 3309: 3308: 3307: 3306: 3305: 3304: 3303: 3302: 3268: 3267: 3266: 3265: 3264: 3263: 3262: 3261: 3251:SonOfThornhill 3239: 3238: 3237: 3236: 3210: 3209: 3141:SonOfThornhill 3135: 3134: 3133: 3132: 3131: 3130: 3129: 3128: 3127: 3126: 3125: 3124: 3123: 3122: 3121: 3120: 3119: 3118: 3117: 3116: 3115: 3114: 3113: 3112: 3111: 3110: 3109: 3108: 3107: 3106: 3105: 3104: 3103: 3102: 3101: 3100: 3099: 3098: 3097: 3096: 3095: 3094: 3093: 3092: 3091: 3090: 3089: 3088: 3087: 3086: 2964: 2963: 2962: 2961: 2960: 2959: 2958: 2957: 2956: 2955: 2954: 2953: 2952: 2951: 2950: 2949: 2948: 2947: 2946: 2945: 2944: 2943: 2942: 2941: 2940: 2939: 2938: 2937: 2936: 2935: 2934: 2933: 2932: 2931: 2930: 2929: 2928: 2927: 2926: 2925: 2924: 2923: 2864: 2863: 2862: 2861: 2860: 2859: 2858: 2857: 2856: 2855: 2854: 2853: 2852: 2851: 2850: 2849: 2848: 2847: 2846: 2845: 2844: 2843: 2842: 2841: 2840: 2839: 2838: 2837: 2836: 2835: 2834: 2833: 2832: 2831: 2830: 2829: 2828: 2827: 2826: 2825: 2768: 2767: 2766: 2765: 2764: 2763: 2762: 2761: 2760: 2759: 2758: 2757: 2756: 2755: 2754: 2753: 2752: 2751: 2750: 2749: 2748: 2747: 2746: 2745: 2744: 2743: 2742: 2741: 2740: 2739: 2738: 2737: 2736: 2735: 2734: 2733: 2732: 2731: 2645: 2644: 2643: 2642: 2641: 2640: 2639: 2638: 2637: 2636: 2635: 2634: 2633: 2632: 2631: 2630: 2629: 2628: 2607: 2606: 2605: 2604: 2603: 2602: 2601: 2600: 2599: 2598: 2597: 2596: 2595: 2594: 2593: 2592: 2591: 2590: 2589: 2588: 2587: 2586: 2585: 2584: 2583: 2582: 2581: 2580: 2579: 2578: 2577: 2576: 2575: 2574: 2573: 2572: 2534: 2533: 2532: 2531: 2530: 2529: 2528: 2527: 2526: 2525: 2524: 2523: 2522: 2521: 2520: 2519: 2518: 2517: 2494: 2493: 2492: 2491: 2490: 2489: 2488: 2487: 2486: 2485: 2484: 2483: 2482: 2481: 2480: 2479: 2478: 2477: 2476: 2475: 2474: 2473: 2472: 2471: 2470: 2469: 2468: 2467: 2466: 2465: 2464: 2463: 2462: 2461: 2460: 2459: 2421: 2420: 2419: 2418: 2417: 2416: 2415: 2414: 2413: 2412: 2411: 2410: 2409: 2408: 2407: 2406: 2405: 2404: 2403: 2402: 2401: 2400: 2399: 2398: 2397: 2396: 2395: 2394: 2393: 2392: 2391: 2390: 2389: 2388: 2370: 2319: 2318: 2317: 2316: 2315: 2314: 2313: 2312: 2311: 2310: 2309: 2308: 2307: 2306: 2305: 2304: 2303: 2302: 2301: 2300: 2299: 2298: 2297: 2296: 2295: 2294: 2293: 2292: 2291: 2290: 2215: 2214: 2213: 2212: 2211: 2210: 2209: 2208: 2207: 2206: 2205: 2204: 2203: 2202: 2201: 2200: 2199: 2198: 2197: 2196: 2195: 2194: 2193: 2192: 2191: 2190: 2147: 2146: 2145: 2144: 2143: 2142: 2141: 2140: 2139: 2138: 2137: 2136: 2135: 2134: 2133: 2132: 2131: 2130: 2129: 2128: 2127: 2126: 2125: 2124: 2082: 2081: 2080: 2079: 2078: 2077: 2076: 2075: 2074: 2073: 2072: 2071: 2070: 2069: 2068: 2067: 2066: 2065: 2064: 2063: 2062: 2061: 2019: 2018: 2017: 2016: 2015: 2014: 2013: 2012: 2011: 2010: 2009: 2008: 2007: 2006: 2005: 2004: 2003: 2002: 2001: 2000: 1986:SonOfThornhill 1946: 1945: 1944: 1943: 1942: 1941: 1940: 1939: 1938: 1937: 1936: 1935: 1934: 1933: 1932: 1931: 1930: 1929: 1854: 1853: 1852: 1851: 1850: 1849: 1848: 1847: 1846: 1845: 1844: 1843: 1842: 1841: 1807: 1806: 1805: 1804: 1803: 1802: 1801: 1800: 1799: 1798: 1797: 1796: 1795: 1794: 1793: 1792: 1791: 1790: 1728: 1727: 1726: 1725: 1724: 1723: 1722: 1721: 1720: 1719: 1718: 1717: 1685: 1684: 1683: 1682: 1681: 1680: 1679: 1678: 1677: 1676: 1648: 1647: 1646: 1645: 1644: 1643: 1642: 1641: 1616: 1615: 1614: 1613: 1612: 1611: 1584: 1583: 1582: 1581: 1497: 1496: 1495: 1494: 1471: 1470: 1448: 1447: 1412: 1411: 1371:SonOfThornhill 1360: 1359: 1358: 1357: 1356: 1355: 1354: 1353: 1352: 1351: 1350: 1349: 1348: 1347: 1346: 1345: 1344: 1343: 1342: 1341: 1340: 1339: 1338: 1337: 1336: 1335: 1255: 1254: 1253: 1252: 1251: 1250: 1249: 1248: 1247: 1246: 1245: 1244: 1243: 1242: 1241: 1240: 1239: 1238: 1237: 1236: 1235: 1234: 1224:SonOfThornhill 1199: 1198: 1197: 1196: 1195: 1194: 1193: 1192: 1191: 1190: 1189: 1188: 1187: 1186: 1185: 1184: 1183: 1182: 1130: 1129: 1128: 1127: 1126: 1125: 1124: 1123: 1122: 1121: 1120: 1119: 1118: 1117: 1053: 1052: 1051: 1050: 1049: 1048: 1047: 1046: 1045: 1044: 979: 978: 977: 976: 959: 958: 939: 938: 937: 936: 901: 829: 828: 827: 826: 806: 805: 804: 803: 802: 801: 800: 799: 798: 797: 796: 795: 794: 793: 792: 791: 685: 684: 683: 682: 681: 680: 679: 678: 677: 676: 631: 630: 629: 628: 627: 626: 607: 606: 605: 604: 603: 602: 601: 600: 599: 598: 597: 596: 595: 594: 593: 541: 540: 539: 538: 537: 536: 535: 534: 533: 532: 531: 530: 529: 528: 527: 526: 478: 477: 476: 475: 474: 473: 472: 471: 470: 469: 468: 467: 420: 419: 418: 417: 416: 415: 414: 413: 369: 368: 351:AmritasyaPutra 341: 340: 333:AmritasyaPutra 326: 325: 308: 307: 306: 305: 304: 303: 302: 301: 272: 271: 270: 269: 268: 267: 244: 243: 242: 241: 212: 211: 210: 209: 184: 183: 182: 181: 156: 155: 154: 153: 123: 117: 81: 78: 75: 74: 69: 62: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 4174: 4155: 4152: 4146: 4144: 4140: 4139: 4138: 4134: 4130: 4125: 4124: 4123: 4120: 4114: 4112: 4108: 4104: 4100: 4097: 4096: 4095: 4094: 4093: 4092: 4087: 4084: 4078: 4076: 4072: 4067: 4066: 4065: 4064: 4061: 4057: 4053: 4049: 4045: 4044: 4043: 4042: 4039: 4033: 4031: 4027: 4023: 4019: 4015: 4011: 4007: 4003: 3999: 3991: 3973: 3969: 3965: 3961: 3960: 3959: 3956: 3950: 3948: 3944: 3940: 3936: 3935: 3934: 3933: 3932: 3931: 3930: 3929: 3928: 3927: 3926: 3925: 3924: 3923: 3910: 3906: 3902: 3898: 3897: 3896: 3895: 3894: 3893: 3892: 3891: 3890: 3889: 3888: 3887: 3876: 3873: 3867: 3865: 3861: 3856: 3852: 3851: 3850: 3846: 3842: 3835: 3830: 3829: 3828: 3827: 3826: 3825: 3824: 3823: 3816: 3813: 3807: 3805: 3800: 3799: 3798: 3797: 3796: 3795: 3790: 3786: 3782: 3777: 3776: 3775: 3774: 3771: 3767: 3763: 3758: 3757: 3754: 3751: 3745: 3743: 3738: 3734: 3730: 3729: 3728: 3727: 3723: 3719: 3715: 3693: 3689: 3685: 3681: 3680: 3679: 3678: 3677: 3676: 3675: 3674: 3673: 3672: 3671: 3670: 3669: 3668: 3667: 3666: 3653: 3650: 3644: 3642: 3638: 3634: 3633: 3632: 3628: 3624: 3619: 3618: 3617: 3616: 3615: 3614: 3613: 3612: 3611: 3610: 3601: 3598: 3592: 3590: 3586: 3583: 3579: 3578: 3577: 3573: 3569: 3565: 3564: 3563: 3562: 3561: 3560: 3555: 3552: 3546: 3544: 3539: 3538: 3537: 3533: 3529: 3524: 3523: 3522: 3521: 3518: 3512: 3510: 3505: 3501: 3493: 3473: 3470: 3464: 3462: 3458: 3457: 3456: 3455: 3454: 3453: 3452: 3451: 3450: 3449: 3448: 3447: 3446: 3445: 3444: 3443: 3442: 3441: 3424: 3420: 3416: 3412: 3411: 3410: 3409: 3408: 3407: 3406: 3405: 3404: 3403: 3402: 3401: 3400: 3399: 3398: 3397: 3382: 3379: 3373: 3371: 3367: 3366: 3365: 3364: 3363: 3362: 3361: 3360: 3359: 3358: 3357: 3356: 3355: 3354: 3341: 3337: 3333: 3328: 3323: 3322: 3321: 3320: 3319: 3318: 3317: 3316: 3315: 3314: 3313: 3312: 3301: 3298: 3292: 3290: 3286: 3282: 3278: 3277: 3276: 3275: 3274: 3273: 3272: 3271: 3270: 3269: 3260: 3256: 3252: 3247: 3246: 3245: 3244: 3243: 3242: 3241: 3240: 3235: 3231: 3227: 3222: 3220: 3214: 3213: 3212: 3211: 3208: 3205: 3199: 3197: 3193: 3188: 3187: 3186: 3185: 3181: 3177: 3173: 3166: 3158: 3150: 3142: 3085: 3082: 3076: 3074: 3070: 3066: 3065: 3064: 3060: 3056: 3051: 3050: 3049: 3046: 3040: 3038: 3034: 3030: 3029: 3028: 3024: 3020: 3016: 3012: 3008: 3007: 3006: 3005: 3004: 3003: 3002: 3001: 3000: 2999: 2998: 2997: 2996: 2995: 2994: 2993: 2992: 2991: 2990: 2989: 2988: 2987: 2986: 2985: 2984: 2983: 2982: 2981: 2980: 2979: 2978: 2977: 2976: 2975: 2974: 2973: 2972: 2971: 2970: 2969: 2968: 2967: 2966: 2965: 2922: 2919: 2913: 2911: 2906: 2905: 2904: 2903: 2902: 2901: 2900: 2899: 2898: 2897: 2896: 2895: 2894: 2893: 2892: 2891: 2890: 2889: 2888: 2887: 2886: 2885: 2884: 2883: 2882: 2881: 2880: 2879: 2878: 2877: 2876: 2875: 2874: 2873: 2872: 2871: 2870: 2869: 2868: 2867: 2866: 2865: 2824: 2820: 2816: 2812: 2808: 2807: 2806: 2805: 2804: 2803: 2802: 2801: 2800: 2799: 2798: 2797: 2796: 2795: 2794: 2793: 2792: 2791: 2790: 2789: 2788: 2787: 2786: 2785: 2784: 2783: 2782: 2781: 2780: 2779: 2778: 2777: 2776: 2775: 2774: 2773: 2772: 2771: 2770: 2769: 2730: 2724: 2722: 2717: 2714: 2713: 2712: 2708: 2704: 2700: 2696: 2692: 2688: 2684: 2681: 2680: 2679: 2678: 2677: 2676: 2675: 2674: 2673: 2672: 2671: 2670: 2669: 2668: 2667: 2666: 2665: 2664: 2663: 2662: 2661: 2660: 2659: 2658: 2657: 2656: 2655: 2654: 2653: 2652: 2651: 2650: 2649: 2648: 2647: 2646: 2625: 2624: 2623: 2622: 2621: 2620: 2619: 2618: 2617: 2616: 2615: 2614: 2613: 2612: 2611: 2610: 2609: 2608: 2570: 2569: 2568: 2567: 2566: 2565: 2564: 2563: 2562: 2561: 2560: 2559: 2558: 2557: 2556: 2555: 2554: 2553: 2552: 2551: 2550: 2549: 2548: 2547: 2546: 2545: 2544: 2543: 2542: 2541: 2540: 2539: 2538: 2537: 2536: 2535: 2516: 2512: 2511: 2510: 2509: 2508: 2507: 2506: 2505: 2504: 2503: 2502: 2501: 2500: 2499: 2498: 2497: 2496: 2495: 2457: 2456: 2455: 2454: 2453: 2452: 2451: 2450: 2449: 2448: 2447: 2446: 2445: 2444: 2443: 2442: 2441: 2440: 2439: 2438: 2437: 2436: 2435: 2434: 2433: 2432: 2431: 2430: 2429: 2428: 2427: 2426: 2425: 2424: 2423: 2422: 2387: 2384: 2378: 2376: 2371: 2368: 2365: 2364: 2363: 2359: 2355: 2351: 2350: 2349: 2348: 2347: 2346: 2345: 2344: 2343: 2342: 2341: 2340: 2339: 2338: 2337: 2336: 2335: 2334: 2333: 2332: 2331: 2330: 2329: 2328: 2327: 2326: 2325: 2324: 2323: 2322: 2321: 2320: 2289: 2286: 2285: 2281: 2279: 2278: 2271: 2266: 2265: 2264: 2260: 2256: 2252: 2247: 2243: 2242: 2241: 2240: 2239: 2238: 2237: 2236: 2235: 2234: 2233: 2232: 2231: 2230: 2229: 2228: 2227: 2226: 2225: 2224: 2223: 2222: 2221: 2220: 2219: 2218: 2217: 2216: 2189: 2186: 2180: 2178: 2173: 2172: 2171: 2170: 2169: 2168: 2167: 2166: 2165: 2164: 2163: 2162: 2161: 2160: 2159: 2158: 2157: 2156: 2155: 2154: 2153: 2152: 2151: 2150: 2149: 2148: 2123: 2119: 2115: 2110: 2106: 2105: 2104: 2103: 2102: 2101: 2100: 2099: 2098: 2097: 2096: 2095: 2094: 2093: 2092: 2091: 2090: 2089: 2088: 2087: 2086: 2085: 2084: 2083: 2060: 2057: 2051: 2049: 2045: 2041: 2040: 2039: 2038: 2037: 2036: 2035: 2034: 2033: 2032: 2031: 2030: 2029: 2028: 2027: 2026: 2025: 2024: 2023: 2022: 2021: 2020: 1999: 1995: 1991: 1987: 1983: 1979: 1974: 1970: 1966: 1965: 1964: 1963: 1962: 1961: 1960: 1959: 1958: 1957: 1956: 1955: 1954: 1953: 1952: 1951: 1950: 1949: 1948: 1947: 1928: 1925: 1919: 1917: 1913: 1909: 1906: 1903: 1899: 1895: 1891: 1887: 1884: 1883: 1882: 1878: 1874: 1870: 1869: 1868: 1867: 1866: 1865: 1864: 1863: 1862: 1861: 1860: 1859: 1858: 1857: 1856: 1855: 1840: 1837: 1836: 1832: 1830: 1829: 1821: 1820: 1819: 1818: 1817: 1816: 1815: 1814: 1813: 1812: 1811: 1810: 1809: 1808: 1789: 1786: 1780: 1778: 1774: 1772: 1767: 1766: 1765: 1761: 1757: 1753: 1749: 1744: 1743: 1742: 1741: 1740: 1739: 1738: 1737: 1736: 1735: 1734: 1733: 1732: 1731: 1730: 1729: 1716: 1713: 1707: 1705: 1701: 1697: 1696: 1695: 1694: 1693: 1692: 1691: 1690: 1689: 1688: 1687: 1686: 1675: 1671: 1667: 1663: 1658: 1657: 1656: 1655: 1654: 1653: 1652: 1651: 1650: 1649: 1640: 1637: 1631: 1629: 1624: 1623: 1622: 1621: 1620: 1619: 1618: 1617: 1610: 1606: 1602: 1598: 1594: 1590: 1589: 1588: 1587: 1586: 1585: 1580: 1577: 1571: 1569: 1565: 1561: 1557: 1552: 1548: 1545: 1540: 1539: 1538: 1537: 1536: 1535: 1531: 1527: 1521: 1519: 1515: 1511: 1505: 1503: 1492: 1491: 1490: 1489: 1488: 1486: 1482: 1478: 1474: 1469: 1466: 1460: 1458: 1453: 1449: 1445: 1441: 1437: 1433: 1429: 1425: 1421: 1417: 1413: 1409: 1408: 1407: 1406: 1402: 1398: 1392: 1386: 1379: 1372: 1365: 1334: 1331: 1325: 1323: 1319: 1315: 1311: 1306: 1305: 1304: 1300: 1296: 1291: 1284: 1279: 1278: 1277: 1276: 1275: 1274: 1273: 1272: 1271: 1270: 1269: 1268: 1267: 1266: 1265: 1264: 1263: 1262: 1261: 1260: 1259: 1258: 1257: 1256: 1233: 1229: 1225: 1221: 1220: 1219: 1218: 1217: 1216: 1215: 1214: 1213: 1212: 1211: 1210: 1209: 1208: 1207: 1206: 1205: 1204: 1203: 1202: 1201: 1200: 1181: 1178: 1172: 1170: 1165: 1164: 1163: 1159: 1155: 1151: 1146: 1145: 1144: 1143: 1142: 1141: 1140: 1139: 1138: 1137: 1136: 1135: 1134: 1133: 1132: 1131: 1116: 1113: 1107: 1105: 1101: 1097: 1095: 1093: 1091: 1089: 1087: 1084: 1083: 1082: 1078: 1074: 1070: 1065: 1064: 1063: 1062: 1061: 1060: 1059: 1058: 1057: 1056: 1055: 1054: 1043: 1039: 1035: 1031: 1027: 1023: 1022: 1021: 1018: 1017: 1013: 1011: 1010: 1003: 1002: 1001: 998: 992: 990: 985: 984: 983: 982: 981: 980: 975: 971: 967: 963: 962: 961: 960: 957: 953: 949: 945: 941: 940: 935: 931: 927: 923: 919: 918: 917: 914: 908: 906: 902: 898: 894: 890: 886: 882: 875: 874:edit conflict 870: 869: 868: 867: 863: 859: 853: 851: 847: 843: 837: 835: 824: 823: 822: 821: 820: 818: 814: 810: 790: 786: 782: 777: 772: 771: 770: 767: 766: 762: 760: 759: 752: 747: 746: 745: 742: 736: 734: 730: 728: 726: 724: 722: 719: 715: 711: 706: 701: 697: 696: 695: 694: 693: 692: 691: 690: 689: 688: 687: 686: 675: 671: 667: 662: 661: 660: 656: 652: 648: 644: 639: 638: 637: 636: 635: 634: 633: 632: 625: 621: 617: 613: 608: 592: 589: 583: 581: 577: 576: 575: 571: 567: 563: 559: 558: 557: 556: 555: 554: 553: 552: 551: 550: 549: 548: 547: 546: 545: 544: 543: 542: 525: 522: 516: 514: 510: 506: 505: 504: 500: 496: 492: 491: 490: 489: 488: 487: 486: 485: 484: 483: 482: 481: 480: 479: 466: 463: 457: 455: 449: 448:edit conflict 444: 443: 442: 438: 434: 430: 429: 428: 427: 426: 425: 424: 423: 422: 421: 412: 409: 403: 401: 397: 396: 395: 394: 393: 389: 385: 381: 377: 373: 372: 371: 370: 367: 364: 358: 356: 352: 348: 347: 346: 339: 336: 328: 327: 323: 322: 316: 312: 311: 300: 296: 292: 288: 284: 280: 279: 278: 277: 276: 275: 274: 273: 266: 263: 257: 255: 250: 249: 248: 247: 246: 245: 240: 236: 232: 228: 224: 219: 218: 217: 216: 215: 207: 206: 205: 204: 203: 201: 197: 193: 189: 179: 178: 177: 176: 175: 173: 169: 165: 161: 151: 150:third opinion 147: 146: 145: 144: 143: 142: 139: 133: 131: 126: 121: 115: 111: 107: 103: 102: 97: 93: 92: 87: 86:third opinion 79: 73: 70: 67: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 4017: 3995: 3942: 3938: 3859: 3733:undue weight 3710: 3582:WP:DUEWEIGHT 3497: 3326: 3280: 3218: 3216: 3191: 3170: 3136: 3032: 3014: 3010: 2810: 2698: 2694: 2690: 2686: 2682: 2513: 2283: 2276: 2275: 2269: 2043: 1977: 1972: 1897: 1834: 1827: 1826: 1747: 1661: 1596: 1592: 1563: 1559: 1522: 1517: 1513: 1508: 1506: 1501: 1498: 1484: 1476: 1475: 1472: 1451: 1443: 1439: 1435: 1431: 1427: 1423: 1419: 1415: 1383: 1361: 1149: 1099: 1067: 1025: 1015: 1008: 1007: 943: 921: 892: 888: 884: 880: 854: 849: 845: 840: 838: 833: 830: 816: 808: 807: 764: 757: 756: 750: 717: 713: 709: 704: 699: 646: 642: 562:at that time 561: 379: 344: 319:Response to 318: 286: 282: 226: 222: 213: 199: 191: 185: 171: 163: 157: 99: 89: 83: 65: 43: 37: 3964:AbramTerger 3901:AbramTerger 3841:AbramTerger 3762:AbramTerger 3740:material.-- 3718:AbramTerger 3226:AbramTerger 3176:AbramTerger 3055:AbramTerger 2716:This source 1982:AbramTerger 1397:AbramTerger 1295:AbramTerger 1073:AbramTerger 948:AbramTerger 781:AbramTerger 666:AbramTerger 616:AbramTerger 578:Yeah, ok.-- 106:this source 36:This is an 4143:Cúchullain 4129:Nikkimaria 4111:Cúchullain 4107:WP:ELMAYBE 4099:Nikkimaria 4075:Cúchullain 4052:Gothicfilm 4030:Cúchullain 4010:WP:ELMAYBE 3947:Cúchullain 3864:Cúchullain 3804:Cúchullain 3781:Gothicfilm 3742:Cúchullain 3641:Cúchullain 3589:Cúchullain 3568:Gothicfilm 3543:Cúchullain 3528:Gothicfilm 3509:Cúchullain 3498:Regarding 3461:Cúchullain 3370:Cúchullain 3332:Gothicfilm 3289:Cúchullain 3285:how it was 3196:Cúchullain 3169:How about: 3157:Cuchullain 3149:Gothicfilm 3073:Cúchullain 3037:Cúchullain 3019:Gothicfilm 2910:Cúchullain 2815:Gothicfilm 2721:Cúchullain 2703:Gothicfilm 2375:Cúchullain 2354:Gothicfilm 2255:Gothicfilm 2177:Cúchullain 2114:Gothicfilm 2048:Cúchullain 1990:Gothicfilm 1916:Cúchullain 1873:Gothicfilm 1777:Cúchullain 1756:Gothicfilm 1704:Cúchullain 1666:Gothicfilm 1628:Cúchullain 1601:Gothicfilm 1568:Cúchullain 1526:Gothicfilm 1457:Cúchullain 1426:(ie, that 1391:Cuchullain 1378:Gothicfilm 1322:Cúchullain 1283:Cuchullain 1169:Cúchullain 1154:Gothicfilm 1104:Cúchullain 1034:Gothicfilm 989:Cúchullain 987:reasons.-- 966:Gothicfilm 926:Gothicfilm 905:Cúchullain 858:Gothicfilm 733:Cúchullain 651:Gothicfilm 580:Cúchullain 566:Gothicfilm 513:Cúchullain 495:Gothicfilm 454:Cúchullain 433:Gothicfilm 400:Cúchullain 384:Gothicfilm 355:Cúchullain 291:Gothicfilm 254:Cúchullain 231:Gothicfilm 130:Cúchullain 112:has added 4026:Star Trek 4022:Star Wars 3858:again in 3802:series?-- 1510:prequel). 1455:things.-- 842:prequel). 776:Star Trek 72:Archive 3 66:Archive 2 60:Archive 1 4103:WP:ELYES 4071:WP:ELYES 4006:WP:ELYES 3219:Conquest 3192:Conquest 2908:later.-- 2687:Conquest 2515:reboot." 2044:Conquest 1978:Conquest 1518:Conquest 850:Conquest 509:endorsed 4014:WP:ELNO 3943:Beneath 3281:nothing 1910:I made 1167:word.-- 380:prequel 283:prequel 223:prequel 104:", per 39:archive 3939:Planet 3860:Escape 3165:BD2412 2695:Battle 2367:BD2412 2277:bd2412 2246:WP:OWN 1969:reboot 1898:Planet 1894:reboot 1886:BD2412 1828:bd2412 1771:Caesar 1700:BD2412 1556:reboot 1544:Caesar 1450:We do 1444:Planet 1432:Planet 1420:Planet 1416:Planet 1364:WP:BRD 1290:WP:BRD 1009:bd2412 893:Planet 887:film. 758:bd2412 751:series 710:Planet 705:Planet 287:reboot 227:reboot 200:Planet 196:reboot 172:Planet 168:reboot 96:reboot 4018:maybe 4002:WP:EL 3714:WP:RS 1902:WP:3O 900:fact. 612:WP:OR 376:WP:3O 16:< 4133:talk 4105:and 4056:talk 4024:and 3998:this 3968:talk 3941:and 3905:talk 3855:link 3845:talk 3785:talk 3766:talk 3722:talk 3688:talk 3627:talk 3572:talk 3532:talk 3500:this 3494:Ship 3419:talk 3336:talk 3327:Rise 3255:talk 3230:talk 3180:talk 3069:this 3059:talk 3033:Rise 3023:talk 3011:Rise 2819:talk 2707:talk 2699:Dawn 2691:Dawn 2683:Rise 2358:talk 2259:talk 2118:talk 1994:talk 1984:and 1912:this 1890:here 1877:talk 1775:"?-- 1760:talk 1754:. - 1748:Rise 1670:talk 1662:Rise 1605:talk 1597:Rise 1551:this 1530:talk 1514:Rise 1485:Rise 1477:Rise 1440:Rise 1428:Rise 1424:Rise 1401:talk 1299:talk 1228:talk 1158:talk 1150:Rise 1077:talk 1038:talk 1026:Rise 970:talk 952:talk 930:talk 897:This 889:Rise 881:Rise 862:talk 846:Rise 817:Rise 809:Rise 785:talk 714:Rise 670:talk 655:talk 620:talk 570:talk 499:talk 437:talk 388:talk 295:talk 289:. - 285:and 235:talk 225:and 120:here 114:this 3945:.-- 1750:is 1452:not 718:not 700:had 353:.-- 180:and 4135:) 4058:) 3970:) 3907:) 3847:) 3787:) 3768:) 3724:) 3690:) 3629:) 3574:) 3534:) 3421:) 3338:) 3257:) 3232:) 3182:) 3061:) 3025:) 2821:) 2709:) 2689:, 2360:) 2272:. 2270:to 2261:) 2120:) 1996:) 1879:) 1762:) 1672:) 1607:) 1532:) 1403:) 1301:) 1230:) 1160:) 1079:) 1040:) 972:) 954:) 932:) 864:) 787:) 672:) 657:) 622:) 572:) 501:) 439:) 390:) 345:. 324:: 297:) 237:) 4150:c 4147:/ 4131:( 4118:c 4115:/ 4082:c 4079:/ 4054:( 4037:c 4034:/ 3966:( 3954:c 3951:/ 3903:( 3871:c 3868:/ 3843:( 3836:: 3832:@ 3811:c 3808:/ 3783:( 3764:( 3749:c 3746:/ 3720:( 3716:. 3686:( 3648:c 3645:/ 3625:( 3596:c 3593:/ 3570:( 3550:c 3547:/ 3530:( 3516:c 3513:/ 3468:c 3465:/ 3417:( 3377:c 3374:/ 3334:( 3296:c 3293:/ 3253:( 3228:( 3203:c 3200:/ 3178:( 3167:: 3163:@ 3161:, 3159:: 3155:@ 3153:, 3151:: 3147:@ 3145:, 3143:: 3139:@ 3080:c 3077:/ 3057:( 3044:c 3041:/ 3021:( 2917:c 2914:/ 2817:( 2728:c 2725:/ 2705:( 2382:c 2379:/ 2356:( 2284:T 2257:( 2184:c 2181:/ 2116:( 2055:c 2052:/ 1992:( 1923:c 1920:/ 1875:( 1835:T 1784:c 1781:/ 1758:( 1711:c 1708:/ 1668:( 1635:c 1632:/ 1603:( 1575:c 1572:/ 1546:. 1528:( 1464:c 1461:/ 1399:( 1393:: 1389:@ 1380:: 1376:@ 1373:: 1369:@ 1329:c 1326:/ 1297:( 1285:: 1281:@ 1226:( 1176:c 1173:/ 1156:( 1111:c 1108:/ 1075:( 1071:. 1036:( 1016:T 996:c 993:/ 968:( 950:( 928:( 912:c 909:/ 876:) 872:( 860:( 783:( 765:T 740:c 737:/ 668:( 653:( 618:( 587:c 584:/ 568:( 520:c 517:/ 497:( 461:c 458:/ 450:) 446:( 435:( 407:c 404:/ 386:( 362:c 359:/ 335:✍ 293:( 261:c 258:/ 233:( 137:c 134:/ 50:.

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

Index