1444:
same small percent as the multi-episode articles, if not less. So your argument then about small use-cases is irrelevant. Additionally, you claim that the scope now takes into account different
English dialects. First of all, that is incorrect. You used "series/programme", where is "program", which is the actual corresponding word for "programme". Continuing from this, your addition was never necessary, as the template never had any issue with different English dialects, which your edit introduced. In addition to it not being needed and not actually resolving the issue of different dialects, your addition also introduced an unnecessary issue of specifying a program type. You wrote "series" and "programme", what about "miniseries", "serial", "talk show", "game show", etc? All these are valid type of series types we use in disambiguation. If you choose two types, why not 3? Why not 4? Why not all of them? The reason they were never listed, is because they are not necessary. To complete this, you also ignored
1513:
substance of the matter. (And if you don't even understand that "programme" is a generic term for "TV show" in most forms of
Commonwealth English, not a specific genre of TV show, I dunno what to tell you. But I don't care much about inclusion of the word; I just noticed that these templates/categories tend to be rather US-English-heavy.) My edit to the wording correctly indicates where these redirects can go; yours does not; it over-dwells on one rare edge case, while excluding various other cases which are actually permissible. I've already been over all this and more, and decline to be drawn into recycling it all in detail with you. If you're going to revert people, you need to have an actual reason or you come off as territorial, combative, disrespectful of others' time and effort, and generally unreasonable. You're the one doing IDONTLIKEIT here, plus a dose of
329:
311:
1562:
point that this template is also rarely used to redirect to a series (American usage) article and not a section. I've worked with episode redirects a lot and I do think the primary applications are redirecting to standalone lists, or sections of series or season articles. How about reversing the progression, and saying "... a standalone list of episodes, a series/programme or subsection thereof, or a related episode." Also, I'm not sure wht is being referred to with the term "multi-episode article". Thanks!—
1365:
he put it) a redir to a crossover article, or (one I remembered myself) a redir of e.g. part 3 of a 3-part serial to the first part because all 3 are covered at the same article. Together, such cases account for probably less than 1% of all present or future uses of this template. All of the rest of them are going to be what my version of the text says they will be: an article about a series/programme, a subsection thereof, or a standalone list of episodes.
104:
21:
1404:, as is the reasoning for reverting to it. PS: Gonnym's last statement is hard to parse, but seems to suggest that we cannot even have an article on a TV show if it doesn't have an episode list, or that we cannot have a redirect for an episode name if the parent article on the series does not contain an "episode" section; both of those assertions are patently false, though I suppose the expression might have some third meaning I didn't ferret out.
163:
1436:
troublesome. Additionally categorizing the reverts as "mass-reverting" and making two revisions become "all my revisions", when in fact, they were the almost the same edit with a couple of words difference is again showing how your behavior is very troubling. I suggested you go to the talk page and have a discussion as edit summaries aren't the place for it (as WP:BRD suggests), but you completely ignored all parts of
241:
251:
223:
924:, under "Categories just for redirects" it says "They are often applied using templates, though such categories can also be created and populated directly." I am interested in the template vs direct categorization question in general, but my immediate concern is with regard to fixing a hundred or so broken (mistargeted) X-Files episode redirects. Some are already tagged with
153:
135:
1372:: "I disagree with your change", followed by this strange musing: "The destination cannot be a 'series/programme' if it doesn't mention the episode, which is why it clearly says "sub section", "list of episodes" or a "related episode". If it's just a general series article with no episode section it shouldn't exist in the first place."
1392:: wikiprojects and other little knots of editors cannot lay claim to topics that interest them). So, no, it absolutely is not required that there be a list or other sectional redirect target in order for this rcat to be used. Even if there is an embedded list, there is no requirement that it have its own section heading (see
1561:
Yikes, I hate to see two editors whose work I admire locked in a battle to the death. Regarding the template wording, I do prefer the organization of Option 2, placing "related episode" at the end as this seems to be a rare situation (I've never seen an episode redirect that does this). Gonnym made a
1435:
at all. Calling another editors edits being done "reflexively" and categorizing another editor who reverted your bold change with "edit warring" is extremely misleading, borderline lying. The fact that you don't respect WP:BRD, as you feel your edit is the status-quo and any revert is wrong, is very
1145:
Currently the template's name and description intend for this to be placed on episode redirects leading to a list of episode article. However, not all episode redirects are to these articles. Articles such as crossovers or multi-part story arcs, have redirects from the individual episodes leading to
1443:
Now for the actual issue. You say that multi-episode articles are a small percent. I agree. You mention that it can be for a short miniseries in prose form without a section. Even if you'd ignore the Manual of Style on how articles should be structured, those cases you mentioned are at best, at the
1364:
Gonnym's initial rationale was "the destination can be a related episode. An episode redirecting to a crossover article, alt name, etc." (Which was no reason to do anything but re-insert "a related episode".) So I put "a related episode" back in. "A related episode" is a rare edge case, such as (as
1512:
to comment instead of going back-and-forth with a single individual over and over again. Reasoned criticism of behavior and weak rationales isn't an "attack". Not a single argument you're making above is persuasive; it's venty hand-waving about side-matter trivia that has nothing to do with the
655:
Interesting question here on this template use: Would it make sense that redirected episode articls should also include the general category for the TV series' episodes? In other words, what I've set up here is all WP administration and not general use. But for a casual user, if they click to
600:
As I see this is gaining use, I'm wondering if it would be worthwhile to add an optional parameter to this function that identifies the TV series such that the categoriy of redirected episodes would populate (what should be) a subcategory "(show) episode redirects to lists" of the main "Episode
743:
As
Sgeureka noted above, he classified the tv series specific episode redirection category as part of "stargate sg-1" episodes. Thus, that category contains 1) all the standalone episode pages spelled out, and 2) a subcat for the redirects. I think that's definitely a good idea. I was only
1459:
when both versions in this RfC describe accurately the template. The issue is the selection of words. But what does facts matter in 2020? Also, as SMcCandlish pointed out, unlike his bold edits, I actually posted on the talk page and waited for responses and when they didn't come, went to
1338:
despite seeming to have his mind made up already. A charitable view of his previous proposal to re-scope this template (see thread above this one, with zero responses after months) is that pretty much no one watchlists this page, so more people need to be drawn to the discussion anyway.
985:
Another feature that this one doesn't currently use is to add text to the redirect page to explain what the redirect is in addition to the category. Should that text be added, it will automatically appear on all redirects that use this, but not those pages that only use categories.
744:
suggesting on expanding that so that each episode (redirect or not) would be in that list for the non-editor to quickly find an episode by name, in addition to having the redirection sub-cat, but I see what you're saying about making it easy to identify better. --
1379:
will simply delete redirects that go to pages that don't mention the redirected topic. Next, it's entirely reasonable for an article on a short miniseries to just present its three or so episodes in prose form, without a tedious table-formatted list (despite
932:
while others use ] directly. Which should I use for the untagged redirects, should I replace one style with the other in those redirects I am editing anyhow, and should I make that replacement in those redirects that I would not otherwise need to edit? --
581:
Unfortunately it follows other specific-type redirects (MER for middle earth topic redirects, CR for comic-related redirects.) Now, that's not to say we can create a template that redirects to the proper name for the redirect, maybe "EpR to list entry".
521:
And just wonder how it should be used. Do you add this to every episode that's been redirected or just one from a series? Also, do you do this to all episode articles that have been redirected or just ones where the redirection is contested?
601:
redirects to lists" category. The only problem is that this requires a one-time step that once the sub-category is active, the sub-cat must be included in the "Episode redirects to lists" category; this step can be mentioned in the docs. --
706:
Redirected episode articles should be included in the category for the TV series' episodes. If possible, it should be a subcategory identified as redirects, so that editors using that list will know which links are redirects, and which are
950:
The template is really preferred, I'd think, as it does the categorization automatically, and makes it easier to track them as a whole. So I'd replace those with direct category links with the template, to more clearly identify them. --
791:
Is there a way to add a sort argument to the template, or is this function perhaps already implemented? Currently an episode titled "The Horse" would sort under T rather than H, which is of course not the way we typically sort here.—
1448:. To repeat what I said in the edit summary - an episode redirect can redirect to another episode article, a section of another article - be it the main series article or some other article, or to a list of episodes articles.
469:
because of its message to not delete the redirect "in order to preserve its edit history" (for possible article resurrection), even when I merged nothing (because there was nothing to merge). Is it still advisable to use
1360:
I have objected to Gonnym reflexively mass-reverting all my revisions, including after my attempt to work in his concern to retain "a related episode" despite the rarity of that ever being relevant, yet he persists.
553:
That's fine, just checking for clarification. I'm working on moving episodes from an animated series to the list of episodes for that show, and while I prefer the list I wouldn't mind doing this while I'm at it.
1044:
to a bug that was closed as fixed a long time ago. Has this problem been resolved on WP and should the page be updated to reflect that? This issue also seems to be a main criticism of the template method at
500:
I think either ER can be added, or just use both templates. I've been putting both when using it for a merge, and ER to list entry alone where the redirect was created just to be a shortcut to the list.
640:
I've made the addition, and I already see people jumping on its use. Note that I've added a trackign category that we should be able to use to find articles that aren't sorted into series correctly. --
571:
I like the template too and would like to get ready to use it retroactively, but I don't like the template's name because it sounds like the hospital show. Does someone have a better idea? –
537:
It should be for any episode that is redirected to an episode list page. Yes, it's a lot of work if a large episode set is merged down, but it does help for future referencing. --
1174:
and it's text updated to reflect that it can also lead to targets like those given above. This will also make it similar to other fiction-related redirect templates like
1618:
1623:
1628:
277:
41:. Substantial changes should first be proposed and discussed here on this page. If the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported by
68:
1603:
84:
1572:
I think I've smoothed things over with Gonnym in e-mail; I should not have been so testy! I'm happy to have the exact wording and word order tweaked. :-)
1608:
1537:(which usually takes a few days to kick in). What I actually expect is a "Version 3" result that fine-tunes further. That's how these things usually go.
63:
1613:
264:
228:
185:
1375:
No one said anything about "doesn't mention the episode". That's part of the general redirect rules, and has nothing to do with TV in particular;
1290:- since it's accurate, while Opt. 2 is not and is confusing, and is dwelling on a rare edge case. Details below in extended discussion section. --
1266:, since it's accurate, while Opt. 1 is not and is confusing, and is dwelling on a rare edge case. Details below in extended discussion section.
1068:
for tagging those redirects to articles discussing individual episodes? (Not sure if such a thing would have any purpose -- just checking.) --
1633:
51:
1461:
349:
440:
Good question. The best I was able to figure out from my readings last night/this morning would be to certainly put the ER to list entry on
756:
I think such automatically generated complete lists would duplicate the purpose of (presumably existing, since we're redirecting to them)
1357:"The destination may be an article about a series/programme, a subsection thereof, a standalone list of episodes, or a related episode."
1468:
1230:"The destination may be an article about a series/programme, a subsection thereof, a standalone list of episodes, or a related episode."
1178:
921:
176:
140:
1488:
1198:
1091:
964:
904:
815:
26:
1128:
be categorized", so that template seems to imply that something in particular is missing. I think I need to do some more reading. --
802:
At the moment, no, there isn't. Something to look into, for sure. Not sure if adding a defaultsort to the page would work or not. --
1583:
1548:
1478:
1416:
1277:
1247:
1188:
357:
This banner should be placed on the talk pages of project, template and category pages that exist and operate to maintain redirects.
1521:. I'm not likely to come back here unless someone pings me. This can just run its RfC month and settle out as it will. I notified
336:
316:
46:
38:
679:
189:
115:
49:}} to notify an administrator or template editor to make the requested edit. Usually, any contributor may edit the template's
669:
I don't know if you're referring to my action a few minutes ago, but I just did that for SG-1, and I think it works great. –
276:, and related topics on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
32:
772:
727:
690:
631:
378:
427:
1428:
1078:
Nope, as it wouldn't really have much purposes. Articles usually are not merged into an individual episode article. --
623:
Great idea. I had to read this a couple times to make sense of it; I suggest including a clear example in the docs. /
423:
1046:
917:
79:
1171:
1037:
927:
484:
1167:
1129:
1069:
1050:
1020:
934:
882:
1514:
1452:
1369:
1108:
891:
The same reason templates are used for any redirect page? (now, what that is, I don't know...off hand :P). --
444:(the article's "official name"), and the regular alternate name one on the rest? I could be wrong though. :P
121:
1252:
1344:"The destination may be an article about a related episode, a subsection or a standalone list of episodes."
1062:
348:
on
Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the
1526:
1227:"The destination may be an article about a related episode, a subsection or a standalone list of episodes."
418:
How should this template be used when an episode article with alternate names gets merged/redirected? E.g.
1163:
1159:
1085:
958:
898:
809:
656:"Stargate SG-1 episodes", would it not be reasonable to include all redirected episodes into that list? --
506:
449:
256:
1530:
1522:
1432:
881:
What reasons are there to use this template instead of the related category directly (or vice versa)? --
614:
An excellent idea. This will be needed to make this manageable when the template gets widespread use. --
373:
42:
1580:
1545:
1413:
1274:
1244:
474:
463:
328:
310:
1455:
on the current version of the text and claiming another editor is using it and at the same time saying
1385:
764:
articles, which do the job better and without requiring the creation of probably unneeded redirects. /
341:
1464:
to get consensus for the change. Finally, the current wording of the text is consistent with those of
1151:
1437:
1331:
1315:
1588:
1566:
1553:
1518:
1503:
1421:
1319:
1299:
1282:
1213:
1132:
1095:
1072:
1053:
1023:
998:
968:
937:
908:
885:
866:
835:
819:
796:
776:
751:
731:
694:
673:
663:
647:
635:
618:
608:
589:
575:
563:
544:
531:
510:
494:
453:
434:
1155:
828:
Added. Second parameter (not required) will allow you to set the sort key for the categories. --
1121:
1079:
952:
892:
803:
769:
724:
687:
628:
559:
527:
502:
445:
168:
1381:
345:
1575:
1540:
1499:
1408:
1295:
1269:
1239:
1209:
1147:
89:
87:
1534:
1389:
1376:
1335:
81:
994:
181:
920:
would seem to indicate that direct category placement is preferred to template use. In
1311:
615:
1597:
1563:
849:
793:
670:
572:
491:
431:
56:
714:
be included in articles because that is not reader-informative encyclopedic content.
162:
82:
765:
720:
683:
624:
555:
523:
430:? It's either episodes appearing as duplicates in the category, or not properly. –
1462:
Knowledge (XXG) talk:WikiProject
Redirect#Template talk:R to TV episode list entry
1508:
I'm just going to skip most of that; I opened this as an RfC specifically to get
1495:
1308:
1291:
1205:
441:
419:
184:. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can
180:, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Knowledge (XXG) articles about
1352:
1351:(and also takes care to make sure the scope is clear to people with different
987:
829:
745:
657:
641:
602:
583:
538:
250:
246:
240:
222:
158:
1445:
1393:
1347:
That does not accurately describe what this template is for. The following
1397:
1368:
Gonnym's rationale in round 2 of reverting for no clear reason is just
1041:
152:
134:
273:
269:
1330:
I opened this RfC because I'm being revert-warred by Gonnym with
490:
to also say something about not just deleting the redirect? –
366:
designed to be placed on the talk pages of most redirects and
97:
15:
1040:
mentions a "nuisance" regarding category updates and gives a
682:. I agree this looks like the right way to organize these. /
1457:
That does not accurately describe what this template is for
86:
80:
1116:
922:
WP:Categorizing redirects#When to categorize a redirect
72:
1342:
The text has said (and has be re-re-reverted to say):
1058:
Is there a categorizing template along the lines of
480:
in such a case now, or can we expand the message of
340:, a collaborative effort to improve the standard of
268:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
1396:), and such a list is not "a standalone list" (see
740:
Must be too early for me to verbalize this well :-)
1170:. The template name should probably be changed to
1451:Basically what we have here is SMcCandlish using
1334:that doesn't make any sense, and he insisted on
1047:WP:Categorization#Categorization using templates
918:WP:Categorization#Categorization using templates
459:Last question (for now): I have previously used
188:. For how to use this banner template, see its
114:does not require a rating on Knowledge (XXG)'s
1388:actually be forced on other editors; see also
1141:Issues with the name and scope of the template
71:subpage. You can create the testcases subpage
8:
1104:Thanks. I get a little confused when I see
1117:War of the Coprophages(The X-Files episode)
678:I made my comment below without looking at
286:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Anime and manga
305:
217:
129:
1384:wikiproject formatting obsessions, which
1400:). So, the original/reverted-to wording
376:redirects. For more information see the
61:Any contributor may edit the template's
1619:Template-Class anime and manga articles
703:Again, not sure I understand. I'd say:
307:
219:
131:
39:heavily used or highly visible template
1624:NA-importance anime and manga articles
1456:
1122:WP:CAT-R#When to categorize a redirect
198:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Television
1629:All WikiProject Anime and manga pages
262:This template is within the scope of
174:This template is within the scope of
103:
101:
7:
1223:Should this template say (in part):
1219:RfC: The template wording's accuracy
1124:starts out , "Most redirects should
710:Lists of redirected episodes should
389:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Redirect
289:Template:WikiProject Anime and manga
428:Citizen Joe (Stargate SG-1 episode)
120:It is of interest to the following
1604:Template-Class television articles
1427:Your entire comment here reeks of
27:Template:R from television episode
14:
1609:NA-importance television articles
334:This page is within the scope of
327:
309:
249:
239:
221:
161:
151:
133:
102:
67:. This template does not have a
19:
1614:WikiProject Television articles
1517:and something that sounds like
1038:Template:ER to list entry#Usage
680:Category:Stargate SG-1 episodes
201:Template:WikiProject Television
1133:05:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
1096:01:10, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
1073:00:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
1054:03:43, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
1024:03:43, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
999:03:25, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
969:03:23, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
938:03:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
909:02:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
886:02:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
1:
1634:Template-Class redirect pages
1589:05:47, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
1573:
1538:
1440:and jumped to a RfC. Amazing.
1406:
1320:00:08, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
1267:
1237:
1214:11:40, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
392:Template:WikiProject Redirect
352:and see a list of open tasks.
280:and see a list of open tasks.
1567:15:53, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
1554:14:08, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
1504:08:56, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
1422:06:56, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
1300:08:57, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
1283:06:56, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
1253:06:56, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
1019:Thanks, templates it is. --
867:06:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
836:05:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
820:00:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
797:00:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
777:18:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
752:18:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
732:17:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
695:18:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
674:17:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
664:17:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
648:16:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
636:15:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
619:15:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
609:15:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
590:17:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
576:16:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
564:17:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
545:16:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
532:15:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
511:02:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
495:00:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
454:14:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
435:14:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
424:Citizen Joe (Stargate SG-1)
265:WikiProject Anime and manga
1650:
1533:of this RfC, plus there's
1469:R from fictional character
1179:R from fictional character
1172:Template:R from TV episode
1489:R from fictional location
1199:R from fictional location
322:
234:
146:
128:
1479:R from fictional element
1218:
1189:R from fictional element
1168:Gorilla City (The Flash)
292:anime and manga articles
47:edit template-protected
1164:Attack on Gorilla City
1160:Attack on Central City
379:template documentation
257:Anime and manga portal
177:WikiProject Television
55:to add usage notes or
372:on the talk pages of
1152:Legends of Yesterday
877:Template vs category
337:WikiProject Redirect
45:, editors may use {{
1402:is simply incorrect
1326:Extended discussion
204:television articles
186:join the discussion
182:television programs
1431:with a dash of no
1429:WP:PERSONALATTACKS
1156:Heroes Join Forces
426:, and potentially
116:content assessment
1114:tags, such as on
775:
730:
693:
634:
411:
410:
407:
406:
403:
402:
383:
304:
303:
300:
299:
216:
215:
212:
211:
169:Television portal
96:
95:
1641:
1587:
1552:
1493:
1487:
1483:
1477:
1473:
1467:
1420:
1353:English dialects
1281:
1251:
1203:
1197:
1193:
1187:
1183:
1177:
1148:Legends of Today
1119:
1113:
1107:
1082:
1067:
1061:
991:
955:
931:
928:ER to list entry
895:
864:
862:
860:
858:
833:
806:
768:
749:
723:
686:
661:
645:
627:
606:
587:
542:
489:
485:ER to list entry
483:
479:
473:
468:
462:
397:
396:
393:
390:
387:
359:
331:
324:
323:
313:
306:
294:
293:
290:
287:
284:
259:
254:
253:
243:
236:
235:
225:
218:
206:
205:
202:
199:
196:
171:
166:
165:
155:
148:
147:
137:
130:
107:
106:
105:
98:
90:
37:because it is a
23:
22:
16:
1649:
1648:
1644:
1643:
1642:
1640:
1639:
1638:
1594:
1593:
1491:
1485:
1481:
1475:
1471:
1465:
1328:
1260:
1233:Something else?
1221:
1201:
1195:
1191:
1185:
1181:
1175:
1143:
1115:
1111:
1109:R uncategorized
1105:
1080:
1065:
1059:
989:
953:
925:
893:
879:
856:
854:
852:
850:
848:Cool, thanks.—
831:
804:
789:
747:
659:
643:
604:
598:
585:
540:
519:
487:
481:
477:
471:
466:
460:
416:
394:
391:
388:
385:
384:
371:
365:
360:This banner is
291:
288:
285:
283:Anime and manga
282:
281:
255:
248:
229:Anime and manga
203:
200:
197:
194:
193:
167:
160:
92:
91:
85:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1647:
1645:
1637:
1636:
1631:
1626:
1621:
1616:
1611:
1606:
1596:
1595:
1592:
1591:
1559:
1558:
1557:
1556:
1515:WP:IDONTKNOWIT
1511:
1453:WP:IDONTLIKEIT
1449:
1441:
1405:
1403:
1370:WP:IDONTLIKEIT
1356:
1350:
1343:
1327:
1324:
1323:
1322:
1302:
1285:
1259:
1256:
1235:
1234:
1231:
1228:
1220:
1217:
1146:them, such as
1142:
1139:
1138:
1137:
1136:
1135:
1099:
1098:
1035:
1034:
1033:
1032:
1031:
1030:
1029:
1028:
1027:
1026:
1008:
1007:
1006:
1005:
1004:
1003:
1002:
1001:
976:
975:
974:
973:
972:
971:
943:
942:
941:
940:
930:|The X-Files}}
912:
911:
878:
875:
874:
873:
872:
871:
870:
869:
841:
840:
839:
838:
823:
822:
788:
785:
784:
783:
782:
781:
780:
779:
741:
735:
734:
717:
716:
715:
708:
700:
699:
698:
697:
653:
652:
651:
650:
621:
597:
594:
593:
592:
569:
568:
567:
566:
548:
547:
518:
515:
514:
513:
457:
456:
415:
412:
409:
408:
405:
404:
401:
400:
398:
395:redirect pages
367:
361:
358:
353:
346:categorization
332:
320:
319:
314:
302:
301:
298:
297:
295:
278:the discussion
261:
260:
244:
232:
231:
226:
214:
213:
210:
209:
207:
173:
172:
156:
144:
143:
138:
126:
125:
119:
108:
94:
93:
88:
83:
78:
77:
24:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1646:
1635:
1632:
1630:
1627:
1625:
1622:
1620:
1617:
1615:
1612:
1610:
1607:
1605:
1602:
1601:
1599:
1590:
1585:
1582:
1579:
1578:
1571:
1570:
1569:
1568:
1565:
1555:
1550:
1547:
1544:
1543:
1536:
1532:
1528:
1524:
1520:
1516:
1509:
1507:
1506:
1505:
1501:
1497:
1490:
1480:
1470:
1463:
1458:
1454:
1450:
1447:
1442:
1439:
1434:
1430:
1426:
1425:
1424:
1423:
1418:
1415:
1412:
1411:
1401:
1399:
1395:
1391:
1387:
1383:
1378:
1373:
1371:
1366:
1362:
1358:
1354:
1348:
1345:
1340:
1337:
1333:
1325:
1321:
1317:
1313:
1310:
1307:- agree with
1306:
1303:
1301:
1297:
1293:
1289:
1286:
1284:
1279:
1276:
1273:
1272:
1265:
1262:
1261:
1257:
1255:
1254:
1249:
1246:
1243:
1242:
1232:
1229:
1226:
1225:
1224:
1216:
1215:
1211:
1207:
1200:
1190:
1180:
1173:
1169:
1165:
1161:
1157:
1153:
1149:
1140:
1134:
1131:
1127:
1123:
1118:
1110:
1103:
1102:
1101:
1100:
1097:
1093:
1090:
1087:
1083:
1077:
1076:
1075:
1074:
1071:
1064:
1063:ER to episode
1056:
1055:
1052:
1048:
1043:
1039:
1025:
1022:
1018:
1017:
1016:
1015:
1014:
1013:
1012:
1011:
1010:
1009:
1000:
996:
992:
984:
983:
982:
981:
980:
979:
978:
977:
970:
966:
963:
960:
956:
949:
948:
947:
946:
945:
944:
939:
936:
929:
923:
919:
916:
915:
914:
913:
910:
906:
903:
900:
896:
890:
889:
888:
887:
884:
876:
868:
865:
847:
846:
845:
844:
843:
842:
837:
834:
827:
826:
825:
824:
821:
817:
814:
811:
807:
801:
800:
799:
798:
795:
786:
778:
774:
771:
767:
763:
759:
755:
754:
753:
750:
742:
739:
738:
737:
736:
733:
729:
726:
722:
718:
713:
709:
705:
704:
702:
701:
696:
692:
689:
685:
681:
677:
676:
675:
672:
668:
667:
666:
665:
662:
649:
646:
639:
638:
637:
633:
630:
626:
622:
620:
617:
613:
612:
611:
610:
607:
596:Suggestion...
595:
591:
588:
580:
579:
578:
577:
574:
565:
561:
557:
552:
551:
550:
549:
546:
543:
536:
535:
534:
533:
529:
525:
516:
512:
508:
504:
499:
498:
497:
496:
493:
486:
476:
465:
455:
451:
447:
443:
439:
438:
437:
436:
433:
429:
425:
421:
413:
399:
381:
380:
375:
370:
364:
356:
351:
347:
343:
339:
338:
333:
330:
326:
325:
321:
318:
315:
312:
308:
296:
279:
275:
271:
267:
266:
258:
252:
247:
245:
242:
238:
237:
233:
230:
227:
224:
220:
208:
191:
190:documentation
187:
183:
179:
178:
170:
164:
159:
157:
154:
150:
149:
145:
142:
139:
136:
132:
127:
123:
117:
113:
109:
100:
99:
76:
74:
70:
66:
65:
58:
54:
53:
52:documentation
48:
44:
40:
36:
34:
28:
25:
18:
17:
1576:
1560:
1541:
1433:WP:GOODFAITH
1409:
1374:
1367:
1363:
1359:
1346:
1341:
1329:
1304:
1287:
1270:
1263:
1240:
1236:
1222:
1144:
1125:
1088:
1081:AnmaFinotera
1057:
1036:
961:
954:AnmaFinotera
901:
894:AnmaFinotera
880:
812:
805:AnmaFinotera
790:
761:
757:
711:
654:
599:
570:
520:
503:AnmaFinotera
475:R from merge
464:R from merge
458:
446:AnmaFinotera
417:
377:
369:almost never
368:
362:
354:
335:
263:
175:
122:WikiProjects
111:
62:
60:
50:
35:from editing
31:permanently
30:
1577:SMcCandlish
1542:SMcCandlish
1410:SMcCandlish
1271:SMcCandlish
1241:SMcCandlish
1166:leading to
1154:leading to
442:Citizen Joe
420:Citizen Joe
1598:Categories
1438:WP:DISPUTE
1332:WP:REVTALK
350:discussion
344:and their
195:Television
141:Television
57:categories
1519:WP:VESTED
1446:MOS:SLASH
1394:MOS:ELIST
1312:Idealigic
707:articles.
616:Ned Scott
517:I like it
374:mainspace
342:redirects
69:testcases
43:consensus
33:protected
1564:TAnthony
1527:WT:MOSTV
1305:Option 1
1288:Option 1
1264:Option 2
1258:Comments
1092:contribs
965:contribs
905:contribs
816:contribs
794:TAnthony
762:episodes
758:List of
671:sgeureka
573:sgeureka
492:sgeureka
432:sgeureka
414:Question
386:Redirect
317:Redirect
112:template
1531:WT:NCTV
1523:WT:WPTV
1398:MOS:SAL
1382:WP:WPTV
787:Sorting
556:Hewinsj
524:Hewinsj
64:sandbox
1535:WP:FRS
1529:, and
1510:others
1496:Gonnym
1390:WP:OWN
1386:cannot
1377:WP:RFD
1336:WP:BRD
1309:Gonnym
1292:Gonnym
1206:Gonnym
118:scale.
1158:, or
1049:. --
355:Note:
274:manga
270:anime
110:This
1500:talk
1494:. --
1484:and
1349:does
1316:talk
1296:talk
1210:talk
1204:. --
1194:and
1162:and
1150:and
1086:talk
1042:link
990:ASEM
959:talk
899:talk
832:ASEM
810:talk
748:ASEM
660:ASEM
644:ASEM
605:ASEM
586:ASEM
560:talk
541:ASEM
528:talk
507:talk
450:talk
422:and
73:here
1586:😼
1551:😼
1419:😼
1280:😼
1250:😼
1130:ToE
1126:not
1120:.
1070:ToE
1051:ToE
1021:ToE
935:ToE
883:ToE
766:edg
760:XXX
721:edg
712:not
684:edg
625:edg
363:not
29:is
1600::
1574:—
1539:—
1525:,
1502:)
1492:}}
1486:{{
1482:}}
1476:{{
1474:,
1472:}}
1466:{{
1407:—
1355:):
1318:)
1298:)
1268:—
1238:—
1212:)
1202:}}
1196:{{
1192:}}
1186:{{
1184:,
1182:}}
1176:{{
1112:}}
1106:{{
1094:)
1066:}}
1060:{{
997:)
986:--
967:)
926:{{
907:)
863:y
855:nt
818:)
719:/
582:--
562:)
530:)
509:)
488:}}
482:{{
478:}}
472:{{
467:}}
461:{{
452:)
272:,
75:.
59:.
1584:¢
1581:☏
1549:¢
1546:☏
1498:(
1417:¢
1414:☏
1314:(
1294:(
1278:¢
1275:☏
1248:¢
1245:☏
1208:(
1089:·
1084:(
995:t
993:(
988:M
962:·
957:(
902:·
897:(
861:n
859:o
857:h
853:A
851:T
830:M
813:·
808:(
773:☭
770:☺
746:M
728:☭
725:☺
691:☭
688:☺
658:M
642:M
632:☭
629:☺
603:M
584:M
558:(
539:M
526:(
505:(
448:(
382:.
192:.
124::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
