1266:. There is no guideline that requires the subject in question must be as famous as U2 or Beatles to qualify for a timeline page, as some has argued before. The timeline, could, as Moscowconnection suggested, prevent the history section from being too long. From my experience editing articles on Japanese idol groups, their history section tend to be extremely long since they have so many members and events happening in a year. However, the question we have to ask ourselves is whether the information in the timeline page is better served in the main article. The article is not so long until it requires a split, as per guidelines on
1413:
present, or a comparison of timelines is appropriate. I fail to see that readers in almost any topic whether those of only mild interest or those greatly interested are benefitted by having a separate timeline article. Sometimes it can be a separate section, in the nature of an outline. Usually, it amounts to he desire to say everything twice over because one likes a subject. Most of this content would fit very well in the main article on the group in prose.
607:(List of Cute events and concerts) except the joint concerts of the whole Hello! Project (it's mostly done), it also already includes all CD single and album releases. The timeline format is very useful cause it lets telling the history while avoiding repetitive sentences about "announcing", "releasing", "touring", etc.
1288:
Lionrazt, remember something, the fact that Cute is notable enough does not secure that every article about Cute is notable. Remember that notability is not inherited. Here, this debate is about the Cute timeline article, not Cute themselves. Also, i agree with you. There's no guideline that requires
1186:
The timeline is not a "indiscriminant list of facts" that belongs to a "specialized pop-music encyclopedia" as
Joshuaism mentioned. The author of the article only included significant parts of the band's history like when their singles were released or the changing of the group's member lineup. He or
876:
This is not statistics or directory information, it's the exact same type of information and level of detail as is presented in the other timeline articles that
Moscowconnection linked to above. The idea that this band, unlike others, is not important enough or not famous enough and that changes the
1132:
How long someone has been doing this affects how easy it is to get away with bait-and-switch policy argument gambits on them, of course. But I completely agree with you that how long someone has been working on
Knowledge, what the edit count of their account is, and whether or not their account has
293:
Yes, some things written here, as well as refs, doesn't appear on the main article, but i'm going away of the point. The main point is: No timeline is needed. Standard from
Knowledge is to write discographies, not timelines. This timeline have release dates for albums and singles. The issue: Release
1343:
You might have misinterpreted the context my "must". I agree that other articles serve as examples in any dispute over policies. However, what I trying to illustrate by using "must" is the argument that this band/group is not as famous; hence it should not receive a timeline page is flawed. And to
1319:
justify an argument and does not of itself constitute a necessary reason for anything, not that editors have to act as though an article exists in isolation and must avoid any comparison to the rest of
Knowledge. The essay actually says "Sometimes these comparisons are invalid, and sometimes they
1057:
The reason why you are having such trouble scraping together an argument and have to resort to deceptively implying that information like the dates when members of a notable organization joined and left that organization or the dates upon which the organization released its major artistic works /
685:
Or to put it more another way, U2 has had 13 albums and 33 singles hit #1 in at least one country. The
Beatles have had 35 (arguably, depending on how certain albums are counted that were released with different content in different countries) albums and 30 singles hit #1 in at least one country.
943:
I am not a contributor to this article. You may think that researching and citing release dates of albums or biographical information about band members (like... when they joined and left the band) or information on tours is worthless indiscriminate trivia but that's what's actually included in
577:
I showed some examples of timelines because the nominator had argued that "The main point is: No timeline is needed. Standard from
Knowledge is to write discographies, not timelines." (Which I fail to see as a valid reason to delete. As I understand it, a Knowledge article can be in any format,
1045:
Again, I am not a contributor to this article. I am a member of the
Knowledge community who has been working on this encyclopedia for easily five times longer than your account has been active and I really do not appreciate it when editors such as yourself deceptively cite policy in pursuit of
1062:
understand the spirit of the project's policies and guidelines. They are not there as a tool for you to use in any way you please to cudgel other editors into going along with your aesthetic preferences about the length or detail level of articles or which encyclopedic content to exclude from
1412:
as the sensible compromise solution. There is a guideline in practice that we give very detailed coverage only to the famous--any other practice would make us a FANSITE. ANd I am not sure of the advantages of separate timeline articles in any case, except there there is a very long history to
997:
out there. I'm not saying this kind of information does not belong online when I say it doesn't belong on wikipedia. I'm just saying there are other creative outlets and community sites that can better use the information. There are appropriate wiki's out there for fancruft. Big Jimbo made
907:
describes material that is fundamentally inappropriate for
Knowledge" and fixing Knowledge "might include removal of trivia". Just because you collected an indiscriminant list of facts and sorted them into a timeline doesn't change the fact that it is an indiscriminant list of facts.
388:
To avoid this situations, i recommend you to work first on your sandbox, and then, when the article is ready, move it into the main namespace. Also, remember that if you'll write an article about singles and albums from an artis or group, you are encouraged to follow the
805:
paragraph 8. A list of events that even
Moscowconnection has admitted are not noteworthy enough to include in the parent article should be removed from wikipedia. Struthious_Bandersnatch should have read on in the Editing Policy and considered this material
641:. This group is hardly comparable with the likes of the Beatles or U2. Important release dates etc can be merged into the main group or discography articles where reliably sourced, but unsourced trivia can be deleted outright. No need to leave a redirect. --
912:
isn't a valid argument. I don't need to know English or Japanese to know that this timeline contains too much information. I would condense the timeline into a neat little infographic of bandmembers and their time with the band as is done for other bands
1050:, Knowledge is not simply a general encyclopedia. If you turn your nose up at encyclopedic information about pop culture and it is not your preference please simply state that rather than trying to pretend that things like passages about writing
859:
Sorry, you said they were "events that I don't consider worthy to discuss in the main article." I confused not worthy with not noteworthy. Please explain why if they are not worth keeping in the main article they are worth keeping in Knowledge.
715:, the creation of spinoff articles should be based on the quantity of encyclopedic content that editors have created, not some subjective notion of whether this is an "important enough" band. But in any case, as that guideline says "In general,
1148:
eyes by representing that content which would appear in a specialized print encyclopedia about pop music is the equivalent of personal diary entries about "every match played, goal scored or hand shaken" by a celebrity or that policies like
960:
and cram this article into one of those categories, this is all valid encyclopedic information (and more importantly, I would say, sourcing information) and there is no justification to not preserve it in one way or another. Knowledge
269:
The main article appears to have different information in it from this one. Unless I'm missing something, the main article does not have researched and cited release dates of songs and albums, which is what this one is composed of.
877:
rules is based on editors' personal feelings about the topic. (And even besides that, it's the sort of argument I would need to hear from someone who speaks Japanese in assessing a Japanese topic before I would give it credence.)
1344:
reply Hahc21, yes, I am aware of that fact. My point is that Cute is significant and the timeline is also significant, since the events stated in it is widely reported in the Japanese press as required by the notability guideline.
1394:
This nomination illustrates one problem regarding the coverage of Japanese idol groups- the lack of clear guidelines covering this area. Perhaps we should consider drafting proposed guidelines after this nomination is
169:
1191:
trivia like endorsements of products, appearance on variety shows or non-significant fan meetings. The information in the article is significant, and I welcome Joshuaism to provide concrete examples that proves
362:
In my opinion, the nominator failed to provide a valid reason for deletion. And I would like to explain that it is not "better to explain in prose". Do you suggest discussing every single event in the article
965:
the place to put encyclopedic information; it would make no sense, nor should anyone be compelled, to start an encyclopedia of popular Japanese music on Wikibooks or something of that sort and move it there.
604:
1022:
entries just because there is no guideline that specifically states in exact words what is going on in this specific case. Please understand the spirit of wikipedia's guidelines and make our wikipedia
1110:
in general still apply to this article. You have a different opinion. Everyone is welcome to examine the article and the linked guidelines and come to their own conclusion. Have a nice weekend! --
881:, which talks about unsourced and contentious material, original research, redundancy within an article, libel, nonsense, hoaxes, vandalism, and copyright violations, is completely irrelevant. --
367:, with trivial sentences like "performed at", "released on", "held an ", "announced the "? That's what the timeline will look like. Also, iI created the timeline just today, it's not finished.
1164:
Again, if you don't like pop culture content then you should work on other parts of the encyclopedia, not contrive to get encyclopedic content you don't like deleted via tactics like this. --
517:
1066:
Your hands are not tied by other people having different priorities. If you do not like encyclopedic content about pop culture then you should work on other parts of the encyclopedia. --
837:
Where did I say that? I never said it wasn't noteworthy. I didn't want to make the main article too long and boring, so I decided to write a more thorough history in a separate timeline.
224:‣ If that is what you think should happen, you are describing a merge, not a deletion; you should be pursuing the steps of one of the merge procedures rather than creating an AfD. --
294:
dates only are not weighted enough to carry a discography article. So, the info on this article shoul be put on the main article, and the article deleted to avoid repeatness. --
1161:
be part of articles supports deletion. Misrepresenting guidelines and policies and then saying "everyone is welcome to examine them" by following the links is still deceptive.
200:
Timeline? I think a timeline of the activities of this group are not enough reason to hand an article. That could be better explained with prose on the "Career" section of the
1270:. Hence, I recommend merging and recreate this article again if the history section gets too long in future. But there is no dispute as to whether it should be kept or not.--
929:
because Knowledge isn't everything and not everything belongs in wikipedia. Just because something is good and true and verifiable doesn't mean it belongs on Knowledge.--
163:
124:
985:
Then please move this material to a specialized pop-music encyclopedia where it belongs and out of the general use wikipedia. We shouldn't be tying our hands in a
320:
of an article or talk page can be split among two or more different pages. This is highly undesirable, because we need to keep the history with the content for
603:(History section at the Japanese article about the band, which is actually formatted as a timeline), it will include the dates of all concert tours from here:
537:
1362:
Sorry for the confusion: I was responding to Hahc21's "must" in parentheses and agreeing with you, Lionratz, that the argument in question is flawed. --
1136:
That's exactly why you should not try to plead with others to "understand the spirit of wikipedia's guidelines" and imply that such a spirit endorses
434:. Almost everything in this article is just a listing of release dates for this group's singles and albums, and those release dates already appear in
313:
1054:
concisely are some sort of mandate handed down from Jimmy Wales that enforces your preferences about what sort of encyclopedia Knowledge should be.
1315:
Have to pop in to disagree with your parenthetical "must" there: what the relevant guidelines and essay say is that other stuff existing does not
129:
1129:" and pull out a quote about concise writing, then present that as applying to the AfD of a mainspace article amounts to "not doing it right".
325:
1126:
1091:
1023:
97:
92:
499:
in the English Knowledge. I still fail to see any valid grounds for deletion. And I've considerably expanded the article already.
411:, the article is not a discography. It's a list of important events that I don't consider worthy to discuss in the main article.
312:
If all of the content should be put into the main article, that's a merge rather than a deletion. This is what I'm saying. See
101:
369:(Actually, I'm not going to list every single autograph-signing event and mini-concert in the article cause there are too many.)
990:
826:
17:
944:
specialized print encyclopedias about popular music topics and no matter how hard you try to ignore what it actually says in
84:
184:
1027:
151:
1364:
1322:
1166:
1068:
968:
883:
725:
330:
272:
226:
1090:, I don't have to be doing it as long as you to be doing it right. Thank you for pointing out my error about being "
842:
612:
583:
560:
545:
525:
504:
455:
416:
375:
1443:
1297:) be treated as a single entity, and avoid comparisons with other articles to prove ar disapprove notability. --—
40:
1150:
1099:
986:
949:
798:
775:
719:
from Knowledge:" and this article contains substantial quantities of both information not present in the other
716:
694:
472:
442:
145:
1103:
1087:
953:
802:
712:
1125:
Well, I'm glad that we can at least agree that somehow managing to go into a project page with the header "
1424:
1404:
1376:
1353:
1334:
1306:
1279:
1250:
1201:
1178:
1119:
1080:
1047:
1039:
980:
938:
895:
869:
846:
830:
789:
762:
758:
737:
697:
680:
666:
650:
633:
616:
587:
572:
549:
529:
508:
475:
459:
445:
420:
402:
379:
342:
317:
303:
284:
260:
238:
213:
141:
66:
1439:
1133:
an admin flag does not make their opinions more or less important or their arguments more or less valid.
838:
629:
608:
579:
541:
521:
500:
492:
451:
412:
408:
390:
371:
36:
1058:
retail consumer products are the equivalent of diary entries or statistics or trivia is because you do
1290:
1263:
1245:
1015:
926:
922:
909:
814:
771:
746:
661:
488:
364:
248:
201:
191:
61:
51:
450:
No, it's not. Have you actually read it? I'm adding everything from the Japanese Knowledge article.
1267:
1115:
1035:
934:
865:
822:
691:
676:
655:
Would you mind explaining how this group is not comparable with the likes of the Beatles or U2 ? --
568:
469:
439:
321:
177:
1262:
Cute is notable enough, since it has significant coverage from the Japanese press, as required by
1400:
1349:
1275:
1197:
1095:
1019:
945:
900:
878:
807:
88:
1127:
This policy describes how WP policies and guidelines should normally be developed and maintained
671:
For starters, I would have heard of this group somewhere, anywhere, before this AfD discussion.
994:
754:
753:. The main article is not so long, nor the band so famous, that it rates a separate timeline.
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1438:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1229:
750:
687:
625:
435:
157:
1240:
656:
56:
1111:
1031:
930:
861:
818:
785:
672:
646:
564:
496:
1420:
1396:
1345:
1271:
1193:
1107:
957:
904:
80:
72:
1046:
getting their way or realizing their personal preferences. As it says right in the
914:
468:
I posted my original recommendation, I still don't think this article is needed. --
118:
624:- not such an internationally renowned band as to require a separate timeline. —
1298:
394:
295:
252:
205:
1140:
personal opinions. Even if I had turned out to be a Knowledge newb (in fact,
600:
1232:
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
1003:
918:
779:
642:
407:
Yes, I probably should have finished the timeline before submitting. As for
1415:
690:, which also doesn't mention them charting anywhere outside Japan. --
774:
as per Clarityfiend, but delete most of the overkill details as per
999:
1011:
1432:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
1094:" only applying to guidelines and policies. But I'm pretty sure
1007:
1289:
the subject be as famous as another; even its an essay called
1144:
in that case) you should not be trying to pull the wool over
1293:
that says the opposite. Each article on Knowledge might (or
1014:
and link to those wikis in the wikipedia external links for
464:
Although other types of events were added to this article
723:
articles and sourcing of facts not present elsewhere. --
518:
list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions
114:
110:
106:
176:
1157:
that information like the publication dates of songs
1239:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
599:The article already includes all events from here:
993:does not anticipate or specifically address every
686:Cute has had no #1 albums or singles according to
393:, which has been created by consensus. Regards. --
251:already covers what is written on this article. --
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1446:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1018:. But let's not bloat up our 💕 with trivia and
925:page and delete this excess stuff or move it to
563:is not a valid rationale for inclusion, either.
1006:is already part of the Hello Project pages at
1030:for this information and promote it there. --
190:
8:
536:Note: This debate has been included in the
516:Note: This debate has been included in the
538:list of Japan-related deletion discussions
535:
515:
316:: "When a cut-and-paste move is done, the
749:the little that isn't already covered by
314:Knowledge:How to fix cut-and-paste moves
7:
326:Knowledge:Copying within Knowledge
24:
778:. No need to keep a redirect. --
717:information should not be removed
1002:just for this type of material.
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
1187:she rightly did not include
772:Cute (Japanese band)#History
747:Cute (Japanese band)#History
52:Cute (Japanese band)#History
713:the summary style guideline
1463:
1026:, and find an appropriate
1425:17:05, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
1405:02:53, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
1377:03:28, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
1354:02:53, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
1335:01:01, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
1307:00:52, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
1202:02:53, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
1179:00:43, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
67:15:57, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
1435:Please do not modify it.
1280:06:57, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
1251:22:28, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
1120:14:36, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
1081:03:14, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
1040:13:33, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
1010:. Or you can take it to
981:22:16, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
939:20:45, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
896:21:35, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
870:20:45, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
847:16:49, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
831:15:39, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
790:13:40, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
763:03:47, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
738:12:48, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
698:02:24, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
681:00:22, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
667:00:09, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
651:05:29, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
634:05:16, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
617:22:08, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
588:22:34, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
573:21:43, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
550:21:24, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
530:21:24, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
509:19:41, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
476:15:10, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
460:18:54, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
446:18:45, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
421:18:58, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
403:18:26, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
380:18:02, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
343:18:07, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
304:17:16, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
285:16:53, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
261:16:41, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
247:What i ment is that the
239:16:31, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
214:16:07, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
32:Please do not modify it.
1052:policies and guidelines
249:article about the group
1092:as concise as possible
1024:as concise as possible
903:also talks about how "
202:group's Knowledge page
991:What Knowledge is not
905:What Knowledge is not
709:Keep or History Merge
605:ja:℃-uteのイベント・コンサート一覧
578:there are no rules.)
493:The Supremes timeline
409:Knowledge:DISCOGSTYLE
391:Knowledge:DISCOGSTYLE
1264:Knowledge:Notability
489:The Beatles timeline
365:Cute (Japanese band)
1268:Knowledge:Splitting
561:WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS
1028:alternative outlet
48:The result was
1253:
1151:WP:INDISCRIMINATE
1100:WP:INDISCRIMINATE
950:WP:INDISCRIMINATE
921:, slap it on the
834:
817:comment added by
799:WP:INDISCRIMINATE
776:WP:INDISCRIMINATE
552:
532:
370:
1454:
1437:
1375:
1372:
1368:
1333:
1330:
1326:
1304:
1248:
1243:
1238:
1234:
1177:
1174:
1170:
1104:WP:NOTEVERYTHING
1088:WP:NOTCOMPULSORY
1079:
1076:
1072:
979:
976:
972:
954:WP:NOTEVERYTHING
894:
891:
887:
839:Moscowconnection
833:
811:
803:WP:NOTEVERYTHING
751:Cute discography
736:
733:
729:
688:Cute discography
664:
659:
609:Moscowconnection
580:Moscowconnection
542:Moscowconnection
522:Moscowconnection
501:Moscowconnection
452:Moscowconnection
436:Cute discography
413:Moscowconnection
400:
372:Moscowconnection
368:
341:
338:
334:
301:
283:
280:
276:
258:
237:
234:
230:
211:
195:
194:
180:
132:
122:
104:
64:
59:
34:
1462:
1461:
1457:
1456:
1455:
1453:
1452:
1451:
1450:
1444:deletion review
1433:
1370:
1366:
1363:
1328:
1324:
1321:
1299:
1246:
1241:
1227:
1172:
1168:
1165:
1155:explicitly says
1074:
1070:
1067:
987:wikibureaucracy
974:
970:
967:
889:
885:
882:
812:
788:
731:
727:
724:
662:
657:
395:
336:
332:
329:
296:
278:
274:
271:
253:
232:
228:
225:
206:
137:
128:
95:
79:
76:
62:
57:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1460:
1458:
1449:
1448:
1428:
1427:
1407:
1388:
1387:
1386:
1385:
1384:
1383:
1382:
1381:
1380:
1379:
1357:
1356:
1338:
1337:
1320:are valid." --
1310:
1309:
1283:
1282:
1256:
1255:
1254:
1236:
1235:
1224:
1223:
1222:
1221:
1220:
1219:
1218:
1217:
1216:
1215:
1214:
1213:
1212:
1211:
1210:
1209:
1208:
1207:
1206:
1205:
1204:
919:Morning Musume
874:
873:
872:
852:
851:
850:
849:
792:
784:
765:
740:
706:
705:
704:
703:
702:
701:
700:
692:Metropolitan90
636:
619:
593:
592:
591:
590:
554:
553:
533:
512:
511:
497:Timeline of U2
482:
481:
480:
479:
478:
470:Metropolitan90
440:Metropolitan90
428:
427:
426:
425:
424:
423:
383:
382:
356:
355:
354:
353:
352:
351:
350:
349:
348:
347:
346:
345:
324:reasons. (See
307:
306:
288:
287:
264:
263:
242:
241:
198:
197:
134:
75:
70:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1459:
1447:
1445:
1441:
1436:
1430:
1429:
1426:
1422:
1418:
1417:
1411:
1408:
1406:
1402:
1398:
1393:
1390:
1389:
1378:
1374:
1361:
1360:
1359:
1358:
1355:
1351:
1347:
1342:
1341:
1340:
1339:
1336:
1332:
1318:
1314:
1313:
1312:
1311:
1308:
1305:
1303:
1296:
1292:
1291:WP:OTHERSTUFF
1287:
1286:
1285:
1284:
1281:
1277:
1273:
1269:
1265:
1261:
1260:Keep or Merge
1258:
1257:
1252:
1249:
1244:
1237:
1233:
1231:
1226:
1225:
1203:
1199:
1195:
1190:
1185:
1184:
1183:
1182:
1181:
1180:
1176:
1162:
1160:
1156:
1152:
1147:
1143:
1139:
1134:
1130:
1128:
1123:
1122:
1121:
1117:
1113:
1109:
1105:
1101:
1097:
1093:
1089:
1085:
1084:
1083:
1082:
1078:
1064:
1061:
1055:
1053:
1049:
1043:
1042:
1041:
1037:
1033:
1029:
1025:
1021:
1017:
1013:
1009:
1005:
1001:
996:
992:
989:just because
988:
984:
983:
982:
978:
964:
959:
955:
951:
947:
942:
941:
940:
936:
932:
928:
927:WP:OTHERWIKIS
924:
920:
916:
911:
910:WP:OTHERSTUFF
906:
902:
899:
898:
897:
893:
880:
875:
871:
867:
863:
858:
857:
856:
855:
854:
853:
848:
844:
840:
836:
835:
832:
828:
824:
820:
816:
809:
804:
800:
796:
793:
791:
787:
783:
782:
777:
773:
769:
766:
764:
760:
756:
752:
748:
744:
741:
739:
735:
722:
718:
714:
710:
707:
699:
696:
693:
689:
684:
683:
682:
678:
674:
670:
669:
668:
665:
660:
654:
653:
652:
648:
644:
640:
637:
635:
631:
627:
623:
620:
618:
614:
610:
606:
602:
598:
595:
594:
589:
585:
581:
576:
575:
574:
570:
566:
562:
559:
556:
555:
551:
547:
543:
539:
534:
531:
527:
523:
519:
514:
513:
510:
506:
502:
498:
494:
490:
486:
483:
477:
474:
471:
467:
463:
462:
461:
457:
453:
449:
448:
447:
444:
441:
437:
433:
430:
429:
422:
418:
414:
410:
406:
405:
404:
401:
399:
392:
387:
386:
385:
384:
381:
377:
373:
366:
361:
358:
357:
344:
340:
327:
323:
319:
315:
311:
310:
309:
308:
305:
302:
300:
292:
291:
290:
289:
286:
282:
268:
267:
266:
265:
262:
259:
257:
250:
246:
245:
244:
243:
240:
236:
223:
220:
219:
218:
217:
216:
215:
212:
210:
203:
193:
189:
186:
183:
179:
175:
171:
168:
165:
162:
159:
156:
153:
150:
147:
143:
140:
139:Find sources:
135:
131:
126:
120:
116:
112:
108:
103:
99:
94:
90:
86:
82:
81:Cute timeline
78:
77:
74:
73:Cute timeline
71:
69:
68:
65:
60:
54:
53:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1434:
1431:
1414:
1409:
1391:
1316:
1301:
1294:
1259:
1228:
1188:
1163:
1158:
1154:
1145:
1141:
1137:
1135:
1131:
1124:
1065:
1059:
1056:
1051:
1048:five pillars
1044:
962:
915:Foo Fighters
813:— Preceding
794:
780:
767:
755:Clarityfiend
742:
720:
708:
638:
621:
596:
557:
484:
465:
431:
397:
359:
318:page history
298:
255:
221:
208:
199:
187:
181:
173:
166:
160:
154:
148:
138:
63:| converse _
49:
47:
31:
28:
1371:andersnatch
1329:andersnatch
1173:andersnatch
1106:, and just
1096:WP:NOTDIARY
1075:andersnatch
975:andersnatch
946:WP:WONTWORK
901:WP:WONTWORK
890:andersnatch
879:WP:WONTWORK
808:WP:WONTWORK
732:andersnatch
658:Tow Trucker
626:Crisco 1492
601:ja:℃-ute#略歴
360:Speedy keep
337:andersnatch
279:andersnatch
233:andersnatch
164:free images
58:-Scottywong
1192:otherwise.
1142:especially
1063:Knowledge.
1020:dear diary
995:WP:BADIDEA
487:There are
1440:talk page
1367:truthious
1325:truthious
1169:truthious
1112:Joshuaism
1071:truthious
1032:Joshuaism
1012:generasia
971:truthious
931:Joshuaism
886:truthious
862:Joshuaism
819:Joshuaism
728:truthious
673:DarkAudit
565:DarkAudit
333:truthious
322:copyright
275:truthious
229:truthious
50:merge to
37:talk page
1442:or in a
1397:Lionratz
1346:Lionratz
1272:Lionratz
1230:Relisted
1194:Lionratz
1146:anyone's
1086:*yawn*.
827:contribs
815:unsigned
125:View log
39:or in a
1395:closed.
1392:Comment
781:P 1 9 9
711:As per
597:Comment
558:Comment
485:Comment
222:Comment
170:WP refs
158:scholar
98:protect
93:history
1317:solely
1159:should
1153:which
1108:WP:NOT
958:WP:NOT
956:, and
795:Delete
695:(talk)
639:Delete
473:(talk)
443:(talk)
432:Delete
328:)." --
142:Google
102:delete
1421:talk
1410:merge
1016:C-ute
1008:wikia
1004:C-ute
1000:wikia
768:Merge
743:Merge
622:Merge
466:after
185:JSTOR
146:books
130:Stats
119:views
111:watch
107:links
16:<
1401:talk
1350:talk
1300:Hahc
1295:must
1276:talk
1247:talk
1198:talk
1189:real
1138:your
1116:talk
1036:talk
935:talk
923:Cute
866:talk
843:talk
823:talk
801:and
797:per
759:talk
721:Cute
677:talk
663:talk
647:talk
643:DAJF
630:talk
613:talk
584:talk
569:talk
546:talk
526:talk
505:talk
456:talk
438:. --
417:talk
396:Hahc
376:talk
297:Hahc
254:Hahc
207:Hahc
178:FENS
152:news
115:logs
89:talk
85:edit
1416:DGG
1242:Tow
1060:not
917:or
810:.
770:to
745:to
192:TWL
127:•
123:– (
1423:)
1403:)
1365:▸∮
1352:)
1323:▸∮
1302:21
1278:)
1200:)
1167:▸∮
1118:)
1102:,
1098:,
1069:▸∮
1038:)
969:▸∮
966:--
963:is
952:,
948:,
937:)
884:▸∮
868:)
860:--
845:)
829:)
825:•
761:)
726:▸∮
679:)
649:)
632:)
615:)
586:)
571:)
548:)
540:.
528:)
520:.
507:)
495:,
491:,
458:)
419:)
398:21
378:)
331:▸∮
299:21
273:▸∮
270:--
256:21
227:▸∮
209:21
204:.
172:)
117:|
113:|
109:|
105:|
100:|
96:|
91:|
87:|
55:.
1419:(
1399:(
1373:◂
1369:ᛔ
1348:(
1331:◂
1327:ᛔ
1274:(
1196:(
1175:◂
1171:ᛔ
1114:(
1077:◂
1073:ᛔ
1034:(
977:◂
973:ᛔ
933:(
913:(
892:◂
888:ᛔ
864:(
841:(
821:(
786:✉
757:(
734:◂
730:ᛔ
675:(
645:(
628:(
611:(
582:(
567:(
544:(
524:(
503:(
454:(
415:(
374:(
339:◂
335:ᛔ
281:◂
277:ᛔ
235:◂
231:ᛔ
196:)
188:·
182:·
174:·
167:·
161:·
155:·
149:·
144:(
136:(
133:)
121:)
83:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.