304:
directory as a source for a person - it is all basic fundamental data and therefore primary. Perhaps, and I would say this is exceptional because I certainly don't recall seeing such, but if there's a place where the module designer writes some of his design philosophy or influence on creating the module and goes into detail about wanting to expand the creatures, that would be secondary, but again, I've never seen that in a module. But even if you want to consider it secondary, we're still looking for significant coverage. If all that can be said is "Ant lions appear as random encounters in (game module)", that's nowhere close to significant coverage. This article, like most of the other D&D monster articles, are trying to justify notability by name dropping regardless of the source, but notability doesn't work that way. --
516:, and that's all the article has. Sourcebooks are not and will never be independent sources for the game they are written for, that goes against the most basic fundamental definition of independence; saying a sourcebook is independent of a creature in that sourcebook for would be like saying a video game is an independent source for a creature in the video game. Are these sourcebooks independent of each other? Maybe. Are they independent of the game they are written for? Never. Because of this, the article has zero independent third-party sources and no notability of any kind. -
403:- not only is this not notable in the real world, it is not notable within the fictional game world. the sources are all primary sources discussing the critter only via "in world" game stat perspectives. there is for this article NO independent coverage. As has been presented at multiple other AfD's - the Paizo and Necromancer sources are neither truly "independent" nor actually discussing the topic of the article the: D&D Ant Lion. they are merely source books with game stats for pseudo-D&D game play and therefore their content is about pseudo-D&D ant lions for which
730:. Necromancer Games and Pazio Publishing are not independent sources in the context of D&D monsters. Both publish modules for the D&D system, and in fact Pazio uses many of the monsters (barring those that are the direct property of the spooky wizards who live on the coast, like Beholders) in their own Pathfinder game. These are not secondary sources that discuss the monsters - these are primary sources that simply use the same monster. There are no secondary sources, only primary ones, in the article, and it is very, very unlikely that there will
1418:
appropriate sources. TRPOD, you completely fail to advance any argument, which begs the question... what do you possibly hope to contribute by your continued uncivil posting? Rorshacma, there was no attempt by me to paint the sources as reliable; my reference to SELFPUB referenced the circumstances under which non-reliable sources could be considered sufficient for verifiability. Your objections are off-target, because they're simply not addressing what I was advocating.
1403:
considered reliable. Either the source is from an established expert in the field, or the source being used was written by the subject of the article. The first is very clearly not the case, and the second is a situation that is not possible for the subject of this article. I honestly do not understand why you are so intent on pushing this bizarre train of logic.
486:(merging what can be to the monster list articles) - While it's possible to say the appearance of the creatures in other RPG systems are independent sources, that does not quality as significant secondary coverage. We need out-of-universe discussion of these creatures, and that is not apparant nor does google give anything hopeful to meet that. --
1251:
that has any relevance to the situation at hand. None of the sources that were added are by "established expert on the topic of the article, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications", nor would they be considered to be sources of material on
1171:
Agreed with SudoGhost. None of these sources contribute to the notability of the subject at all, and all but one of them are completely unreliable. And as mentioned, the one that could potentially be considered a reliable source does nothing except state the creature's name, which is about the most
836:
I agree that there are cases and information where primary sourcing is OK. however, "In popular culture" sections are meaningless non-encyclopedic trivia if they are merely lists of "i seen it here an i seen it here an i seen it here". They need to be encyclopedic content of analysis and commentary
800:
can you clarify what content you see in this article as "mergable"? its essentially the same reason why this fails as a stand alone article - because all that you could merge to the target would be claims that the antlion was a monster in a game based on the primary sources showing that, yes, it was
758:
per the discussion between TheRedPenOfDoom and SudoGhost above. Either the sources from
Necromancer and Paizo are sourcebooks for D&D, and thus not independent sources, or they are not related to D&D and therefore the creature described in them is not what the article is about. Either way,
1316:
Yes, Self publications are reliable sources if they are written by established experts in the field, as I quoted in my above comment. None of the sources even come close to fulfilling the requirements that are described in that policy. And I believe you are grossly misinterpreting what the policy
1278:
reliable sources--read the (admittedly nuanced) wording a bit more carefully. Run-of-the-mill SELFPUBs are better than no references for uncontested facts. In this case, the two wordpress blogs critical of the Ant Lion as a monster are sources for their own opinions, not someone else's, and thus
1113:
You added a few sources, but none of them give any notability to the article, and only one of them is a reliable source in any way. The first one, the only one that could be argued is a reliable source, is a website about miniatures. However, the first cited page doesn't seem to mention anything
1094:
since initially nominated for deletion, most recently by me with the addition of multiple sources of admittedly disputable value. Still, the above !votes hinge on sourcing concerns, which have been moved, again an admittedly disputable amount, at this point in the deletion discussion. Those above
1530:
itself, and it wouldn't be a problem at all to simply de-link that mention of it, like many of the other other monsters on the list. The vast majority of the other pages that link to this article are simply various watch lists, logs, and other things that relate directly to this AFD, which would
1490:
in spite of the additions. Again, there isn't really much reliable content to merge other than a few mentions that, yes, this monster is from D&D, and it did appear in games X, Y, and Z. I wouldn't object to someone userfying if they wanted to re-use the sources in another (hopefully notable)
1301:
What happened to "usually in articles about themselves or their activities" ? I didn't notice "Ant lion (Dungeons & Dragons)" was actually about two wordpress blogs. Besides, "themselves" /= "their opinion". This doesn't seem to be the kind of clear-cut case where SELFPUBS are acceptable, but
252:
That is what has been asserted, but I disagree. Each separate game that goes by the name of "Dungeons and
Dragons"--and those that do not, but choose to emulate the play style and mosters--is independent of the others, in that they have separate editorial teams, publishers, and/or game mechanics.
801:
on the page. there is no third party analysis or content explaining how the appearance was important in the world of fantasy gaming or how the fantasy game version differed or was similar to the real critter - nothing but trivial "See here lookie - it sez 'ant lion' here in this game book!". --
288:
Sure there is. Use in a non-monster-manual, such as an adventure, is a secondary source usage for any creature. If they were published by the same company, that would be a non-independent secondary source. Likewise, monster-manual-like references from other companies are independent primary
1402:
even matter? The fact that you can prove that a blogger has an opinion on a fictional creature does not somehow confer anything reliable to the creature. Based on the policy on verifiability, which you yourself brought up here, there's only two situations where self published sources can be
1417:
No bizarre train of logic here, just a detailed exposition of our sourcing policy. Both bloggers cited have high enough Google page rank to make them show up early on in the search results, because they have commented extensively on multiple D&D related topics, hence my choosing them as
644:
are primary source on themselves, thus when they deal with a creature they are not independent from it, neither is what they to the article. Besides, if they are different games than D&D, they're not dealing with the D&D creature, but with they own version. As they do not provide any
303:
No, game modules are primary sources; straight-up inclusion of the monster within the module as a random encounter or a specific encounter does not provide any transformative information about the monster, so they remain primary sources. This would be equivalent to a publicly available phone
1347:
SPS are acceptable by non-experts in various circumstances. Fictional elements can't write about themselves: if there is any gross misrepresentation of policy in this discussion, it would be that such was necessary. In this case, the blog post authors are reliable sources for
1445:. Any claim of the contrary would mean Ant lion would be first party to the blog and I don't see how this could be possible, unless maybe if the author had created Ant Lion and was using it as an alternate persona to write his blog, which I don't believe is the case.
1526:- Since a couple of people have mentioned this, I just wanted to point out that preserving the link really doesn't seem like it would be that big of a priority to warrant not deleting. The only actual place in article space that actually links here is the
449:
sourcebooks for D&D, and therefore not about the topic; because either way these books are describing a creature within its own game system, and not independent of that game system. If it is D&D system then it's not independent of D&D, if it's
426:
because there's no proof of connectedness. You're arguing out both sides of your mouth, here. Which argument do you want to keep: independence or lack of OR? They cannot both be true, and by advancing both, you are wikilawyering and demonstrating a
635:
are affiliated to D&D ("this product requires the use of the
Dungeons and Dragons® Player’s Handbook Revised, published by Wizards of the Coast®") they provide original content for the game and don't contain analytic or evaluative claims. They
709:
1389:
to them. Not that there's some bizarre loophole that because a non-entity can't write about itself, some random blooger can be considered to be a reliable, non-expert source. No where in the policy does it say anything that could even be
164:
1440:
about the blog and Ant lion is a third party to the blog, thus any review/opinion on a fictional monster is a "claim about third parties", so unreliable blog reviews on D&D monsters cannot be satisfyingly used in the article
195:
This article doesn't explain why it would be notable. Also, a former edit summary says "redirect no notability per afd consensus", but I can't find any AfD, or at least no AfD template on a previous revision of this page.
354:
is a reasonable alternative. As
Jclemens points out, this article was previously redirected based on the presumption that one AFD can determine the fate of other articles, and this article was never at AFD previously.
734:
any secondary sources, as this creature is wholly unnotable outside of D&D and D&D-based games. That said, mentioning of the monster as part of a list of D&D monsters is both approprate and reasonable, as
950:
224:, so the nomination lacks any policy-based rationale. In fact, the previous edit summary attempting the redirect is itself misleadingly inaccurate: there has not been a previous AfD on this topic.
1114:
about the article's subject at all, and the second cited page on this reference only lists the name "ant lion", no other detail is given, that's far from significant coverage. The next reference
663:
158:
1317:
is describing when it talks about self published sources on themselves. The only way that would even begin to be applicable in this article is if one of those blogs was actually written
1231:... and is this supposed to be some sort of change in how you've treated my contributions--or the contributions of anyone else who disagrees with you on these topics, for that matter?
553:
Because it's already a disambiguated title, a redirect doesn't make sense ("ant lion" is a search term; "ant lion (dungeons & dragons)" is not.) Merging beforehand makes sense. --
119:
645:
commentary on D&D version vs their own, they don't provide analytic or evaluative comment (and if they did, these wouldn't be editorially or financially independent comments).
1436:
about themselves", provided "it does not involve claims about third parties". Since Ant lion as a fictional monster is not a blog (I hope we can agree on that), this article is
92:
87:
96:
454:
a D&D system then it's not about a D&D creature, but rather a different system entirely; neither scenario gives any notability to the D&D creature's article. -
79:
124:
445:
I might be mistaken, but what I think he's trying to say is that the sources are either sourcebooks for D&D and therefore not independent of D&D, or they are
1252:
themselves. As far as I can see, those are the only exceptions where questionable sources are considered to be even remotely useful. In fact, the only thing that
257:
to merge these to a D&D game system article, the fact is that this is a fictional element that has verifiably appeared in multiple, independent, notable games.
685:
1432:
And as WP:SELFPUB clearly states (and as
Rorshacma and I explained if there was need to), the provision for non-reliable sources to be used is only in case of "
1190:, the material added may or may not be sufficient to demonstrate notability sufficient for an independent article, but the sources are certainly enough to meet
1095:!voters skeptical of sourcing should be sure to update their !votes accordingly so as to make sure they reflect on the most current version of the article.
958:
plainly a redirect is appropriate as a long-existing article there is no reason to break any external links. And sourcing is certainly enough for that...
909:
please, i am genuinely curious as to what what you consider "out-of-universe rationales etc." as existing in this article to be considered for merging.--
271:
But there's no secondary coverage. Just because it exists and in multiple systems is not a measure of notability. All parts of the GNG have to be met. --
1156:
Again, when you remove the content that, as pointed out by SudoGhost is not supported by reliable sources , what exactly are you proposing to merge? --
852:
Depends - if it is a story then yes it is hard to provide analysis. However, D&D rulebooks do sometimes talk about out-of-universe rationales etc.
1527:
727:
579:
534:
351:
179:
759:
the sources are not usable. Additionally, none of the sources show any sign of real world notability, containing only in-universe information.
146:
83:
220:
Covered in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Even failing that, a merge to one of the creature list articles is preferable per
235:
But there's no significant coverage (the other required part of GNG); being listed as a monster in another game system is not that. --
140:
17:
1586:
1570:
1554:
1540:
1514:
1500:
1454:
1427:
1412:
1380:
1361:
1342:
1311:
1288:
1269:
1240:
1226:
1207:
1181:
1162:
1147:
1129:
1104:
1082:
1043:
1021:
1000:
967:
915:
904:
884:
867:
847:
831:
807:
795:
768:
750:
718:
697:
677:
654:
613:
593:
565:
548:
523:
498:
472:
461:
440:
413:
391:
364:
316:
298:
283:
266:
247:
211:
61:
1442:
75:
67:
812:
Agree secondary sources are essential for an article's standalone existence. This does not preclude segments of articles having
136:
1566:
708:
for those not familiar with the publishing history and licencing relationship of the games referenced, there is an overview at
609:
589:
544:
199:
900:
863:
827:
791:
1012:- Straight-up fancruft. Primary sources such as modules and monster manuals prove that it exists, not that it is notable.
186:
941:
does not deserve this and majik eight-ball sez it's already covered sufficiently in the sprawling lists of game critters.
1609:
40:
598:
Minor addendum: I think we normally redirect rather than delete when merging, to preserve contributor histories per
1256:
tells us that is actually applicable to this discussion is that those questionable and self-published sources are
1549:
1450:
1375:
1352:, about Ant Lion, and since Ant Lion is a fictional element, it is not a third party for purposes of the policy.
1307:
1221:
1157:
910:
879:
842:
802:
713:
650:
467:
408:
152:
1138:
I think enough material has been added to this one now that a merge to the list makes more sense than a delete.
1321:
an Ant lion from D&D, which I hope we all agree probably isn't going to be the case. And no, selfpubs are
744:
631:, the article doesn't have "significant content from multiple secondary independent sources". Sourcebooks like
342:
are indeed independent sources, and thus I believe they constitute sufficient independent coverage to meet the
428:
946:
1496:
1220:
What hogwash. There is now ZERO reason to Assume anything but
Badfaith on your part in these discussions.--
537:. Unlike with some of the others, I can't find any sources outside of the game books for this creature. —
1605:
1492:
994:
57:
36:
202:
has lots of similar articles about various creatures. I'm not sure if those really are notable either.
739:
they may very well scrape by on notability, and so merging them it the list is what should be done. -
1510:
1446:
1303:
1039:
646:
1505:
Merge. This keeps the link and edit history intact while sending people to the appropriate article.
1253:
1248:
1187:
1536:
1408:
1338:
1265:
1177:
1126:
764:
740:
520:
458:
172:
1172:
blatant example of trivial coverage possible. I see no strong argument to change my above vote.
977:
1423:
1357:
1284:
1236:
1203:
1100:
942:
894:
857:
821:
785:
436:
294:
262:
229:
1329:
that self published material that do not meet the very, very narrow criteria of reliability can
1031:
937:
as game trivia not covered in reliable independent sources. Specifically opposed to any merge;
693:
673:
419:
335:
207:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1604:
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
1385:
Yes, fictional elements can not write about themselves, which means that part of the policy
989:
339:
53:
1195:
1119:
628:
599:
513:
343:
221:
1506:
1398:
the blogs or their activities, so why would the fact that they can be used as sources for
1035:
963:
561:
494:
431:
mentality. Pick one argument, and drop the contradictory one: which do you want to keep?
312:
279:
243:
423:
404:
1198:
prefers a merge in such a case, such that there is no policy-based reason for deletion.
1561:
1532:
1404:
1334:
1261:
1173:
1123:
1064:
1017:
760:
604:
584:
539:
517:
455:
1191:
710:
Knowledge (XXG) talk:Articles for deletion/Death watch beetle (Dungeons & Dragons)
1582:
1419:
1353:
1280:
1232:
1199:
1143:
1096:
890:
853:
817:
781:
432:
387:
360:
290:
258:
225:
1548:
no one has yet identified what content is suitable for merging. Can you specify? --
689:
669:
373:
Given that most of the content from the article was merged into the list yesterday
203:
1063:, where there's already a culture section, so a redirect there would be okay too.
878:
as none of that content has been included in the article being discussed here. --
113:
508:- A sourcebook is a book detailing the rules of a tabletop game, the sourcebooks
1115:
289:
sources, and adventures from other companies are independent secondary sources.
1118:
with their personal reasoning, that's not a reliable source. The next two are
640:
the game and thus primary sources and cannot grant notability. Other RPGs like
418:
So here, you're arguing that they're not independent, because they rely on the
959:
554:
487:
305:
272:
236:
980:
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
1013:
1394:
interpreted to mean what you are trying to push here. This article is not
1578:
1279:
are applicable sources for those opinions under the no-third-party rule.
1139:
1059:
come to mind) but this ain't one of them. I've put a mention of this in
1056:
383:
356:
52:. I've redirected the page and retained the history for use in merging.
1060:
938:
777:
422:, but on the article, you're arguing that citing such connections is
1374:
oh fergawds sake NO - WE DO NOT USE RANDOM BLOGGERS OPINIONS. --
1194:
for the (uncontested, obviously) facts attributed to them. Thus,
1598:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
1528:
List of
Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters
1055:
there are some D&D monsters that are genuinely notable (
728:
List of
Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters
580:
list of
Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters
535:
list of
Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters
352:
List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters
889:
Well that is your opinion so let's leave it to the closer.
1325:
better than nothing. The policy in question specifically
874:
if the sources do contain that content, it would not be a
378:
I think the reasonable thing to do here is to close as a
780:. I suspect there is other pop culture material too....
1576:
1091:
841:
and primary sourcing cannot provide the why/context.--
664:
list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions
512:
the game. Sourcebooks are not independent sources per
376:
374:
109:
105:
101:
171:
1559:
Everything I had in mind was merged earlier today. —
466:
yes SudoGhost is correct. Thanks for clarifying. --
987:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
185:
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1612:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1260:, in fact, usable for any sort of verifiability.
1302:rather undue weight given to trivial opinions.
8:
684:Note: This debate has been included in the
662:Note: This debate has been included in the
1247:I'm sorry, but I'm not seeing anything at
1122:, which are in no way reliable sources. -
1030:Sorry. But "fancruft" is not a reason per
686:list of Games-related deletion discussions
683:
661:
338:and the Pathfinder "Bestiary" series from
627:(merge relevant content per Masem) Fails
200:Category:Dungeons & Dragons creatures
1531:become moot once this AFD is closed.
1333:be used to establish verifiability.
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
407:is required to make the claims. --
24:
1443:Ant lion (Dungeons & Dragons)
76:Ant lion (Dungeons & Dragons)
68:Ant lion (Dungeons & Dragons)
334:- as the "Tome of Horrors" from
1587:18:03, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
1571:17:59, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
1555:17:53, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
1541:15:55, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
1515:15:15, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
1501:16:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
1455:10:44, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
1428:00:45, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
1413:22:25, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
1381:21:50, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
1362:21:24, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
1343:22:24, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
1312:22:11, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
1289:21:55, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
1270:21:01, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
1241:21:55, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
1227:20:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
1208:20:14, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
1182:16:21, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
1163:14:25, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
1148:14:02, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
1130:04:31, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
1105:03:40, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
1044:15:15, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
614:22:33, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
392:14:04, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
62:13:30, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
1:
1116:is someone's personal website
1083:10:51, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
1022:01:33, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
1001:00:35, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
968:18:01, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
951:04:58, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
916:06:51, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
905:06:00, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
885:05:39, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
868:05:20, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
848:00:25, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
832:05:18, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
808:16:19, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
796:14:25, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
769:21:42, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
751:00:26, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
719:18:08, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
698:02:25, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
678:02:23, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
655:00:13, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
594:02:07, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
566:23:11, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
549:22:44, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
524:22:31, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
499:22:27, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
473:22:52, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
462:22:33, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
441:22:26, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
414:22:17, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
365:22:16, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
317:23:25, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
299:23:16, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
284:23:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
267:23:08, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
248:22:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
212:21:40, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
1629:
1601:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
1274:SELFPUB's by experts
1090:The article has been
837:giving the reader a
1551:The Red Pen of Doom
1377:The Red Pen of Doom
1223:The Red Pen of Doom
1159:The Red Pen of Doom
912:The Red Pen of Doom
881:The Red Pen of Doom
844:The Red Pen of Doom
804:The Red Pen of Doom
715:The Red Pen of Doom
469:The Red Pen of Doom
410:The Red Pen of Doom
1546:additional comment
1350:their own opinions
346:. Failing that, a
1491:article or list.
1003:
816:primary sources.
700:
680:
667:
420:Open Game License
405:original research
336:Necromancer Games
1620:
1603:
1552:
1378:
1224:
1160:
1080:
1077:
1074:
1071:
997:
992:
986:
982:
913:
882:
845:
805:
747:
716:
668:
558:
491:
470:
411:
340:Paizo Publishing
309:
276:
240:
190:
189:
175:
127:
117:
99:
34:
1628:
1627:
1623:
1622:
1621:
1619:
1618:
1617:
1616:
1610:deletion review
1599:
1569:
1550:
1447:Folken de Fanel
1376:
1304:Folken de Fanel
1222:
1158:
1120:wordpress blogs
1078:
1075:
1072:
1069:
995:
990:
975:
911:
880:
843:
803:
749:
745:
714:
647:Folken de Fanel
633:Tome of Horrors
612:
592:
582:in that case. —
556:
547:
489:
468:
409:
307:
274:
238:
132:
123:
90:
74:
71:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1626:
1624:
1615:
1614:
1595:
1594:
1593:
1592:
1591:
1590:
1589:
1565:
1543:
1518:
1517:
1503:
1484:
1483:
1482:
1481:
1480:
1479:
1478:
1477:
1476:
1475:
1474:
1473:
1472:
1471:
1470:
1469:
1468:
1467:
1466:
1465:
1464:
1463:
1462:
1461:
1460:
1459:
1458:
1457:
1387:does not apply
1367:
1366:
1365:
1364:
1314:
1294:
1293:
1292:
1291:
1245:
1244:
1243:
1213:
1212:
1211:
1210:
1166:
1165:
1151:
1150:
1133:
1132:
1108:
1107:
1085:
1065:Andrew Lenahan
1049:
1048:
1047:
1046:
1025:
1024:
1006:
1005:
1004:
984:
983:
972:
971:
970:
953:
932:
931:
930:
929:
928:
927:
926:
925:
924:
923:
922:
921:
920:
919:
918:
850:
771:
753:
743:
741:The Bushranger
721:
702:
701:
681:
658:
657:
622:
621:
620:
619:
618:
617:
616:
608:
588:
572:
571:
543:
527:
526:
502:
501:
481:
480:
479:
478:
477:
476:
475:
429:WP:BATTLEFIELD
397:
396:
395:
394:
368:
367:
329:
328:
327:
326:
325:
324:
323:
322:
321:
320:
319:
193:
192:
129:
70:
65:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1625:
1613:
1611:
1607:
1602:
1596:
1588:
1584:
1580:
1577:
1574:
1573:
1572:
1568:
1564:
1563:
1558:
1557:
1556:
1553:
1547:
1544:
1542:
1538:
1534:
1529:
1525:
1522:
1521:
1520:
1519:
1516:
1512:
1508:
1504:
1502:
1498:
1494:
1493:Shooterwalker
1489:
1486:
1485:
1456:
1452:
1448:
1444:
1439:
1435:
1431:
1430:
1429:
1425:
1421:
1416:
1415:
1414:
1410:
1406:
1401:
1397:
1393:
1388:
1384:
1383:
1382:
1379:
1373:
1372:
1371:
1370:
1369:
1368:
1363:
1359:
1355:
1351:
1346:
1345:
1344:
1340:
1336:
1332:
1328:
1324:
1320:
1315:
1313:
1309:
1305:
1300:
1299:
1298:
1297:
1296:
1295:
1290:
1286:
1282:
1277:
1273:
1272:
1271:
1267:
1263:
1259:
1255:
1250:
1246:
1242:
1238:
1234:
1230:
1229:
1228:
1225:
1219:
1218:
1217:
1216:
1215:
1214:
1209:
1205:
1201:
1197:
1193:
1189:
1185:
1184:
1183:
1179:
1175:
1170:
1169:
1168:
1167:
1164:
1161:
1155:
1154:
1153:
1152:
1149:
1145:
1141:
1137:
1136:
1135:
1134:
1131:
1128:
1125:
1121:
1117:
1112:
1111:
1110:
1109:
1106:
1102:
1098:
1093:
1089:
1086:
1084:
1081:
1066:
1062:
1058:
1054:
1051:
1050:
1045:
1041:
1037:
1033:
1029:
1028:
1027:
1026:
1023:
1019:
1015:
1011:
1008:
1007:
1002:
999:
998:
993:
985:
981:
979:
974:
973:
969:
965:
961:
957:
954:
952:
948:
944:
940:
936:
935:Stwong Dewete
933:
917:
914:
908:
907:
906:
902:
899:
896:
892:
888:
887:
886:
883:
877:
873:
872:
871:
870:
869:
865:
862:
859:
855:
851:
849:
846:
840:
835:
834:
833:
829:
826:
823:
819:
815:
811:
810:
809:
806:
799:
798:
797:
793:
790:
787:
783:
779:
775:
772:
770:
766:
762:
757:
754:
752:
748:
746:One ping only
742:
738:
733:
729:
725:
722:
720:
717:
711:
707:
704:
703:
699:
695:
691:
687:
682:
679:
675:
671:
665:
660:
659:
656:
652:
648:
643:
639:
634:
630:
626:
623:
615:
611:
607:
606:
601:
597:
596:
595:
591:
587:
586:
581:
577:
574:
573:
570:Whoops. Yes,
569:
568:
567:
563:
559:
552:
551:
550:
546:
542:
541:
536:
532:
529:
528:
525:
522:
519:
515:
511:
507:
504:
503:
500:
496:
492:
485:
482:
474:
471:
465:
464:
463:
460:
457:
453:
448:
444:
443:
442:
438:
434:
430:
425:
421:
417:
416:
415:
412:
406:
402:
399:
398:
393:
389:
385:
381:
377:
375:
372:
371:
370:
369:
366:
362:
358:
353:
349:
345:
341:
337:
333:
330:
318:
314:
310:
302:
301:
300:
296:
292:
287:
286:
285:
281:
277:
270:
269:
268:
264:
260:
256:
251:
250:
249:
245:
241:
234:
233:
231:
227:
223:
219:
216:
215:
214:
213:
209:
205:
201:
197:
188:
184:
181:
178:
174:
170:
166:
163:
160:
157:
154:
151:
148:
145:
142:
138:
135:
134:Find sources:
130:
126:
121:
115:
111:
107:
103:
98:
94:
89:
85:
81:
77:
73:
72:
69:
66:
64:
63:
59:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1600:
1597:
1560:
1545:
1523:
1487:
1437:
1433:
1399:
1395:
1391:
1386:
1349:
1330:
1326:
1322:
1318:
1275:
1257:
1087:
1068:
1052:
1009:
988:
976:
955:
943:Br'er Rabbit
934:
897:
875:
860:
838:
824:
813:
788:
773:
755:
736:
731:
723:
705:
641:
637:
632:
624:
603:
583:
575:
538:
530:
509:
505:
483:
451:
446:
400:
379:
347:
331:
254:
217:
198:
194:
182:
176:
168:
161:
155:
149:
143:
133:
49:
47:
31:
28:
1507:Web Warlock
1036:Web Warlock
253:While it's
159:free images
54:Mark Arsten
1400:themselves
1254:WP:SELFPUB
1249:WP:SELFPUB
1188:WP:SELFPUB
737:as a group
642:Pathfinder
1606:talk page
1562:Torchiest
1533:Rorshacma
1405:Rorshacma
1335:Rorshacma
1262:Rorshacma
1174:Rorshacma
1057:Beholders
761:Rorshacma
690:• Gene93k
670:• Gene93k
605:Torchiest
585:Torchiest
540:Torchiest
37:talk page
1608:or in a
1434:articles
1420:Jclemens
1392:remotely
1354:Jclemens
1281:Jclemens
1233:Jclemens
1200:Jclemens
1097:Jclemens
1032:WP:CRUFT
978:Relisted
901:contribs
891:Casliber
864:contribs
854:Casliber
828:contribs
818:Casliber
792:contribs
782:Casliber
531:Redirect
433:Jclemens
291:Jclemens
259:Jclemens
255:possible
226:Jclemens
120:View log
39:or in a
1575:Voila:
1524:Comment
1092:changed
1061:antlion
996:polisme
939:antlion
778:Antlion
204:Stefan2
165:WP refs
153:scholar
93:protect
88:history
1488:Delete
1196:WP:ATD
1053:Delete
1010:Delete
756:Delete
629:WP:GNG
625:Delete
600:WP:MAD
514:WP:RSN
506:Delete
484:Delete
401:delete
344:WP:GNG
222:WP:ATD
137:Google
97:delete
1567:edits
1396:about
1127:Ghost
960:Hobit
956:Merge
876:merge
774:merge
724:Merge
706:NOTE:
610:edits
590:edits
578:with
576:merge
545:edits
521:Ghost
459:Ghost
424:WP:OR
380:merge
348:merge
180:JSTOR
141:books
125:Stats
114:views
106:watch
102:links
50:Merge
16:<
1583:talk
1537:talk
1511:talk
1497:talk
1451:talk
1424:talk
1409:talk
1358:talk
1339:talk
1327:says
1308:talk
1285:talk
1266:talk
1237:talk
1204:talk
1192:WP:V
1186:Per
1178:talk
1144:talk
1124:Sudo
1101:talk
1088:Note
1040:talk
1018:talk
1014:Tarc
991:Theo
964:talk
947:talk
895:talk
858:talk
822:talk
814:some
786:talk
765:talk
694:talk
674:talk
651:talk
557:ASEM
518:Sudo
490:ASEM
456:Sudo
437:talk
388:talk
361:talk
332:Keep
308:ASEM
295:talk
275:ASEM
263:talk
239:ASEM
230:talk
218:Keep
208:talk
173:FENS
147:news
110:logs
84:talk
80:edit
58:talk
1579:BOZ
1438:not
1331:not
1323:not
1276:are
1258:not
1140:BOZ
1076:bli
839:why
776:to
726:to
712:--
638:are
602:. —
533:to
510:are
452:not
447:not
384:BOZ
357:BOZ
350:to
187:TWL
122:•
118:– (
1585:)
1539:)
1513:)
1499:)
1453:)
1426:)
1411:)
1360:)
1341:)
1319:by
1310:)
1287:)
1268:)
1239:)
1206:)
1180:)
1146:)
1103:)
1079:nd
1073:ar
1070:St
1067:-
1042:)
1034:.
1020:)
966:)
949:)
903:)
866:)
830:)
794:)
767:)
732:be
696:)
688:.
676:)
666:.
653:)
564:)
497:)
439:)
390:)
382:.
363:)
315:)
297:)
282:)
265:)
246:)
232:)
210:)
167:)
112:|
108:|
104:|
100:|
95:|
91:|
86:|
82:|
60:)
1581:(
1535:(
1509:(
1495:(
1449:(
1422:(
1407:(
1356:(
1337:(
1306:(
1283:(
1264:(
1235:(
1202:(
1176:(
1142:(
1099:(
1038:(
1016:(
962:(
945:(
898:·
893:(
861:·
856:(
825:·
820:(
789:·
784:(
763:(
692:(
672:(
649:(
562:t
560:(
555:M
495:t
493:(
488:M
435:(
386:(
359:(
313:t
311:(
306:M
293:(
280:t
278:(
273:M
261:(
244:t
242:(
237:M
228:(
206:(
191:)
183:·
177:·
169:·
162:·
156:·
150:·
144:·
139:(
131:(
128:)
116:)
78:(
56:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.