1163:
covers multiple related products in the same franchise. Since episode lists for television series are permitted, I don't see a problem allowing for this sort of cross-product list as well since it probably would help interested readers more efficiently navigate the related articles. The main short-coming, which appears to be correctable, is that currently the references for the "in world" dates and other information are buried in the corresponding articles. However, since those references almost certainly exist, and can be appended to this article, I'm for keeping the article in place and allowing for its contributors to clean it up a little by providing some in-article sourcing and removing any statements that might not be verifiable. Note that the article does
1063:
article serves
Knowledge (XXG) much better than ripping it out (presumably userfying it in the process), which would require the rebuilding of linkage and structure once a referenced version of the article was posted. Witness how Esperanza, instead of being deleted, took instruction from its MfD and came out of it a better organization. This can be done here. Lack of references is a problem that can be resolved by editors with an interest in Joss Whedon's writings providing references, and does not need to be resolved by removal of the material. To remove the material and disrupt the very nicely prepared navigation system already in place is disruption simply to serve a point, a practice strongly discouraged by
1118:
re-repair them once a referenced version of the chronology is available; the point you would be trying to make is
Knowledge (XXG)'s policy of articles being referenced (I do not suggest malicious intent); the preferred method of discussion-based resolution would be withdrawal of the AfD (or failure of same) in order to allow Whedonverse editors enough time to properly reference the chronology. Moreover, allowing editors time to address problems in an article, instead of deleting it outright, (a) is a common practice in AfD, and (b) in no way contravenes core policies such as
1400:, a load of mostly original research about pop culture. Go put it on BuffyWiki. Knowledge (XXG) should confine itself to discussing the real-world importance of fiction, and not spend a great deal of effort on documenting the fictional universes found within pop culture; such content is far better suited for special purpose projects. With respect to Buffy, that means that perhaps a discussion on how the name "Xander" has pervaded popular culture is in order, but there is no encyclopedic purpose to a detailed chronology of the fictitious Buffyverse.
752:
to be a fairly useful sounding means of organizing the large amount of information available on the franchise, and places all these varied articles in some sort of chronological perspective for the reader. Personally I think this sort of indexing also sounds like a possibly useful idea for similar cross-media franchises, such as Star Wars or Star Trek, etc.
989:
Knowledge (XXG) articles from which (in theory) info such as ISBN and publisher can be obtained rather than doubling the size of the chronology articles with bibliographies. I do have a concern regarding the images which, under Wiki's increasingly draconian free use rules probably aren't kosher anymore. But that's an IFD issue, not an AFD issue.
319:
timeline, and the Buffy/Angel episodes in relation to each other, a Dark Horse Comic timeline that was at the Dark Horse site, 'Historian notes' at the begining of many stories, as well as comments in interviews by authors and script-writers about how stories relate to each other. Putting together this article was a
1453:. Moreover, the information could be sourced using primary sources (e.g., "The WB Buffy promo, "History of the Slayer", states specific dates"). The article may have issues of verifiability, but it does not meet the criteria for original research. I hope this clarifies my initial response. Cheers,
1367:
It seems a bit presumptuous of you to "remind" other editors that this is an encyclopedia. Knowledge (XXG) is not a "Buffyverse" wiki (and I hardly think the inclusion or exclusion of these 3 articles would tip the "balance"), but the "Buffyverse" is an encyclopedic topic that merits inclusion in an
1162:
First of all, references to "cruft" can pretty much be ignored - there's no cruft in policies or guidelines. Second, this appears to be the equivalent of a list article for an episode index for a television series. The main difference I can see between this and an episode index is that this article
1117:
suggests discussion is better than unilateral action. The disruption to
Knowledge (XXG) would be the resultant damage to the various navigational templates used in each and every Buffy/Angel/etc. article and the sheer manpower required to either eliminate the navigational templates altogether and/or
1220:
99% of the sources on the BttF timeline article are the BttF films themselves. That's what this is doing. its as near as I can see from inspecting the Buffy timeline pulling in by the airdates and stated dates in the fiction material (for the in-universe dates, the same as the BttF, Star Wars, Star
1062:
grant utter immunity to the chronology? Of course not. But it does support the suggestion that facile navigation between tightly related articles does indeed improve
Knowledge (XXG), and leaving a article navigation system in place long enough to grant editors enough time to properly reference the
751:
Just to comment a second, the practical difference between this index article and an article indexing just the Buffy-related books is that this article is attempting to organize information related to the Buffy franchise across all media types (books, television, comics, films, etc). It seems to me
1288:
True, articles aren't supposed to use other articles as references. But in this case it's probably just a matter of transposing the references from the linked articles to this one and removing any information that doesn't seem to be verifiable. Things like the name of the episode, the one sentence
318:
You are right that this article does need better referencing, however as the person who pretty much put this whole thing together, I can tell you that I used not only clear markers in the texts themselves, but many secondary sources such as Keith
Topping's unofficial guides which place books in the
969:
The essay referred to by IslaySolomon states prominently that is is just someone's opinion and not a policy or even a guideline, so it counts for no more than anyone else's opinion to the contrary. It also explicitly says "it is important to realize that countering the keep or delete arguments of
903:
on
Knowledge (XXG). If one is voted for deletion on grounds that can be applied to all of them, then ALL of them need to be deleted. Singling out a single article for deletion by processes that can be used to delete an entire category of articles is just wasteful. The Simple precidence of other
988:
per Black Falcon's reasoning. Can always been cleaned up, etc. but AFD is not a place to judge content. The claim that it's not sourced doesn't make sense because every entry includes the title of the book or other work from which the information is taken, and most of these works have their own
1490:
Actually I disagree that this is original research. Almost all the entries in the list are verifiable, and the article is not using the collected information to advance an original opinion or original analysis. All its doing is indexing the information in chronological order. Far as I can tell
1005:
Many sources were used, including Keith
Topping's unofficial guides which place books in the timeline, and the Buffy/Angel episodes in relation to each other, a Dark Horse Comic timeline that was at the Dark Horse site, 'Historian notes' at the beginning of many stories, as well as comments in
959:
in how it is used commonly and liberally), it is not specific to the article, therefore, I mention the others. Unless there is a specific reason to delete the article that only applies to this article, then there is no reason to delete it, making the entire argument disingenuous. --
1240:
tag on the articles and explained it in the talk page, I'm sure they would have addressed the issue rather quickly (and since when is the lack of easily obtainable sources a reason for deletion?). Also, most of these three lists consists of the canon timeline -- that's
1517:, I'm not convinced there is a shred of actual genuine "original research" in this article, it just needs citing. There will be plenty of sources to reveal why it has been organised the way it has. There is absolutely no good enough reason to delete all this work. --
838:
or it doesn't. There's a good reason the words "cruft" and "trivia" don't appear in WP:NOT, and that's because there is not strong consensus on how or when to delete articles based on those criteria or even how to properly define those terms.
1006:
interviews by authors and script-writers about how stories relate to each other and more. As well as clear markers in the texts themselves. It needs time to build the referencing, but there is no real justification for deletion. --
1449:. For instance, a claim of membership in a truly secret organisation is original research. An unsourced claim that Tony Blair is the PM of the United Kingdom is not OR. Despite that, a number of references are provided
1149:
and I fail to see how it meets any of the criteria laid out there. Yes, it organizes the information (chronologically). But you can't write any article without contributing some sort of organizational scheme.
384:
is an essay and not a reason for deletion. To me, issues related to quantum physics are quite crufty (as I've got little understanding of what it's about). What's cruft for one person is completely normal for
628:(not just unverified). The information points to books and TV shows, which are certainly verifiable by secondary sources (for the TV episodes) or by primary sources (the books/comics/whatever themselves). --
954:
Second inapplicable due to the nature of the comment. The reasoning given for the deletion can, by and large, be equally applied to the others (as the term "Fancruft" has about as much bearing as the term
323:
of work, and I'd really appreciate if people allowed it time to reference itself rather than deleting because they assume its based on original research because of the current lack of clear referencing. --
376:. Why does it matter who wrote it? The article should be judged on its merits. In fact, why would something about a fictional work/universe be written by people who don't like/care about the work/story?
1333:, exceedingly useful in listing/organising what could otherwise be a complicated timeline. Are there any viable transwiki options, as in, Buffyverse wikis as popular as the one organised by WP:BUFFY? ~
766:
per nom's perfectly valid reasons. This article tells us nothing about the comparative real-world significance of the works of fiction listed and, as an unsourced guide to how they interrelate, is an
666:. It states that "Original research is material that cannot be attributed to a reliable source." and contrasts this with "unsourced material", which is attributable but not yet attributed. --
566:
100% original research, as per Black Falcon's own admission. "The blue links have sources" constitutes sourcing
Knowledge (XXG) articles with Knowledge (XXG) articles. Not gonna hack it.
1321:, although improve by bringing sourcing into this article rather than through other articles referenced. Article is very encyclopedic as I see it, and extraordinarily comprehensive. --
1018:
per Black Falcon. Sources can easily be put into the article. Wouldn't it have been better to put something on the talk page instead of (or at least before) electing it for deletion? --
1001:- Although it may appear like original research and many will argue for deletion because they think it is, I can see why people would think it might be OR. However there is actually
1046:
policy would successfully argue against its removal, as right now
Knowledge (XXG) is served by hundreds of articles on Whedon's universe that are currently quite easy to navigate.
117:
834:
I agree, Pax. The argument that "policy might not actually say this violates anything, but in my opinion it should" doesn't hold water. Either it breaks the policy
798:
Knowledge (XXG) is not for listing all fictional spin-off materials from 1990's television series 'Buffy the
Vampire Slayer' in the order in which they seem to be set
1445:
A lack of sources is not proof of original research. Original research is something that we as editors have made up ourselves and requires that information is
233:
228:
186:
181:
237:
190:
220:
173:
1450:
90:
85:
94:
899:
as most of the reasons for deletion are either invalid or little more than veild ad homium attacks. Furthermore there are many, many, many other
722:
or somesuch. A list of Buffy-related books is encyclopedic. Adding the time period in which those books are set is just an extra bit of data.
77:
685:. All of this is easily sourced from the episodes/books themselves, the commentaries on DVDs, and especially the books about the series.
494:
There are reliable sources available online and offline to support the list. Do we need to delete immediately, or allow improvement? --
17:
1167:
appear to be an extended "plot summary", and does serve as a useful index for a larger multi-article topic, thus not violating the
904:
chronologies is a good piece of evidence to keep this one. Especially if the others are not being threatened with deletion. --
428:
This guideline includes "Personal web pages", "File storage areas", and "Dating services". This is obviously none of the three.
719:
872:
354:
As opposed to all the other Wikipdedia articles which are written by people who have no interest whatever in the subjects?
920:
272:
1536:
36:
1188:
1521:
1503:
1483:
1457:
1440:
1426:
1409:
1392:
1376:
1362:
1339:
1325:
1313:
1293:
1283:
1274:
1258:
1249:
1225:
1215:
1199:
1179:
1154:
1133:
1109:
1082:
1034:
1022:
1010:
993:
974:
964:
944:
908:
891:
843:
829:
817:
756:
746:
709:
670:
654:
632:
619:
597:
583:
570:
558:
546:
526:
498:
485:
447:
358:
346:
328:
304:
280:
263:
224:
177:
881:
900:
439:
well-organized they are) and being highly informative (i.e., it's not just a list of internal links). Therefore,
1042:
The nominated articles serve as source material for a navigational tool for Buffy-related articles; I think the
924:
154:. I would be open to transwikiing this if there is a Buffy Wikia that could take these articles, but these are
81:
1535:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
216:
169:
130:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1514:
373:
1230:
This can be sourced as well. There is a WikiProject dedicated to "Buffyverse" articles. If you had put an
1491:
there is no overall original analysis or interpretation or opinions implied by the article, and thus it is
73:
65:
1436:
1405:
939:
812:
554:
per the excellent analysis of Black Falcon. The bases for the nomination have been shown to be invalid.
776:
is not a policy. However, it is a succinct way of expressing the spirit of policies and guidelines like
1234:
613:
800:". However, as reasonably intelligent and literate human beings, we can probably take it as read. --
610:
462:- it's still original research (saying that sources are "likely" in those articles doesn't help), and
1128:
1077:
1499:
for a definition that explains the difference between original research and simply being unsourced.)
1356:
1222:
1209:
1196:
1192:
1103:
648:
479:
470:, not a guideline, and is not limited to what is explicitly stated on it. I also did not say that
298:
415:. It's not so much a "plot summary" rather than an aid to navigation for articles related to the
865:
723:
686:
1145:
I don't understand why this would be considered original research. I've read the guidelines at
1114:
1091:
1068:
1064:
1043:
773:
471:
380:
135:
1454:
1432:
1423:
1401:
1373:
1347:
First of all, this is not a "Buffyverse" wiki. This is an encyclopedia. There is a Buffy wiki
1306:
1246:
961:
928:
905:
801:
667:
629:
580:
523:
444:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1369:
1172:
781:
432:
1255:
1151:
616:
1496:
1472:
1168:
1146:
1119:
1095:
1059:
1047:
822:
793:
789:
785:
768:
663:
519:
515:
508:
463:
423:
412:
406:
389:
155:
151:
147:
139:
1518:
1322:
1123:
1072:
575:
You seem to have misunderstood. That was not what I wrote. I wrote that the sources are
1476:
1415:
640:
606:
459:
143:
624:
Could you please clarify? "Original research" means that the information is inherently
1353:
1289:
summary and the in-fiction date are all probably quite easy to provide a citation for.
1280:
1206:
1100:
645:
476:
474:
was a reason for this nomination, but this is fansite material and not encyclopedic. --
343:
295:
1431:
Show me the reliable source, then. If there isn't one, then it's original research.
777:
522:
can be applied to things not listed in it, how are you to argue against my claim? --
1279:
What is? The article itself? Knowledge (XXG) articles can't be self-references. --
1271:
990:
855:
594:
543:
1388:, per Black Falcon's excellent rebuttal of the wrongful reasons given for deletion.
1500:
1310:
1290:
1221:
Trek, etc.) timelines... or am I misunderstanding what you are saying in reply? -
1176:
1019:
1007:
840:
826:
753:
495:
325:
254:
207:
111:
1480:
1389:
971:
567:
555:
355:
662:. Yes, it does (though it uses the equivalent term attributable). Please see
1334:
1031:
593:
per nom. A transwiki would be fine if some place can and will accept these.
416:
125:
54:
1090:
Erm, I'm not disrupting the community to make a point, so I don't know how
1067:. I'd also suggesting using inflammatory terms such as "cruft" isn't very
1003:
no original research in this article. All it needs is clearer referencing.
825:
should be used as the policy states, or it should not be used at all. --
1348:
970:
other people by simply referring them to this essay is not encouraged."
956:
1368:
encyclopedia and these list provide a navigation tool as suggested per
1479:, so that our articles on the television series could reference it.
579:
the articles, not that the articles themselves are the sources. --
1418:, which refers to material that is inherently unverifiable (i.e., "
1030:
a time-line of a well-known fictional series seems encyclopedic --
366:. Allow me to address the reasons for deletion presented so far.
148:
Knowledge (XXG) is not an indiscriminate collection of information
1529:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
1254:
Wouldn't the solution then be to source it, not to delete it?
514:
limited to what's stated in it; otherwise, I can claim that
1054:
dicey rule, but it can support this as well: ignore rules
372:
One of the worst reasons I could imagine, even worse than
1513:- As someone who has spent a deal of time pondering over
1309:. It is a chronology of a well-known television show. --
398:
of the entries are blue-links, so the sources are likely
124:
These three articles are all chronologies of the entire "
411:
This does not qualify for any of the 8 things listed at
288:
284:
276:
268:
250:
246:
242:
203:
199:
195:
107:
103:
99:
152:
Knowledge (XXG) is not a free web host or a fan site
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1245:to source with secondary and primary sources. --
772:. Yes, Black Falcon, we are all well aware that
1539:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1475:. It would be nice if this was published in a
458:Other Knowledge (XXG) articles don't cut it as
518:a repository of presidential biographies! If
8:
853:, but needs cited sources and a cleanup. --
643:doesn't say anything about verifiability. --
769:unpublished synthesis of published material
394:Please note that this is a chronology and
138:term). However, all of them appear to be
1191:, which has been demonstrated as fine. -
720:List of Buffyverse historical flashbacks
1422:attributed to a reliable source"). --
1171:section on Plot Summaries or violating
1056:when doing so improves Knowledge (XXG).
796:does not contain a section entitled "
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
1094:is applicable here. By this logic,
24:
1497:WP:NOR#What is original research?
664:WP:NOR#What is original research?
435:as aiding navigation (given how
1270:its a fairly reliable source.
1160:Keep (might need some cleanup)
264:File:Buffyverse Chronology.jpg
162:This nomination also includes:
1:
1414:Please see the definition of
1204:It's sourced, this isn't. --
431:Finally, these articles meet
1195:21:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC) -
342:- Completely fan-written. --
1515:Knowledge (XXG):Attribution
1189:Back to the Future timeline
1187:As valid as something like
390:Unsourced original research
146:, and read like a fansite.
1556:
142:- they are all completely
1522:00:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
1504:16:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
1484:07:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
1458:06:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
1441:05:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
1427:05:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
1410:05:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
1393:04:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
1377:05:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
1363:05:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
1340:15:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
1326:13:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
1314:01:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
1294:22:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
1284:21:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
1275:00:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
1259:17:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
1250:00:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
1226:00:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
1216:00:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
1200:21:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
1180:21:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
1155:21:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
1134:15:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
1110:04:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
1083:18:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
1035:18:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
1023:17:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
1011:16:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
994:16:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
975:23:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
965:13:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
945:12:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
909:12:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
892:12:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
844:21:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
830:17:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
818:10:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
757:22:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
747:10:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
710:09:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
671:19:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
655:14:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
633:08:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
620:08:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
598:07:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
584:07:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
571:06:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
559:06:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
547:06:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
527:00:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
499:17:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
486:07:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
448:06:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
359:23:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
347:05:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
329:16:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
305:05:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
217:Buffyverse chronology (3)
170:Buffyverse chronology (2)
156:not encyclopedia articles
1532:Please do not modify it.
131:Buffy the Vampire Slayer
32:Please do not modify it.
1495:original research (see
1447:inherently unverifiable
370:Completely fan-written.
901:fictional chronologies
1098:would be useless. --
74:Buffyverse chronology
66:Buffyverse chronology
441:exremely strong keep
134:, and an inherently
921:WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS
681:Needs cleanup, but
540:Delete or Transwiki
128:" (the universe of
1473:original research
1416:original research
1243:ridiculously easy
1132:
1081:
890:
607:original research
140:original research
59:
58:2007-03-07 11:07Z
1547:
1534:
1471:-- definitively
1359:
1239:
1233:
1212:
1126:
1106:
1075:
942:
938:
934:
931:
888:
887:
879:
878:
870:
869:
863:
862:
859:
854:
815:
811:
807:
804:
743:
741:
739:
737:
735:
706:
704:
702:
700:
698:
651:
482:
460:reliable sources
301:
293:
292:
258:
240:
211:
193:
115:
97:
61:
57:
50:
34:
1555:
1554:
1550:
1549:
1548:
1546:
1545:
1544:
1543:
1537:deletion review
1530:
1477:reliable source
1386:Strong Keep All
1357:
1237:
1231:
1210:
1104:
940:
936:
932:
929:
925:WP:ALLORNOTHING
883:
882:
874:
873:
867:
866:
860:
857:
856:
813:
809:
805:
802:
733:
731:
729:
727:
725:
714:Alternatively,
696:
694:
692:
690:
688:
649:
480:
424:WP:NOT#WEBSPACE
402:those articles.
299:
266:
262:
231:
215:
184:
168:
88:
72:
69:
51:
45:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1553:
1551:
1542:
1541:
1525:
1524:
1507:
1506:
1487:
1486:
1466:
1465:
1464:
1463:
1462:
1461:
1460:
1395:
1383:
1382:
1381:
1380:
1379:
1328:
1316:
1300:
1299:
1298:
1297:
1296:
1265:
1264:
1263:
1262:
1261:
1252:
1228:
1182:
1157:
1140:
1139:
1138:
1137:
1136:
1037:
1025:
1013:
996:
982:
981:
980:
979:
978:
977:
948:
947:
912:
911:
894:
848:
847:
846:
832:
761:
760:
759:
749:
679:
678:
677:
676:
675:
674:
673:
600:
588:
587:
586:
561:
549:
536:
535:
534:
533:
532:
531:
530:
529:
502:
501:
489:
488:
453:
452:
451:
450:
429:
420:
403:
386:
377:
374:WP:IDONTLIKEIT
361:
349:
336:
335:
334:
333:
332:
331:
308:
307:
259:
212:
164:
163:
122:
121:
68:
63:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1552:
1540:
1538:
1533:
1527:
1526:
1523:
1520:
1516:
1512:
1509:
1508:
1505:
1502:
1498:
1494:
1489:
1488:
1485:
1482:
1478:
1474:
1470:
1467:
1459:
1456:
1452:
1448:
1444:
1443:
1442:
1438:
1434:
1430:
1429:
1428:
1425:
1421:
1417:
1413:
1412:
1411:
1407:
1403:
1399:
1396:
1394:
1391:
1387:
1384:
1378:
1375:
1371:
1366:
1365:
1364:
1361:
1360:
1355:
1350:
1346:
1343:
1342:
1341:
1338:
1337:
1332:
1329:
1327:
1324:
1320:
1317:
1315:
1312:
1308:
1304:
1301:
1295:
1292:
1287:
1286:
1285:
1282:
1278:
1277:
1276:
1273:
1269:
1266:
1260:
1257:
1253:
1251:
1248:
1244:
1236:
1229:
1227:
1224:
1219:
1218:
1217:
1214:
1213:
1208:
1203:
1202:
1201:
1198:
1194:
1190:
1186:
1183:
1181:
1178:
1174:
1170:
1166:
1161:
1158:
1156:
1153:
1148:
1144:
1141:
1135:
1130:
1125:
1121:
1116:
1113:
1112:
1111:
1108:
1107:
1102:
1097:
1093:
1089:
1086:
1085:
1084:
1079:
1074:
1070:
1066:
1061:
1057:
1053:
1049:
1045:
1041:
1038:
1036:
1033:
1029:
1026:
1024:
1021:
1017:
1014:
1012:
1009:
1004:
1000:
997:
995:
992:
987:
984:
983:
976:
973:
968:
967:
966:
963:
958:
953:
950:
949:
946:
943:
935:
926:
922:
919:
916:
915:
914:
913:
910:
907:
902:
898:
895:
893:
889:
886:
880:
877:
871:
864:
852:
849:
845:
842:
837:
833:
831:
828:
824:
821:
820:
819:
816:
808:
799:
795:
791:
787:
783:
779:
775:
771:
770:
765:
762:
758:
755:
750:
748:
745:
744:
721:
717:
713:
712:
711:
708:
707:
684:
680:
672:
669:
665:
661:
658:
657:
656:
653:
652:
647:
642:
639:
636:
635:
634:
631:
627:
623:
622:
621:
618:
615:
612:
608:
604:
601:
599:
596:
592:
589:
585:
582:
578:
574:
573:
572:
569:
565:
562:
560:
557:
553:
550:
548:
545:
541:
538:
537:
528:
525:
521:
517:
513:
510:
506:
505:
504:
503:
500:
497:
493:
492:
491:
490:
487:
484:
483:
478:
473:
469:
465:
461:
457:
456:
455:
454:
449:
446:
442:
438:
434:
430:
427:
425:
421:
418:
414:
410:
408:
404:
401:
397:
393:
391:
387:
383:
382:
378:
375:
371:
368:
367:
365:
362:
360:
357:
353:
350:
348:
345:
341:
338:
337:
330:
327:
322:
317:
314:
313:
312:
311:
310:
309:
306:
303:
302:
297:
290:
286:
282:
278:
274:
270:
265:
260:
256:
252:
248:
244:
239:
235:
230:
226:
222:
218:
213:
209:
205:
201:
197:
192:
188:
183:
179:
175:
171:
166:
165:
161:
160:
159:
157:
153:
149:
145:
141:
137:
133:
132:
127:
119:
113:
109:
105:
101:
96:
92:
87:
83:
79:
75:
71:
70:
67:
64:
62:
60:
56:
48:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1531:
1528:
1510:
1492:
1468:
1455:Black Falcon
1446:
1433:Kelly Martin
1424:Black Falcon
1419:
1402:Kelly Martin
1397:
1385:
1374:Black Falcon
1352:
1344:
1335:
1330:
1318:
1307:Black Falcon
1302:
1267:
1247:Black Falcon
1242:
1235:unreferenced
1205:
1184:
1169:WP:NOT#IINFO
1164:
1159:
1142:
1099:
1087:
1055:
1051:
1040:Strong keep.
1039:
1027:
1015:
1002:
998:
985:
962:Majin Gojira
951:
917:
906:Majin Gojira
896:
884:
875:
850:
835:
797:
767:
763:
724:
715:
687:
682:
668:Black Falcon
659:
644:
637:
630:Black Falcon
626:unverifiable
625:
602:
590:
581:Black Falcon
576:
563:
551:
539:
524:Black Falcon
511:
475:
467:
445:Black Falcon
440:
436:
422:
413:WP:NOT#IINFO
407:WP:NOT#IINFO
405:
399:
395:
388:
379:
369:
363:
351:
339:
320:
315:
294:
129:
123:
52:
47:No consensus
46:
43:
31:
28:
1511:Strong Keep
1319:Strong Keep
1256:Chunky Rice
1185:Strong keep
1152:Chunky Rice
999:Strong Keep
507:Coredesat,
364:Strong keep
1519:Buffyverse
1323:Davidkevin
1124:Whedonette
1073:Whedonette
836:as written
718:with e.g.
577:located in
417:Buffyverse
400:located in
126:Buffyverse
1420:cannot be
1305:, as per
1281:InShaneee
1096:WP:NOT#OR
542:per nom.
437:extremely
344:InShaneee
316:Response:
144:unsourced
1272:PTluw777
1115:WP:POINT
1092:WP:POINT
1065:WP:POINT
1044:WP:POINT
991:23skidoo
957:Mary Sue
952:Response
774:WP:CRUFT
595:GassyGuy
552:Keep all
544:TJ Spyke
472:WP:CRUFT
385:another.
381:WP:CRUFT
118:View log
1501:Dugwiki
1370:WP:LIST
1345:Comment
1311:Carioca
1291:Dugwiki
1177:Dugwiki
1173:WP:FICT
1143:comment
1088:Comment
1020:Dookama
1008:Paxomen
933:Solomon
918:Comment
841:Dugwiki
827:Paxomen
806:Solomon
782:WP:FICT
754:Dugwiki
660:Comment
638:Comment
611:Terence
496:Paxomen
433:WP:LIST
352:Comment
326:Paxomen
277:history
234:protect
229:history
187:protect
182:history
91:protect
86:history
1481:Jkelly
1469:Delete
1398:Delete
1390:Mathmo
1147:WP:ATT
1120:WP:NOR
1069:polite
1060:WP:IAR
1048:WP:IAR
972:Edison
823:WP:NOT
794:WP:NOT
790:WP:NOT
786:WP:WAF
764:Delete
603:Delete
591:Delete
568:JuJube
564:Delete
556:Edison
520:WP:NOT
516:WP:NOT
509:WP:NOT
468:policy
464:WP:NOT
443:. --
356:Edison
340:Delete
238:delete
191:delete
150:, and
136:crufty
95:delete
1372:. --
1358:desat
1336:Zythe
1223:Denny
1211:desat
1197:Denny
1193:Denny
1105:desat
1058:Does
1050:is a
1032:Hobit
930:Islay
858:Razor
803:Islay
726:: -->
716:merge
689:: -->
650:desat
641:WP:OR
481:desat
300:desat
285:watch
281:links
255:views
247:watch
243:links
208:views
200:watch
196:links
112:views
104:watch
100:links
55:Quarl
16:<
1451:here
1437:talk
1406:talk
1354:Core
1351:. --
1349:here
1331:Keep
1303:Keep
1268:Keep
1207:Core
1129:ping
1122:. โ
1101:Core
1078:ping
1071:. โ
1052:very
1028:Keep
1016:Keep
986:Keep
941:talk
897:Keep
868:talk
851:Keep
814:talk
788:and
778:WP:A
742:<
705:<
683:keep
646:Core
617:ๆญๅๅ่ดข
477:Core
296:Core
289:logs
273:talk
269:edit
251:logs
225:talk
221:edit
204:logs
178:talk
174:edit
108:logs
82:talk
78:edit
1493:not
1165:not
927:--
861:ICE
792:.
614:Ong
609:.
466:is
396:all
321:lot
116:โ (
1439:)
1408:)
1238:}}
1232:{{
1175:.
923:,
784:,
780:,
605:,
512:is
287:|
283:|
279:|
275:|
271:|
253:|
249:|
245:|
241:|
236:|
232:|
227:|
223:|
206:|
202:|
198:|
194:|
189:|
185:|
180:|
176:|
158:.
110:|
106:|
102:|
98:|
93:|
89:|
84:|
80:|
1435:(
1404:(
1131:)
1127:(
1080:)
1076:(
937:|
885:@
876:C
810:|
740:t
738:n
736:a
734:i
732:d
730:a
728:R
703:t
701:n
699:a
697:i
695:d
693:a
691:R
426:.
419:.
409:.
392:.
291:)
267:(
261:*
257:)
219:(
214:*
210:)
172:(
167:*
120:)
114:)
76:(
53:โ
49:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.