1067:. However the content of this article is more extensive than most of those other commands. So we need to make a value judgement, is the size of this content enough to justify a separate article? It looks to me like it is. This much content in the otherwise list of short subjects would be a distraction, however there is some debate above as to the validity of that content. So based on the fact that there is that much content already, we must assume that even if the questioned content were removed, if the article had that much content once, it could easily get expanded back to an unmanageable size and should stand alone. So I vote
852:
original in a different way, if I summarize or generalize, if I add context or juxtapose it with other relevant material, or if I otherwise give any other take on the original, I'm publishing a secondary source. There's no requirement it have a certain kind of analysis or opinion. President gives a speech: primary. Someone else summarizing, generalizing, contextualizing, analyzing, judging, etc. that speech: secondary. Owner's manual: primary. Someone else explaining, summarizing, etc. an aspect of an owner's manual: secondary. There are separate arguments about what's
1159:. While it's true that Lesser Cartographies has done much work to improve these articles, I'm still not convinced that independent articles on each individual DOS command is a good idea. Some of them are easily notable, some of them are of debatable notability, and some simply can not be written in any format beyond a how-to guide. Timekeeping on computers may very well be a notable and scholarly topic, but individual time-keeping commands? I don't really see how this can be compliant with our policies. If people
672:, which requires multiple reliable independent secondary sources about the subject. To be secondary, the source must off the author's own opinions or analysis. It can't just be a summary of the command line options lifted from the man page. Realistically, there are no such qualifying sources. Occasionally, we will allow articles where the sourcing is weak but where there's a consensus a separate article is warranted for other reasons. For example, we have an article on
837:, for example. If the AP reports a story saying "Today the President announced that the United States would donate $ 50million in aid to fight ebola in Liberia. This is the second aid package to Liberia this year. So far ebola has claimed the lives of x number of people..." that would fail your secondary source test. Nowhere in my response did I advocate "reciting the command line options" -- that's just restating the initial argument. --—
1038:
explain how to drive a car, nor should it. There is related history here (older computers had no built-in clock and their system time had to be set on every boot; still older ones didn't keep time or even date at all; these days we can set our computers' time via NTP or a GPS receiver, but some computers' timekeeping is notoriously inaccurate; etc.) but the place for it isn't in a description of the "date" command.
1125:: it contains a one-line description that does not establish the topic as notable, followed by a lot of how-to information that does not establish (with references) why anyone should care about how to use this command in the ways described. Trimming off the manual part leaves no stand-alone article. If the command is interesting/notable, then it can be
270:. There is no need for articles on individual OS commands, regardless of what the OS is. Especially since this command doesn't do anything particularly interesting; most operating systems provide a command to display and/or change the current date. Should we create articles for the equivalent commands from VMS, MVS, VM/CMS, etc?
917:
case to be made here (the rest of my comments addressed the notability question implied in almost every AfD). The number of good/bad bytes is also not a good reason to delete if there are sources which can be used to broaden it (i.e. the existence of those sources is enough). I have, however, changed
379:
because the title of a book is normally chosen by the publisher for commercial reasons (ie marketing reasons). It is not intended to be an accurate reflection of the nature of the book's contents, and cannot be assumed to say anything meaningful about the book's contents. Nor am I prepared to rely on
370:
I think you will find that my reputation is perfectly secure. The word "manual" is exactly that: it is just a word that doesn't have any particularly precise signification in
English. I am not prepared to entertain other users inventing their own definitions of that word out of their own heads, which
832:
You're largely agreeing with me except where I'm misrepresented. You said it requires "opinions or analysis." On the other hand that quote includes "thinking based on primary sources," "interpretation," "evaluation of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas," and so on. Furthermore, your particular
389:
law reports" (which would include encyclopedias). And by your logic, the ODNB is a "dictionary" for the purpose of our policy. Nor am I prepared to entertain assertions about the alleged purpose of our policies that are not supported evidence, which you have not produced. And even if I accepted your
765:
the detailed notability, etc. policies and guidelines are intended to take the place of generalized judgments of what there's a "need" for or what we decide is or is not "interesting". Plenty of things that are interesting aren't notable and plenty of things that are notable aren't interesting. The
388:
themselves manuals. The last thing that we want to do is to start trying to inject meaning into vague, ambiguous, wishy-washy, airy-fairy, waffle words like "manual", because it is likely to produce absurd results. O Hood
Phillips, for example, defined "textbooks" as "books other than statutes and
351:
Seriously James500, you should have more concern about what such a frivolous verdict would do to your own reputation, because this kind of interpretation of WP:NOTMANUAL is only found in sitcoms for their comedy value. The section, along with the entire founding policy, has a purpose. In addition,
1037:
is an encyclopedia article. It describes the history of the invention, the economic and social impact of cars, etc. There might even be a discussion of how cars' controls evolved, from tillers to steering wheels, from the Model T's setup to the modern pedals-and-shifter, etc. But nowhere does it
972:
manual-like content, it should be fixed, not deleted. If there's any hope for content to be reworked, removed, better sourced, etc. blowing it up isn't the way to go. Blowing it up is most often applied, in my experience, when the content hurts
Knowledge (XXG) -- as with copyright violations and
851:
Follow-up, for clarity, because this doesn't seem like something that has to hinge on the particularities of a
Knowledge (XXG) policy: A secondary source is a source based on material originally presented elsewhere. If I just reprint or reword the original, that's one thing, but if I explain the
680:
but that was because there was a consensus it's important construct that appears in many shells and the best way to deal with it would be with a separate article explaining the concept and where it first appeared. I find no similar rationale available here. Nom is correct: Knowledge (XXG) is
752:
a secondary source does not require an author's opinions or analysis unless you're broadening "analysis" to mean an alternative explanation (alternative to a help file/man page). It would be difficult to base a number of technical, scientific, mathematics, etc. articles entirely on opinions or
786:
look like substantial parts here could be chopped, turned into prose, and adding sources would certainly help it to be less manual-like. I'm confident there are enough sources out there to justify an article on operating system date commands (one for each OS, I'm less confident). --—
371:
is what you seem to be doing. According to the
Compact OED, a manual is "a book giving instructions or information". The same dictionary defines an encyclopedia as "a book ... giving information ...". Clearly, according to that source, the only relevant difference is the presence of
912:
To argue that the existence of reliable secondary sources, notability, and importance of a subject don't matter at all because of the current non-copyvio content of an article is always a very difficult case to make and my inclination is to say there's not a good enough
645:, I guess. The lede isn't really like a manual. Computers and operating systems are really important and so major commands (in several OS's I gather) are worth describing, I guess. The rest of the article is kind of manual-like, there's not a
815:
provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's interpretation, analysis, or evaluation of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary
979:
I spent a little while trying to rework the article, using existing content and the sources I could find. Well, I did not succeed. The more I looked at what was important and interesting about date commands, the more I realized
328:
about how to use or do something is not" (my emphasis). This article does not consist entirely of instructions. Even if does contain instructions (and I am not sure it contains any), I don't see why they can't be rewritten as a
309:
If the nominator's rationale is correct, the correct !vote would be "transwiki" (to wikiversity or wikibooks) not "delete". NOTMANUAL is not an argument for the elimination of any given content from all WMF projects.
180:
286:"No need" and "not particularly interesting" are not valid arguments for deletion. The later argument is entirely subjective. Many of our articles contain sports statistics, and I am tempted to argue that
393:
about the meaning of the word "manual" (which I don't), you still haven't explained why the article can't be rewritten in an encyclopedic manner which would be the preferred solution per WP:IMPERFECT.
324:
At the moment, I am inclined towards keeping this article. What NOTMANUAL actually says is: "Describing to the reader how people or things use or do something is encyclopedic; instructing the reader
992:
as a sole reason for deletion here, that it relies on so much manual-like content is indeed a symptom of there just not being enough to talk about to merit a stand-alone article. !Vote changed. --—
133:
818:
Simply reciting the command line options from the man page does make for a secondary source. It must also include the author's own thinking. Period. It's there in our guidelines.
352:
I've read thousands of manuals so far and have created two myself (excluding all those /doc pages that I edit in template namespace). All looked exactly like this page. Best regards,
677:
231:
437:
174:
973:
advertising, for example -- not when the article needs an overhaul. That's what tags are for. Also, I don't know where the argumentum ad absurdum you're talking about is.
882:
is now deleted for the same reason. Also, it is very illogical to keep a 59 KB article because 235 bytes of it don't violate the policy. Those 235 bytes can move to
968:
Ok so first I have some ultimately inconsequential procedural concerns: If an article is not only a man page, then the article is not a man page. If an article
481:—Unfortunately, the nom can nominate faster than I can locate sources and rewrite articles. At this point, I'm just going to start marking these as
140:
1236:
This would be an entirely acceptable solution, but the last time I saw a transwiki result was... never? I guess we could raise this issue on
1092:. "There's a lot of stuff here" is not justification for keeping an article. Nor is "it could just get expanded again, might as well keep it".
951:
649:
to say about it I guess, and I suppose that making a long article describing these commands might be called for is someone wants to do that.
910:
look like substantial parts here could be chopped, turned into prose, and adding sources would certainly help it to be less manual-like.
106:
101:
1321:
article at all? It's a clear example of what a brief manual looks like, and it should also be moved to
Wikiversity, if you agree. —
17:
110:
214:
and this article is written exactly like a man page. It can, however, be moved to one of the sister projects or a Unix/Linux wiki.
754:
922:
article has to offer (which is, I think, a better redirect target than some list of commands should this end in a redirect). --—
195:
162:
93:
1227:
1218:
and transwiki the result (the list suffers from the problem as much), but this decision is out of this discussion's scope. —
490:
333:
of how the command is used etc (WP:IMPERFECT). To put it another way, NOTMANUAL seems to be more about style than substance.
248:
417:. Everything outside of the lede is how-to, and the lede should be dispersed to the various OS-specific lists of commands.
375:. I am sure that you have read books that have the word "manual" printed on the cover, but their contents prove absolutely
1330:
906:
a man page, even if a large part of it appears that way, so that doesn't seem like a reason for deletion on its own. It
782:
a man page, even if a large part of it appears that way, so that doesn't seem like a reason for deletion on its own. It
1353:
40:
156:
1245:
1186:
504:- Nom's objection appears to be with the content of the article, not the topic. The lead does not appear to offend
55:. (or wherever else appropriate). By and large, there's consensus against outright keeping based predominantly on
1237:
1202:: having a WikiBook about DOS shell usage would be benefitial for that project. I see nothing in current text of
709:
486:
1206:
that would serve a basis for an encyclopedic article in future, so "keep" and "merge" rationales are ruled out.
757:
article, for example, which explains "date" in its own section of a paper using an analogy to a stopwatch, etc.
550:
That's fine, but it should be a redirect not a delete and can be worked out on article talk pages, not at AfD. ~
384:
of what these publications contain. And of course you have, at most, only read a small subset of all the books
152:
753:
analysis rather than authoritative and informed explanation and description. It took me a few seconds to find
1267:
makes a good argument on why this is not appropriate as a standalone article and I agree with it entirely.
959:
891:
537:
357:
253:
219:
1334:
1293:
1271:
1249:
1231:
1190:
1143:
1101:
1079:
1047:
1001:
963:
931:
895:
869:
846:
827:
796:
724:
713:
694:
682:
669:
658:
633:
587:
554:
541:
512:
494:
473:
449:
426:
402:
361:
342:
319:
299:
279:
259:
223:
75:
938:
469:
202:
1302:
1168:
1122:
989:
914:
875:
806:
505:
211:
1349:
1241:
1182:
654:
36:
1089:
1026:
414:
60:
1318:
1310:
1260:
1215:
1207:
1152:
1118:
1064:
1060:
883:
673:
529:
51:
1075:
994:
924:
862:
839:
789:
188:
97:
599:
568:
410:
56:
1223:
1138:
955:
887:
773:
533:
398:
353:
338:
315:
295:
243:
215:
1029:; removal of the "man page" content would leave it with next to nothing. Look at our article on
168:
1289:
1163:
want to keep a detailed history of individual DOS or UNIX commands, I would suggest a wiki at
823:
690:
583:
465:
445:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1348:
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
1326:
805:
Sorry, Rhododentrites, you're wrong about what's required to make a source secondary. From
770:(read: doesn't matter if they're currently included) sufficient reliable sources out there.
650:
1126:
985:
717:
630:
1268:
1203:
1071:
1063:
I am torn between the two options. Many similar command line instructions are part of
721:
551:
509:
89:
81:
1211:
64:
1219:
1130:
1097:
1043:
833:
reading of "author's own thinking" removes from the definition of "secondary source"
422:
394:
334:
311:
291:
275:
236:
1285:
1281:
1264:
819:
747:
686:
579:
441:
127:
1322:
981:
919:
879:
741:
611:
68:
602:
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
571:
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
464:
to
Wikibook, or sell to Microsoft because it is one hell of a documentation.
1199:
523:
508:. How about we delete most of the body of the article and call it a day? ~
1210:
has nothing to say about DATE, so redirect to this list is impossible per
878:". By keeping and broaden, one can only make a more comprehensive manual.
1093:
1039:
760:
418:
271:
1025:
per
Rhododendrite's conclusion above. This article flies in the face of
740:- but broaden to cover all related "date" commands (e.g. by merging
1164:
1342:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
918:
my !vote to a weak keep upon closer inspection of the what the
1030:
1214:. FWIW the best solution would be to merge this article into
1177:
705:
123:
119:
115:
976:
All that being said, I'm changing my vote to delete :)
187:
1317:
609:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
578:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
201:
950:a man page or not, the only cure for its state is
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1356:). No further edits should be made to this page.
936:I don't know whether you are trying to put up a
232:list of Technology-related deletion discussions
438:list of Computing-related deletion discussions
8:
485:and will fill in the cites as time allows.
436:Note: This debate has been included in the
230:Note: This debate has been included in the
1263:, as much as that is not a great article.
1121:. I don't see how this does not go against
984:covers it better. It's likely notable per
435:
229:
874:"Keep and broaden" is not the answer to "
946:a man page. Regardless of whether it is
902:The article does not appear to me to be
778:The article does not appear to me to be
901:
860:but secondary isn't the question. --—
1181:to this discussion by Codename Lisa.
532:and deleting this one? Best regards,
528:: Or how about merging the lead into
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
24:
1167:, where issues of notability and
886:. (Already there.) Best regards,
1088:Your rationale does not address
988:, but while I don't agree with
766:question here is whether there
290:is more interesting than that.
212:Knowledge (XXG) is not a manual
1002:21:02, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
964:19:37, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
932:19:27, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
896:05:51, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
870:16:05, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
847:15:53, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
828:14:58, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
797:16:09, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
725:22:32, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
695:17:00, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
659:14:29, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
634:00:13, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
588:22:34, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
555:13:21, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
542:09:16, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
513:23:10, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
1:
495:08:53, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
474:04:56, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
450:00:16, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
403:16:02, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
362:10:57, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
343:05:05, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
320:17:12, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
300:17:22, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
280:05:12, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
260:04:18, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
224:03:50, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
952:to blow it up and start over
1335:04:52, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
1294:00:26, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
1272:10:44, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
1250:14:50, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
1232:08:11, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
1191:01:35, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
1144:20:29, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
1102:19:29, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
1080:19:18, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
1048:18:59, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
900:Right. Which is why I said
427:21:05, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
409:Comment: If you don't like
76:05:54, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
1373:
1238:Talk:List of DOS commands
1171:are no longer an issue.
942:or not, but this article
710:User:Lesser Cartographies
1345:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
939:argumentum ad absurdum
326:in the imperative mood
1319:List of DOS commands
1311:List of DOS commands
1261:List of DOS commands
1216:list of DOS commands
1208:List of DOS commands
1153:List of DOS commands
1119:list of DOS commands
1065:List of DOS commands
1061:List of DOS commands
884:List of DOS commands
738:(see comments below)
712:has done to address
674:command substitution
530:List of DOS commands
487:Lesser Cartographies
52:List of DOS commands
1220:Dmitrij D. Czarkoff
668:The test at AfD is
48:The result was
1142:
1134:
636:
590:
452:
262:
74:
1364:
1347:
1309:some parts into
1305:, together with
1242:NinjaRobotPirate
1183:NinjaRobotPirate
1180:
1136:
1132:
999:
997:
954:. Best regards,
929:
927:
867:
865:
844:
842:
813:secondary source
794:
792:
777:
764:
751:
632:
627:
624:
621:
618:
615:
608:
604:
577:
573:
527:
258:
241:
206:
205:
191:
143:
131:
113:
73:
71:
34:
1372:
1371:
1367:
1366:
1365:
1363:
1362:
1361:
1360:
1354:deletion review
1343:
1284:'s argument. --
1176:
995:
993:
925:
923:
863:
861:
840:
838:
790:
788:
771:
758:
745:
734:
718:PRINT (command)
625:
622:
619:
616:
613:
610:
597:
566:
521:
237:
235:
148:
139:
104:
88:
85:
69:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1370:
1368:
1359:
1358:
1338:
1337:
1296:
1275:
1254:
1253:
1252:
1204:DATE (command)
1193:
1146:
1107:
1106:
1105:
1104:
1083:
1082:
1050:
1019:
1018:
1017:
1016:
1015:
1014:
1013:
1012:
1011:
1010:
1009:
1008:
1007:
1006:
1005:
1004:
996:Rhododendrites
977:
974:
926:Rhododendrites
864:Rhododendrites
841:Rhododendrites
800:
799:
791:Rhododendrites
732:
728:
727:
698:
697:
662:
661:
639:
638:
637:
606:
605:
594:
593:
592:
591:
575:
574:
563:
562:
561:
560:
559:
558:
557:
545:
544:
516:
515:
498:
497:
476:
454:
453:
433:
432:
431:
430:
429:
406:
405:
365:
364:
346:
345:
322:
303:
302:
283:
282:
264:
263:
209:
208:
145:
90:DATE (command)
84:
82:DATE (command)
79:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1369:
1357:
1355:
1351:
1346:
1340:
1339:
1336:
1332:
1328:
1324:
1320:
1316:
1312:
1308:
1304:
1300:
1297:
1295:
1291:
1287:
1283:
1279:
1276:
1273:
1270:
1266:
1262:
1258:
1255:
1251:
1247:
1243:
1239:
1235:
1234:
1233:
1229:
1225:
1221:
1217:
1213:
1209:
1205:
1201:
1197:
1194:
1192:
1188:
1184:
1179:
1174:
1170:
1166:
1162:
1158:
1154:
1150:
1147:
1145:
1140:
1135:
1129:at any time.
1128:
1124:
1120:
1116:
1112:
1109:
1108:
1103:
1099:
1095:
1091:
1087:
1086:
1085:
1084:
1081:
1077:
1073:
1070:
1066:
1062:
1058:
1054:
1051:
1049:
1045:
1041:
1036:
1032:
1028:
1024:
1021:
1020:
1003:
998:
991:
987:
983:
978:
975:
971:
967:
966:
965:
961:
957:
956:Codename Lisa
953:
949:
945:
941:
940:
935:
934:
933:
928:
921:
916:
911:
909:
905:
899:
898:
897:
893:
889:
888:Codename Lisa
885:
881:
877:
873:
872:
871:
866:
859:
855:
850:
849:
848:
843:
836:
835:all reporting
831:
830:
829:
825:
821:
817:
814:
808:
804:
803:
802:
801:
798:
793:
785:
781:
775:
774:Codename Lisa
769:
762:
756:
749:
743:
739:
736:
730:
729:
726:
723:
719:
715:
714:WP:NOTAMANUAL
711:
707:
703:
700:
699:
696:
692:
688:
684:
683:WP:NOTAMANUAL
679:
675:
671:
670:WP:Notability
667:
664:
663:
660:
656:
652:
648:
644:
641:
640:
635:
631:
629:
628:
607:
603:
601:
596:
595:
589:
585:
581:
576:
572:
570:
565:
564:
556:
553:
549:
548:
547:
546:
543:
539:
535:
534:Codename Lisa
531:
525:
520:
519:
518:
517:
514:
511:
507:
503:
500:
499:
496:
492:
488:
484:
480:
477:
475:
471:
467:
466:Fleet Command
463:
459:
456:
455:
451:
447:
443:
439:
434:
428:
424:
420:
416:
412:
408:
407:
404:
400:
396:
392:
387:
383:
378:
374:
369:
368:
367:
366:
363:
359:
355:
354:Codename Lisa
350:
349:
348:
347:
344:
340:
336:
332:
327:
323:
321:
317:
313:
308:
305:
304:
301:
297:
293:
289:
285:
284:
281:
277:
273:
269:
266:
265:
261:
257:
256:
252:
251:
247:
246:
242:
240:
233:
228:
227:
226:
225:
221:
217:
216:Codename Lisa
213:
204:
200:
197:
194:
190:
186:
182:
179:
176:
173:
170:
167:
164:
161:
158:
154:
151:
150:Find sources:
146:
142:
138:
135:
129:
125:
121:
117:
112:
108:
103:
99:
95:
91:
87:
86:
83:
80:
78:
77:
72:
66:
62:
58:
54:
53:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1344:
1341:
1314:
1306:
1303:WP:NOTMANUAL
1298:
1277:
1265:User:Msnicki
1256:
1195:
1172:
1169:WP:NOTMANUAL
1160:
1156:
1148:
1123:WP:NOTMANUAL
1114:
1110:
1068:
1056:
1052:
1034:
1022:
990:WP:NOTMANUAL
969:
947:
943:
937:
915:WP:NOTMANUAL
907:
903:
876:WP:NOTMANUAL
857:
853:
834:
812:
810:
807:WP:SECONDARY
783:
779:
767:
737:
731:
701:
678:survived AfD
665:
646:
642:
612:
598:
567:
506:WP:NOTMANUAL
501:
482:
478:
461:
457:
390:
385:
381:
376:
373:instructions
372:
330:
325:
306:
287:
267:
254:
249:
244:
238:
210:
198:
192:
184:
177:
171:
165:
159:
149:
136:
49:
47:
31:
28:
1212:WP:R#DELETE
1090:WP:NOTHOWTO
1027:WP:NOTHOWTO
982:system time
920:system time
880:Date (Unix)
858:appropriate
742:Date_(Unix)
651:Herostratus
415:WP:NOTHOWTO
331:description
175:free images
61:WP:NOTHOWTO
1350:talk page
1269:Lankiveil
1200:WikiBooks
1196:Transwiki
1127:rewritten
1072:Trackinfo
816:sources."
733:Weak Keep
704:- Have a
462:transwiki
442:• Gene93k
413:then see
411:WP:MANUAL
255:GuestBook
57:WP:MANUAL
50:merge to
37:talk page
1352:or in a
1331:contribs
1175:: I was
1149:Redirect
1133:VVERTYVS
1115:redirect
970:contains
854:reliable
708:at what
600:Relisted
569:Relisted
395:James500
391:opinions
335:James500
312:James500
307:Comment.
292:James500
288:anything
250:Contribs
239:Ascii002
134:View log
39:or in a
1307:merging
1286:Tgeairn
1282:Msnicki
1178:invited
820:Msnicki
748:Msnicki
744:here).
702:Comment
687:Msnicki
666:Delete.
580:Natg 19
386:calling
377:nothing
181:WP refs
169:scholar
107:protect
102:history
1323:Dsimic
1315:moving
1301:, per
1299:Delete
1278:Delete
1161:really
1157:delete
1023:Delete
986:WP:GNG
735:Delete
458:Delete
382:memory
268:Delete
153:Google
111:delete
63:, and
1257:Merge
1228:track
1165:Wikia
1111:Merge
1069:Keep.
1057:Merge
768:exist
676:that
380:your
196:JSTOR
157:books
141:Stats
128:views
120:watch
116:links
70:slakr
16:<
1327:talk
1313:and
1290:talk
1280:per
1246:talk
1224:talk
1187:talk
1173:Note
1098:talk
1076:talk
1055:or *
1053:Keep
1044:talk
1035:That
960:talk
948:only
908:does
904:only
892:talk
824:talk
784:does
780:only
755:this
722:KvnG
706:look
691:talk
655:talk
643:Keep
584:talk
552:KvnG
538:talk
524:Kvng
510:KvnG
502:Keep
491:talk
483:keep
479:Keep
470:talk
446:talk
423:talk
399:talk
358:talk
339:talk
316:talk
296:talk
276:talk
245:Talk
220:talk
189:FENS
163:news
124:logs
98:talk
94:edit
65:WP:N
1259:to
1198:to
1155:or
1151:to
1139:hm?
1117:to
1094:Jeh
1059:to
1040:Jeh
1031:Car
1000:\\
930:\\
868:|
856:or
845:|
811:"A
795:|
761:SJK
720:. ~
716:in
685:.
647:lot
460:or
419:Jeh
272:SJK
203:TWL
132:– (
59:,
1333:)
1329:|
1292:)
1248:)
1240:.
1230:)
1189:)
1100:)
1078:)
1046:)
1033:.
962:)
944:is
894:)
826:)
809:,
693:)
657:)
586:)
540:)
493:)
472:)
448:)
440:.
425:)
401:)
360:)
341:)
318:)
298:)
278:)
234:.
222:)
183:)
126:|
122:|
118:|
114:|
109:|
105:|
100:|
96:|
67:.
1325:(
1288:(
1274:.
1244:(
1226:•
1222:(
1185:(
1141:)
1137:(
1131:Q
1113:/
1096:(
1074:(
1042:(
958:(
890:(
822:(
776::
772:@
763::
759:@
750::
746:@
689:(
653:(
626:i
623:t
620:s
617:u
614:D
582:(
536:(
526::
522:@
489:(
468:(
444:(
421:(
397:(
356:(
337:(
314:(
294:(
274:(
218:(
207:)
199:·
193:·
185:·
178:·
172:·
166:·
160:·
155:(
147:(
144:)
137:·
130:)
92:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.