1045:. It is the nominator's job to do the legwork in gathering evidence to demonstrate why the article should be deleted. He did not do that. How are we supposed to evaluate the nom's argument if all we are given is "Per WP:NOT". Per what part of WP:NOT? How does that part apply? Also, I am not impressed by the nom's effort to silence a keep !voter, especially since the !voter in question, unlike the nom, had the courtesy to do more than merely link a policy and make a vague claim.
605:
all over the world watch college football every week regardless of what network its own or originates from. I also guess by extension, that there shouldn't be articles that list television series by network (e.g. ABC, NBC, CBS, etc.) since, people outside of the country can access them. And again, sports results like wins and losses and nationally televised appearances on one particular television network for any given week, are too separate entities.
549:, etc. even though they have a regular timeslot like any other program? And why should the thousands of fans attending live games negate this point? More people are likely watching them on television (if they can't afford a ticket or aren't year the city) than they are attending them in person. I guess, while you're at it, you might as well say the same thing about sitcoms that are "filmed in front of a live studio audience" or game shows like
1007:
particular list we are discussing is none of those. Therefore, in my eyes WP:SALAT does not even apply. Are you making the argument that you believe that only those four types of lists named in WP:SALAT are the only types of lists we can include on
Knowledge? Or perhaps you are arguing that you believe this article is either to broad or too narrow... I don't know. And until you make it clear, neither will anyone else.--
31:
439:
episodes of television shows is quite common. As to the "results of each individual game being notable" this is not a bulk nomination of a large number of articles, each article on one individual game but is instead one article covering the results of all of them. List articles exist for just this very reason.--
1229:, not a guideline or policy) states "It is unfortunate that editors put effort into writing or maintaining articles that do not meet Knowledge policy or guidelines." That doesn't apply in this instance. If you are going to put someone else's work up for deletion, you should have a good reason. You don't.
1419:
I went back-and-forth on this a lot. Given that A) the show is notable and B) the games in question are often notable (lots of coverage etc.) the list article is probably justified. I'd actually like to see it grow and have some actual meaningful coverage of the games or important milestones of the
812:
What do you mean not convincing reason has been provided for deletion? Did you even read the above delete comments. I think we should leave these conclusions for the admin who will close the discussion. Can you provide any convincing reason why we should keep a list of all football games shown during
438:
the contents of the list are just fine. If they're deleted in this article, they'll simply be transferred to the main article. The main article will then become unwieldy and more difficult to read, use, and maintain. Keeping a separate list article is a good option in this case. Further, list of
604:
But the article in question is about college football games that were broadcast by ABC (the
American Broadcasting Company). It isn't exactly a generic article that isn't devoted to a sole broadcaster. I guess by extension, there shouldn't be an article that covers the program itself, since people
1202:
Simply saying "I cannot see the historical significance...." just screams of personal preference (and not something that could benefit any other "curious" reader or dare I say "history buff") regarding a sport and its accompanying live television series that you likely don't follow, understand or
489:
Networks devote one each week during the season to say an individual television broadcast of a on particular sporting event such as a college football game. So technically, they are television shows (and not just a one time, annual special event like the
Academy Awards), just not of the scripted
456:
No the contents is not just fine. There is absolutely no need to tabulate the results of every college football game broadcasted on TV. Neither in a dedicated article, nor as part of a parent article. It would not be moved upon deletion of this article but outright deleted. Football games, be it
1006:
It's extremely difficult because you are not providing a specific answer. For example: this is not a list of people. It is not a list of companies and organizations. It is not a list of lists. It is not a list of words. These are the four specifics under WP:SALAT as I read it, and this
1378:
the two comments above argue that
Knowledge is not a TV Guide. That's true, but it doesn't apply. These events occur in the past, not the future. No one would come to this page in Knowledge to look up information on upcoming games, only on past ones. Secondly, it most certainly is a
512:
tv stations all over the world. Not to mention tens of thousand of fans attending the live games. So why list the results of games transmitted by just one of the many broadcasters? The important result are mentioned where they belong: in teams' and season articles.
587:
No completely wrong. I'm saying that because of all the coverage it gets all over the world it's utterly inappropriate to have a results lists of the games shown by one US broadcaster. Sports results should be tied to teams and leagues, not broadcasters.
1053:) 14:22, 21 September 2016 (UTC) Changed to full keep upon further review as there are still no valid grounds for deletion. It is very disappointing that some editors are still supporting deletion on grounds that have already been thoroughly debunked.
1420:
show. But... even as a football fan, I can't really see who would ever _want_ this information as-is and I fully understand the WP:NOT arguments as this feels, as written, like a WP:NOT violation. But expansion is possible and it's not a
1098:, without even providing a good reason. I'm not so sure that the TVGuide argument applies here. To me, TV Guides are for upcoming episodes, not ones that have already aired. Otherwise, you have a lot more articles to propose for deletion.
1165:
Exactly what part of my reply contains a conclusion/analysis of the other parties' arguments?? The other contributor's post contained that person's analysis of all the delete contributors' arguments. That's what I replied to back then.
202:
1146:
in this AFD (and currently in others) you have argued that other editors that we should "leave these conclusions for the admin who will close the discussion" but here you making a conclusion in your assessment. Doesn't seem fair to
1302:, but the list is very large so it makes sense to have a separate list article just for the results. By placing the statistics in a table format with additional information, the article actually meets the requirements set forth in
409:, yes, the series itself is notable, and we have an article for it, but the results of each individual game are not notable enough for an article. Generally for routine sports broadcasts, we have one article for the main subject
829:
Please be careful to avoid any statement that may be considered a personal attack. We can all have confidence that the closing admin will make a balanced decision to determine consensus. And if not, we can take it to
834:. Editors can contribute to the discussion as they see fit. If you'd like more details or explanation, please ask for them. If they are not provided, that's something that a good closer will consider.--
654:. Perhaps the closer of the discussion will get it, but I think you'll be taking a chance on that. You might be right and I might be wrong, but we'll never come to an agreement if I don't understand.--
619:
What's "completely wrong" ?? It seems like I've asked you to clarify your position, then you've said that's an incorrect assessment and then repeated it back to me. "Do you mean 'XXX'?" "No, I menat
508:
No. They are not television Shows because they are not programs created and produced by one particular broadcaster. They are simply coverage of sports events. Sports event which are broadcasted by
457:
college or NFL, are primarily what they're called, football games, and not TV shows. Notable and/or historically significant results are mentioned in team and season articles. Knowledge is not
196:
757:
Personally, I absolutely don't understand that type of rationale or argument. If lists that are "too specific" a problem, then what are they supposed to look like or be about exactly?
339:
128:
123:
132:
155:
115:
968:
applies. This is a discussion. If you believe something fails a measure of any kind, it is your duty to explain why you believe that. Otherwise, it's just a non-argument per
893:
867:
as an example. It's not an encyclopedic article, and any significant games either have their own article, or are linked on the corresponding article for that team or season.
299:
490:
quality (in essence, the games themselves are episodes just like any other TV series that has its own individual article). I guess, by extension, something like say
319:
162:
359:
40:
651:
1074:. Regardless, not only the nominator's arguments are taken into account open closure of the discussion. They review the arguments of all participants.
1041:
I'm a little less convinced on this one, but I don't like how the nominator neglected to explain in his nomination statement how this article violates
217:
771:
Something other than games produced by one particular entity and broadcast on one particular network. Doesn't that sound the least bit arbitrary?
557:
are broadcast by multiple TV stations all over the world, that doesn't change the fact that the game results/stats are ultimately what they are.
184:
1433:
1411:
1392:
1370:
1349:
1319:
1290:
1266:
1238:
1212:
1195:
1177:
1156:
1134:
1107:
1085:
1062:
1016:
1001:
981:
959:
939:
921:
905:
876:
843:
824:
807:
780:
766:
740:
726:
704:
663:
645:
629:
614:
599:
582:
566:
524:
503:
472:
448:
430:
391:
371:
351:
331:
311:
290:
265:
247:
97:
1094:
Yes, but it's incredibly lazy for a nominator to attempt to erase an article, which in this case probably contains hours of work done
178:
1278:
1470:
541:
isn't really true "television show" (which the networks mind you, may millions if not billions of dollars in rights fees) nor is
174:
1361:, being an indiscriminate collection of information and a TV guide. Not something one would expect to find in an encyclopedia.
119:
17:
863:
above. If the argument to keep is that this is a TV show with "episodes" like a standard show, then we would need a list for
224:
111:
103:
1299:
1342:
367:
347:
327:
307:
1120:. In this case however I cannot see the historical signifance of said programming. And regarding your first concern,
1173:
1130:
1081:
997:
955:
917:
820:
641:
595:
573:
Let me get this straight: you're saying because of all the coverage it gets all over the world it's not notable?--
520:
468:
243:
190:
1452:
1407:
872:
414:
73:
50:
889:
1388:
1380:
1315:
1307:
1274:
1191:
1152:
1012:
977:
935:
901:
839:
776:
736:
722:
700:
659:
625:
578:
458:
444:
387:
363:
343:
323:
303:
1448:
1366:
1234:
1208:
1103:
1058:
1050:
969:
762:
710:
650:
I'm letting you know that I find your argument to be very confusing and would like more clarification.
610:
562:
499:
426:
69:
1204:
758:
606:
558:
495:
1403:
1330:
1071:
868:
717:? Please provide reason, just saying it doesn't make it so (I've typed that in AFD twice today...)--
278:
1358:
1282:
695:. One-eyed horse thieves in Montana would be offended to be left out if trash like this were kept.
418:
210:
1286:
803:
286:
261:
1384:
1311:
1187:
1148:
1008:
973:
931:
897:
835:
772:
732:
718:
696:
655:
621:
574:
440:
404:
383:
62:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1447:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
68:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1362:
1262:
1230:
1099:
1054:
1046:
864:
422:
417:, etc. but there's absolutely no need to have a list of results for every single game. It's
1429:
1186:
That would be your comment "I cannot see the historical signifance of said programming" --
987:
965:
945:
927:
885:
856:
714:
692:
382:
clearly as notable as any other television series. This one happens to be about sports.--
1170:
1127:
1121:
1078:
994:
952:
914:
817:
638:
592:
517:
465:
240:
88:
1464:
1421:
1303:
1255:
1042:
831:
799:
634:
If you don't bother to post meaningful replies I won't either. I've clarified above.
282:
274:
257:
234:
149:
1258:
1402:
per nom. The show is notable; its proceedings are not independently notable.
1425:
896:. It's not that it's right or wrong, it's just--WHY is it "unencyclopedic"?--
410:
1167:
1124:
1075:
991:
949:
911:
860:
814:
635:
589:
514:
462:
237:
798:
Does not violate NOT, no convincing reason for deletion has been advanced.
553:
that have a big studio audience. And even if the sports events like say
1118:
historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable
256:
Some of the games are notable, but the topic itself is not notable. —
944:
Because this list's subject is not an appropriate one as outlined by
1225:
What if I can see the historical significance? WP:LOSE (which is an
494:
isn't really a TV show since it covers real life political events.
1310:(which are two different shortcuts referencing the same policy).--
1441:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
813:
specific coverage? Remind you, wikipedia is not a NFL fan site.
910:
Why would anyone have to justify themselves to you personally??
25:
1298:
the information is worthy of inclusion in the main article
986:
This list's topic doesn't not constitute one outlined by
990:
as an appropriate one. How difficult is it grasp that?
145:
141:
137:
340:
list of
American football-related deletion discussions
209:
731:"Lists that are too specific are also a problem."
76:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1455:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1279:Category:College football on television results
300:list of Television-related deletion discussions
964:And I still haven't gotten an explanation how
459:a directory of every broadcast of sports games
223:
8:
888:applies. Maybe you can explain it. As for
358:Note: This debate has been included in the
338:Note: This debate has been included in the
320:list of Schools-related deletion discussions
318:Note: This debate has been included in the
298:Note: This debate has been included in the
1144:Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander
892:, that is listed as an "empty argument" in
537:scheduled coverage of sporting events like
1424:case. Only issue with expansion is size.
926:I still haven't gotten an explanation how
894:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions
652:Knowledge:Confusing arguments mean nothing
401:Not notable as per above. With regards to
360:list of Lists-related deletion discussions
357:
337:
317:
297:
43:. The result of the deletion review was
49:For an explanation of the process, see
7:
112:ESPN College Football on ABC results
104:ESPN College Football on ABC results
713:. How do you think this violates
24:
41:deletion review on 2016 October 8
29:
884:I never got an explanation how
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1320:15:22, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
1291:15:03, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
1267:14:17, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
1239:03:45, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
1213:21:27, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
1196:15:27, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
1178:15:07, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
1157:10:37, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
1135:07:49, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
1108:20:06, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
1086:17:43, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
1063:14:37, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
1017:17:35, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
1002:15:15, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
982:14:57, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
960:10:43, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
940:14:57, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
922:10:37, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
906:10:32, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
877:17:13, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
844:14:54, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
825:09:40, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
808:04:07, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
781:23:01, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
767:21:32, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
741:01:41, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
727:03:25, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
705:23:12, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
664:10:07, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
646:09:49, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
630:03:23, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
615:22:03, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
600:21:40, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
583:21:06, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
567:10:56, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
525:20:41, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
504:12:59, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
473:17:35, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
449:16:41, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
431:16:08, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
392:14:18, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
372:13:45, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
352:13:45, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
332:13:45, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
312:13:45, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
291:14:20, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
266:12:46, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
248:12:37, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
1:
1300:ESPN College Football on ABC
1434:13:07, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
1412:05:41, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
1393:02:01, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
1371:01:04, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
1350:00:37, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
98:19:27, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
1487:
859:and the argument made by
415:Fox Major League Baseball
51:Knowledge:Deletion review
1471:Pages at deletion review
1444:Please do not modify it.
972:and should be ignored.--
65:Please do not modify it.
45:no consensus to overturn
531:I guess by your logic,
1383:list of information.--
709:That seems a lot like
539:Hockey Night in Canada
555:Monday Night Football
547:Sunday Night Football
543:Monday Night Football
1329:– Knowledge isn't a
1337:the "time" column.
551:The Price is Right
273:Not encyclopedic.
1203:care much about.
890:WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC
374:
364:Shawn in Montreal
354:
344:Shawn in Montreal
334:
324:Shawn in Montreal
314:
304:Shawn in Montreal
96:
57:
56:
39:was subject to a
1478:
1446:
1347:
1345:
1340:
1333:. If it's kept,
865:Match of the Day
408:
228:
227:
213:
165:
153:
135:
95:
93:
86:
67:
33:
32:
26:
1486:
1485:
1481:
1480:
1479:
1477:
1476:
1475:
1461:
1460:
1459:
1453:deletion review
1442:
1381:WP:DISCRIMINATE
1343:
1341:
1338:
1308:WP:NOTSTATSBOOK
1275:WP:NOTSTATSBOOK
1096:by other people
869:RickinBaltimore
402:
170:
161:
126:
110:
107:
89:
87:
81:The result was
74:deletion review
63:
37:This discussion
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1484:
1482:
1474:
1473:
1463:
1462:
1458:
1457:
1437:
1436:
1414:
1397:
1396:
1395:
1352:
1336:
1324:
1323:
1322:
1277:. Also delete
1269:
1248:
1247:
1246:
1245:
1244:
1243:
1242:
1241:
1222:
1221:
1220:
1219:
1218:
1217:
1216:
1215:
1199:
1198:
1181:
1180:
1160:
1159:
1138:
1137:
1111:
1110:
1089:
1088:
1066:
1065:
1033:
1032:
1031:
1030:
1029:
1028:
1027:
1026:
1025:
1024:
1023:
1022:
1021:
1020:
1019:
970:WP:JUSTAPOLICY
850:
849:
848:
847:
846:
792:
791:
790:
789:
788:
787:
786:
785:
784:
783:
748:
747:
746:
745:
744:
743:
711:WP:IDONTLIKEIT
685:
684:
683:
682:
681:
680:
679:
678:
677:
676:
675:
674:
673:
672:
671:
670:
669:
668:
667:
666:
617:
571:
570:
569:
492:Meet the Press
480:
479:
478:
477:
476:
475:
395:
394:
376:
375:
355:
335:
315:
294:
293:
268:
231:
230:
167:
106:
101:
79:
78:
58:
55:
54:
48:
34:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1483:
1472:
1469:
1468:
1466:
1456:
1454:
1450:
1445:
1439:
1438:
1435:
1431:
1427:
1423:
1418:
1415:
1413:
1409:
1405:
1401:
1398:
1394:
1390:
1386:
1385:Paul McDonald
1382:
1377:
1374:
1373:
1372:
1368:
1364:
1360:
1356:
1353:
1351:
1346:
1334:
1332:
1328:
1325:
1321:
1317:
1313:
1312:Paul McDonald
1309:
1305:
1301:
1297:
1294:
1293:
1292:
1288:
1284:
1280:
1276:
1273:
1270:
1268:
1264:
1260:
1257:
1253:
1250:
1249:
1240:
1236:
1232:
1228:
1224:
1223:
1214:
1210:
1206:
1201:
1200:
1197:
1193:
1189:
1188:Paul McDonald
1185:
1184:
1183:
1182:
1179:
1175:
1172:
1169:
1164:
1163:
1162:
1161:
1158:
1154:
1150:
1149:Paul McDonald
1145:
1142:
1141:
1140:
1139:
1136:
1132:
1129:
1126:
1123:
1119:
1116:From point 4:
1115:
1114:
1113:
1112:
1109:
1105:
1101:
1097:
1093:
1092:
1091:
1090:
1087:
1083:
1080:
1077:
1073:
1072:WP:NOTTVGUIDE
1070:
1069:
1068:
1067:
1064:
1060:
1056:
1052:
1048:
1044:
1040:
1038:
1034:
1018:
1014:
1010:
1009:Paul McDonald
1005:
1004:
1003:
999:
996:
993:
989:
985:
984:
983:
979:
975:
974:Paul McDonald
971:
967:
963:
962:
961:
957:
954:
951:
947:
943:
942:
941:
937:
933:
932:Paul McDonald
929:
925:
924:
923:
919:
916:
913:
909:
908:
907:
903:
899:
898:Paul McDonald
895:
891:
887:
883:
880:
879:
878:
874:
870:
866:
862:
858:
854:
851:
845:
841:
837:
836:Paul McDonald
833:
828:
827:
826:
822:
819:
816:
811:
810:
809:
805:
801:
797:
794:
793:
782:
778:
774:
770:
769:
768:
764:
760:
756:
755:
754:
753:
752:
751:
750:
749:
742:
738:
734:
730:
729:
728:
724:
720:
719:Paul McDonald
716:
712:
708:
707:
706:
702:
698:
694:
690:
687:
686:
665:
661:
657:
656:Paul McDonald
653:
649:
648:
647:
643:
640:
637:
633:
632:
631:
627:
623:
622:Paul McDonald
618:
616:
612:
608:
603:
602:
601:
597:
594:
591:
586:
585:
584:
580:
576:
575:Paul McDonald
572:
568:
564:
560:
556:
552:
548:
544:
540:
536:
535:
530:
529:
528:
527:
526:
522:
519:
516:
511:
507:
506:
505:
501:
497:
493:
488:
487:
486:
485:
484:
483:
482:
481:
474:
470:
467:
464:
460:
455:
452:
451:
450:
446:
442:
441:Paul McDonald
437:
434:
433:
432:
428:
424:
420:
416:
412:
406:
400:
397:
396:
393:
389:
385:
384:Paul McDonald
381:
378:
377:
373:
369:
365:
361:
356:
353:
349:
345:
341:
336:
333:
329:
325:
321:
316:
313:
309:
305:
301:
296:
295:
292:
288:
284:
280:
279:WP:NOTTVGUIDE
276:
272:
269:
267:
263:
259:
255:
252:
251:
250:
249:
245:
242:
239:
236:
226:
222:
219:
216:
212:
208:
204:
201:
198:
195:
192:
189:
186:
183:
180:
176:
173:
172:Find sources:
168:
164:
160:
157:
151:
147:
143:
139:
134:
130:
125:
121:
117:
113:
109:
108:
105:
102:
100:
99:
94:
92:
84:
77:
75:
71:
66:
60:
59:
52:
46:
42:
38:
35:
28:
27:
19:
1443:
1440:
1416:
1399:
1375:
1359:WP:LISTCRUFT
1354:
1326:
1295:
1271:
1251:
1226:
1143:
1117:
1095:
1036:
1035:
881:
852:
795:
773:Clarityfiend
733:Clarityfiend
697:Clarityfiend
688:
554:
550:
546:
542:
538:
533:
532:
509:
491:
453:
435:
419:WP:LISTCRUFT
405:Paulmcdonald
398:
379:
270:
253:
232:
220:
214:
206:
199:
193:
187:
181:
171:
158:
90:
82:
80:
64:
61:
44:
36:
1363:K.e.coffman
1304:WP:NOT#INFO
1256:WP:NOT#INFO
1231:Lepricavark
1205:BornonJune8
1100:Lepricavark
1055:Lepricavark
1047:Lepricavark
759:BornonJune8
607:BornonJune8
559:BornonJune8
496:BornonJune8
423:Smartyllama
197:free images
1348:(ping me)
1331:T.V. guide
930:applies.--
411:NFL on CBS
91:Sandstein
1449:talk page
1417:weak keep
1344:hornetfan
1254:violates
861:User:Tvx1
421:at best.
70:talk page
1465:Category
1451:or in a
1376:Response
1339:Corkythe
1283:BigGuy88
988:WP:SALAT
966:WP:SALAT
946:WP:SALAT
928:WP:SALAT
886:WP:SALAT
857:WP:SALAT
800:Jclemens
715:WP:SALAT
693:WP:SALAT
620:'XXX'"--
510:multiple
436:Comment'
283:Eagleash
258:X96lee15
156:View log
72:or in a
1404:FalconK
1296:Comment
1122:WP:LOSE
882:Comment
454:Comment
281:also).
203:WP refs
191:scholar
129:protect
124:history
1422:WP:TNT
1400:Delete
1355:Delete
1335:remove
1327:Delete
1272:Delete
1259:Prevan
1252:Delete
1043:WP:NOT
853:Delete
832:WP:DRV
689:Delete
534:weekly
399:Delete
275:WP:NOT
271:Delete
254:Delete
235:WP:NOT
175:Google
133:delete
83:delete
1426:Hobit
1227:essay
1147:me.--
218:JSTOR
179:books
163:Stats
150:views
142:watch
138:links
16:<
1430:talk
1408:talk
1389:talk
1367:talk
1357:per
1316:talk
1287:talk
1263:talk
1235:talk
1209:talk
1192:talk
1153:talk
1104:talk
1059:talk
1051:talk
1039:keep
1037:Weak
1013:talk
978:talk
936:talk
902:talk
873:talk
855:per
840:talk
804:talk
796:Keep
777:talk
763:talk
737:talk
723:talk
701:talk
691:per
660:talk
626:talk
611:talk
579:talk
563:talk
500:talk
445:talk
427:talk
388:talk
380:Keep
368:talk
348:talk
328:talk
308:talk
287:talk
262:talk
233:Per
211:FENS
185:news
146:logs
120:talk
116:edit
277:; (
225:TWL
154:– (
85:.
1467::
1432:)
1410:)
1391:)
1369:)
1318:)
1289:)
1281:.
1265:)
1237:)
1211:)
1194:)
1176:1
1155:)
1133:1
1106:)
1084:1
1061:)
1015:)
1000:1
980:)
958:1
948:.
938:)
920:1
904:)
875:)
842:)
823:1
806:)
779:)
765:)
739:)
725:)
703:)
662:)
644:1
628:)
613:)
598:1
581:)
565:)
523:1
502:)
471:1
461:.
447:)
429:)
413:,
390:)
370:)
362:.
350:)
342:.
330:)
322:.
310:)
302:.
289:)
264:)
246:1
205:)
148:|
144:|
140:|
136:|
131:|
127:|
122:|
118:|
1428:(
1406:(
1387:(
1365:(
1314:(
1306:/
1285:(
1261:(
1233:(
1207:(
1190:(
1174:x
1171:v
1168:T
1151:(
1131:x
1128:v
1125:T
1102:(
1082:x
1079:v
1076:T
1057:(
1049:(
1011:(
998:x
995:v
992:T
976:(
956:x
953:v
950:T
934:(
918:x
915:v
912:T
900:(
871:(
838:(
821:x
818:v
815:T
802:(
775:(
761:(
735:(
721:(
699:(
658:(
642:x
639:v
636:T
624:(
609:(
596:x
593:v
590:T
577:(
561:(
545:/
521:x
518:v
515:T
498:(
469:x
466:v
463:T
443:(
425:(
407::
403:@
386:(
366:(
346:(
326:(
306:(
285:(
260:(
244:x
241:v
238:T
229:)
221:·
215:·
207:·
200:·
194:·
188:·
182:·
177:(
169:(
166:)
159:·
152:)
114:(
53:.
47:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.