407:. This is a misguided nomination and does not follow Knowledge's deletion policy, and neither is what I believe to be an attempt to use AfD as a one-stop outlet to resolve an article's content issues. The longstanding community consensus is that a merge and redirect is a valid compromise or AfD outcome, but should not be the end goal of an AfD nomination. A number of content issues were raised about the article and its related articles, but no convincing argument is made that the Huntress DC comic book character as a topic is non-notable to be covered on Knowledge due to a dearth of coverage, especially when there are subtopic pages about two versions of the Huntress character in existence, which means this page is clearly a parent article. If the nominator's concern is about excessive plot summaries in this page and whether there should have been multiple spinout Huntress comic character articles in the first place, a better solution would be to start a discussion on a Wikiproject like Wikiproject Comics, to get consensus for a proposal to either merge the other sub-articles back into Huntress (comics) as the parent article (which I am not opposed to), or trim the article's contents down to a disambugation listing. As it stands, it is no different then a hypothetical AfD for say,
1080:) and within that article entries for characters who have used that name. Some entries have links for articles, others without articles just have a couple paragraphs of description on the main page. But if the parent article were to be deleted, what would happen to the information on the characters without their own article? It would have to be redirected somewhere else, probably a giant list of characters. I personally would want to have an article on "The Huntress" with information on the three specific characters, and I think that is more helpful to readers as well. If any of the individual articles don't pass GNG, they would be merged here, rather than the giant list of DC Comics characters or something like that. So I say keep this article (and any other similar articles) for navigational reasons and as a potential merge/redirect target. I don't see it as an issue that this article exists.
989:
diversity for the ALL-STAR JSA group, and give Power Girl (the only female in the groups at the time) someone to contrast with and befriend. p. 133: Between 1985 and 1989, she is the only Batman universe side character to attain the title superheroine, if I understand correctly. And sometimes gets to be the protagonist. p 135: Helena
Bertinelli is an ambiguous female character since, unlike the other members of the Bat-Family, she doesn't hesitate to kill. Together they are at the forefront of a very marked increase in the number of female characters in the catalog of the publisher DC Comics. p. 145: Huntress is a typical character of "Bad Girl Art". She is a woman of action, has an ambiguous morality and is scantily (? translator says "short") clothed.
528:, with editors being allowed to extract information from the primary source directly. I of course understand that Knowledge is the result of incremental efforts, but this only means that an article doesn't need to be 100% ready at conception, not that encyclopedic viability should be ignored at that moment. The guideline you yourself cite quite explicitly says, "Strictly avoid creating pages consisting only of a plot summary". To expect the nominator to drag himself through other places before coming here, while the creator couldn't even take the time to find some third-party coverage, is unreasonably disproportionate by any standard; besides, articles routinely get improved through AfD.
710:, it would count as a good source, but I would be less willing to accept the Masters. Anyway, yes, we need sources that cover all three huntresses if we want to argue that an article about all three is independently notable. Since we still don't have a single reliably sourced sentence or quotation that discusses the significance/importance of all three, I stand by my initial analysis - this needs to become a disambig. And if some of the characters are not-notable, they need a redirect to some list, not a merge/split/forking(!) into a SYNTH disambig that fails GNG.
1033:. Having hundreds of Google hits is nice and all but once one starts discounting restatements of plot information or passing/listing mentions the end result is a much smaller pool of usable sources. If this article were a draft, a submission would be declined, so this shouldn't be on the mainspace. If notability is a concern and if these sources are actually adequate, then whoever wants to work on it can do so in the draft or userspace.
750:: If a page is very short (consisting of perhaps only one or two sentences) and is, in your opinion as editor, unlikely to be expanded within a "reasonable" (unspecified) amount of time, it often makes sense to merge it into a page on a broader topic. For example, parents or children of a celebrity who themselves are otherwise unremarkable are generally covered in a section of the article on the celebrity". Being the same context
1098:. Robin and Flash are famous enough I am sure there are sources for them to have stand-alone overviews, like the "history of different Robins/Flashes". The Huntress is a much more minor character and as long as nobody can show such in-depth, independent coverage exists, she doesn't need a central article. Again - I'd be happy to reconsider if overview sources about all Huntresses are found.
988:
PhD: p. 62: Golden Age
Huntress: Like many villainesses of the time falls under the "Dating Catwoman" cliché of being in a romantic relation to the hero she fights. p. 111: Editor justified the creation of the character of Helena Wayne by a wish to bring more diversity into the comic books. Also more
830:
Well, if only one of them is notable, the best place to merge would be the article about "Huntress (the notable one)" which could have a section about "other characters named such". If none are notable, they all should be redirected to some lists. If 2+ are notable, they can have their own articles,
619:
If all three characters individually would turn out to be notable, then the idea to transform this into a short disambiguation page would make sense to me. But even in that case, I think there is material here that is not present in the articles about the individual characters which should be saved
1071:
This is an interesting AFD because there are many examples in comics of different characters using the same name (such as Robin mentioned above). So a lot of articles will potentially be affected by whatever is decided here. I think common practice so far has been to have an article for the parent
863:
If only one were notable, making the other two necessary to merge, I'd wonder if "Huntress (comics)" would not be the better title for the collected information in the end as compared to "Huntress (specific character)". If 2 were notable, I'd still suggest to merge the 3rd one here. Something like
705:
The two
English books, sorry to say, look very much like passing mentions to me. Regarding the French thesis, I'd ask you to provide quotations and preferably translations here showing parts which meet SIGCOV. As for their reliability, PhD theses are usually considered reliable, Masters - less so.
429:
Robin would be plausibly kept because it has a reception section which makes a plausible case for notability. This aticle has no such thing. Plot summaries are on par with original research, and so don't have the same need for preserving/merging as information derived from secondary sources. Also,
253:. BEFORE failed to reveal anything that's about Huntresses in general (and goes beyond a plot summary). Granted, neither of three Huntress articles is particularly good, and maybe we should just merge all three of them here - but otherwise, this needs to go (or rather, be converted into a regular
555:
only have plot summary, but also publication information/history + info on the creators. Then, as I've described, I think there should be no decision about this article without or before looking at its three subtopics. And lastly, yes "articles routinely get improved through AfD", but that's
933:"The Huntress is the name of several fictional characters appearing in comic books published by DC Comics" - this seems neither an arbitrary grouping nor a controversial statement to me. If you wanted, this statement could also easily be referenced, by "Des superhéroïnes à Gotham City" or
639:, which, being French, may not plop up in every search. It has quite a bit material about the latter two characters carrying the title of Huntress, also comparing both and, arguably, some parts about the title itself when not clearly distinguishing between the two characters.
757:
applied to different characters in the same medium, acutally within the same brand, seems to be at least as good a reason to cover these in one article as being related. So to reach a conclusion about this article, one could either look at the three individual articles
1115:
I still don't like the precedent deleting this would set. Articles have often been merged/redirected to articles like this one as an alternative to giant lists. If this goes, the lists are the only option. But yes, that's more of a personal preference on my part.
687:
681:
868:
to have this article at all. I say, the three individual characters are subtopics of "Huntress (comics)". If none of them were notable individually, but we would have enough treatment in secondary sources to write an article that can fullfill
430:
enough with that double standard by which deletionists are required to go through pointless procedural exercises while creators are allowed to operate without any editorial oversight when conceiving these wikia-tier articles.
257:; no need to delete history - could be useful if one we decide to merge the said three articles - so I'd suggest just SOFTDELETE by converting this one to disambig without the need to use any admin-level tools). Thoughts?
206:
497:
much fewer articles. And in the end also very much fewer good articles. Knowledge is a very successful project, but it is a project of volunteers. So we are here to determine if this article can be improved. And,
323:
935:
560:. If there are surmountable problems, they should be flagged (I know that that does not always help, but well, it's a volunteer project), or better, fixed by the one detecting it (or being annoyed by it).
237:
This is one of those blown up disambig pages - "The
Huntress is the name of several fictional characters appearing in comic books published by DC Comics", each of which at the moment has her own page (
776:
I am sorry, I don't follow. If a subarticle is not notabe, merging it back here won't help anyone. Arguing that we need this expanded disambig because a subarticle is not notable is just weird logic.
864:
that you seem to have considered yourself in the nomination. And then we probably disagree on a basic point: You think the more or less abstract concept of
Huntress (comics) would need to fullfill
941:
624:
individually notable, but there was enough treatment in secondary sources for a combined article, then merges of the non-notable individual ones here would make sense, again keeping this article.
1054:
DAB page which contains links to the 3 DC characters and the Marvel character. All the information at this article is already contained in the subarticles, so nothing would be lost to readers.
808:
Why is that weird, given that you yourself have initally argued "and maybe we should just merge all three of them here". I am just taking this a step further and say we should not decide here,
346:
300:
734:
Assuming for the moment that the overarching topic "Huntress as a comics character" when excluding all references to the individual incarnations does not have enough coverage to fullfill
598:
for the time being. I am not quite sure how best to go about that one. In my view the only way a deletion as an outcome would make sense were if taking all three comic book characters
565:
As for the other point, sure, sourcing standards for plot summary may be lower, but it's not "worthless" information. It is a wanted part of an article about a fictional topic, while
1131:
163:
831:
and whichever is non notable, gets the redirect treatment. The overview article only makes sense if it passes GNG itself. Which so far I am not seeing sufficient sources for.
1135:
456:
200:
903:
guideline which I think explicitly tells us creating our own topic by arbitrarily merging others, when such a new topic does not pass stand-alone GNG, is a bad idea...
877:, I think having such an article is just fine and in keeping with the guidelines. Anyway, whatever the case, I can just repeat that I think this article should not
385:
into this disambig. No citation discusses the creation, use and significance (to literary history, popular culture, or comics) of all three
Huntresses, does it?
277:
110:
95:
945:, which on p. 186/187 has a dedicated article to "The Huntress", which explicitly talks about and links all three characters and has some commentary.
742:
on their own (or, well, at least in case two of them were), I see no reason why this would not be a correct merge target for them. I am looking at
249:). Our current article has no section on reception or such, just a plot summary for each of the three Huntresses, and as such it seems to fail
136:
131:
665:" is, if it is a master thesis after all or something else. Can anyone clarify? Anyway, that does not affect the rest of my argumentation.
140:
1130:
I wouldn't worry about precedent here. Robin and Flash are significant that books have been written about the legacy of the name (see
123:
606:. So to discuss this, we would need to check for secondary sources for the collective topic as well as all three individual ones.
455:
Question on a detail: Why do you think "Plot summaries are on par with original research"? Original research should be avoided,
489:
of articles, if you will a double standard. If we were to require the creation of "good" articles from the get-go, rather than
90:
83:
17:
221:
628:
188:
246:
167:
104:
100:
1095:
463:
of
Knowledge (albeit not sufficient to sustain an article on their own, which may be a problem here, but I think a
367:
Keep. The article is sourced and has several citations concerning the creation and use of the relevant characters.
1227:
482:
182:
47:
1210:
1155:
1151:
1125:
1110:
1089:
1063:
1059:
1042:
1017:
998:
954:
915:
894:
843:
821:
788:
771:
722:
700:
674:
656:
578:
537:
515:
490:
476:
439:
420:
397:
376:
361:
338:
315:
292:
269:
72:
464:
242:
178:
738:, then I still think starting here is doing it backwards. Assuming any of the three characters would fail
127:
1169:- Let this page stay. This would serve as a set index for any characters that were named Huntress. Plus,
986:
Des superhéroïnes à Gotham City: une étude de la (re)définition des rôles genrés dans l’univers de Batman
1223:
743:
662:
636:
43:
228:
557:
481:
And a basic point: I think there is a good reason why
Wikpedia's guidelines set a higher hurdle for
1147:
1055:
214:
1121:
1085:
994:
950:
890:
817:
767:
696:
679:
As that concern was raised, just collecting other sources which have more than passing mentions:
670:
652:
574:
511:
503:
472:
372:
254:
66:
551:
Good point, I was not aware of that exact phrasing. But three buts: This article does currently
985:
640:
1104:
1038:
909:
874:
837:
782:
716:
533:
486:
435:
408:
391:
355:
332:
309:
286:
263:
119:
79:
36:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
27:
1222:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
194:
42:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1206:
762:, if one was so inclined. Or take on the big job of looking at all four related topics now.
611:
416:
1143:
1030:
900:
382:
1077:
1073:
1013:
870:
525:
1196:
1180:
1117:
1081:
990:
946:
886:
865:
827:
813:
763:
739:
735:
692:
666:
648:
632:
603:
570:
507:
506:, by whoever wants to. Maybe by whoever is most dissatisfied with the current state?
468:
368:
250:
60:
1100:
1034:
979:
928:
905:
858:
833:
812:
the question is decided if merging any or all of the others here is the way to go.
803:
778:
729:
712:
644:
607:
566:
546:
529:
450:
431:
387:
351:
328:
305:
282:
259:
238:
157:
1202:
1172:
412:
411:, which I predict would be snow-kept before the digging for sources even begin.
885:
be decided if it has some merits in some combination with the other articles.
1188:
1009:
754:
1051:
460:
939:(though not on the same page); and when looking into this I also found
682:
War, Politics and
Superheroes: Ethics and Propaganda in Comics and Film
620:
by merging there. On the other hand, if any or all of the three were
635:
would fail taking all
Huntresses together. Very interesting looks
324:
list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions
1218:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
643:
also talks about those two Huntresses, and at least mentions
347:
list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions
301:
list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions
153:
149:
145:
213:
661:Drat, now I am not sure what kind of publication "
50:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1230:). No further edits should be made to this page.
345:Note: This discussion has been included in the
322:Note: This discussion has been included in the
299:Note: This discussion has been included in the
276:Note: This discussion has been included in the
706:I'd say that IF the PhD thesis contains SIGCOV
614:search, you only had the overall topic in mind?
610:, if I understand correctly, when you did the
227:
8:
631:are plentiful. I would be very surprised if
111:Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
1146:, but that's not necessarily a bad thing.
344:
321:
298:
278:list of Women-related deletion discussions
275:
524:I compare plot details to OR because the
558:exactly the opposite of how it should be
627:Now I have done just a quick view, but
526:sourcing standards for those are lower
1101:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus
906:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus
834:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus
779:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus
713:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus
388:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus
352:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus
329:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus
306:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus
283:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus
260:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus
7:
493:, we would in my opinion have very,
491:allowing for incremental improvement
1142:influence decisions on things like
24:
1201:are right about their claims. --
96:Introduction to deletion process
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
1211:03:57, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
1156:13:37, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
1126:12:09, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
1111:10:11, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
1090:03:07, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
1064:16:20, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
1043:18:48, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
1018:16:50, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
999:21:45, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
955:21:11, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
916:10:55, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
895:12:43, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
844:10:12, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
822:16:10, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
789:13:17, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
772:12:40, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
723:10:37, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
701:20:01, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
675:19:28, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
657:15:53, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
579:11:05, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
538:01:57, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
516:10:48, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
477:20:21, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
440:18:59, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
421:12:17, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
398:11:34, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
377:10:44, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
362:09:57, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
339:09:57, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
316:09:57, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
293:09:57, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
270:09:57, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
73:08:26, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
1008:low quality timewaster AfD.
247:Huntress (Helena Bertinelli)
86:(AfD)? Read these primers!
1247:
637:this freely available work
1220:Please do not modify it.
663:Les femmes Ă Gotham City
569:is unwanted in general.
39:Please do not modify it.
881:be up for deletion and
381:Which don't need to be
243:Huntress (Helena Wayne)
1094:I am afraid this is a
984:Starting to look into
641:This French PhD thesis
168:edits since nomination
504:it should be improved
84:Articles for deletion
1138:). The outcome here
688:Female Action Heroes
1096:WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS
899:I'll reiterate the
629:Google Scholar hits
942:The Superhero Book
936:All Star Companion
744:Reasons for merger
602:would still fail
409:Robin (character)
364:
341:
318:
295:
120:Huntress (comics)
101:Guide to deletion
91:How to contribute
69:
28:Huntress (comics)
1238:
1200:
1192:
1184:
1176:
1107:
983:
932:
912:
862:
840:
807:
785:
733:
719:
550:
454:
394:
358:
335:
312:
289:
266:
232:
231:
217:
161:
143:
81:
68:@SUPERHEROLOGIST
67:
63:
41:
1246:
1245:
1241:
1240:
1239:
1237:
1236:
1235:
1234:
1228:deletion review
1194:
1186:
1178:
1170:
1144:Quasar (comics)
1109:
1105:
977:
926:
914:
910:
856:
842:
838:
801:
787:
783:
727:
721:
717:
708:about all three
544:
448:
396:
392:
360:
356:
337:
333:
314:
310:
291:
287:
268:
264:
174:
134:
118:
115:
78:
71:
61:
55:The result was
48:deletion review
37:
31:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1244:
1242:
1233:
1232:
1214:
1213:
1164:
1163:
1162:
1161:
1160:
1159:
1158:
1148:Argento Surfer
1099:
1078:Flash (comics)
1074:Robin (comics)
1072:name (such as
1066:
1056:Argento Surfer
1045:
1020:
1002:
1001:
975:
974:
973:
972:
971:
970:
969:
968:
967:
966:
965:
964:
963:
962:
961:
960:
959:
958:
957:
921:
920:
919:
918:
904:
849:
848:
847:
846:
832:
794:
793:
792:
791:
777:
711:
625:
616:
615:
592:
591:
590:
589:
588:
587:
586:
585:
584:
583:
582:
581:
562:
561:
519:
518:
479:
457:plot summaries
443:
442:
424:
423:
402:
401:
400:
386:
365:
350:
342:
327:
319:
304:
296:
281:
258:
235:
234:
171:
114:
113:
108:
98:
93:
76:
65:
53:
52:
32:
30:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1243:
1231:
1229:
1225:
1221:
1216:
1215:
1212:
1208:
1204:
1198:
1190:
1182:
1174:
1168:
1165:
1157:
1153:
1149:
1145:
1141:
1137:
1133:
1129:
1128:
1127:
1123:
1119:
1114:
1113:
1112:
1108:
1102:
1097:
1093:
1092:
1091:
1087:
1083:
1079:
1075:
1070:
1067:
1065:
1061:
1057:
1053:
1049:
1046:
1044:
1040:
1036:
1032:
1028:
1024:
1021:
1019:
1015:
1011:
1007:
1004:
1003:
1000:
996:
992:
987:
981:
976:
956:
952:
948:
944:
943:
938:
937:
930:
925:
924:
923:
922:
917:
913:
907:
902:
898:
897:
896:
892:
888:
884:
880:
876:
872:
867:
860:
855:
854:
853:
852:
851:
850:
845:
841:
835:
829:
825:
824:
823:
819:
815:
811:
805:
800:
799:
798:
797:
796:
795:
790:
786:
780:
775:
774:
773:
769:
765:
761:
756:
753:
749:
745:
741:
737:
731:
726:
725:
724:
720:
714:
709:
704:
703:
702:
698:
694:
690:
689:
684:
683:
678:
677:
676:
672:
668:
664:
660:
659:
658:
654:
650:
646:
642:
638:
634:
630:
626:
623:
618:
617:
613:
609:
605:
601:
597:
594:
593:
580:
576:
572:
568:
564:
563:
559:
554:
548:
543:
542:
541:
540:
539:
535:
531:
527:
523:
522:
521:
520:
517:
513:
509:
505:
501:
496:
492:
488:
484:
480:
478:
474:
470:
466:
462:
461:a wanted part
458:
452:
447:
446:
445:
444:
441:
437:
433:
428:
427:
426:
425:
422:
418:
414:
410:
406:
403:
399:
395:
389:
384:
380:
379:
378:
374:
370:
366:
363:
359:
353:
348:
343:
340:
336:
330:
325:
320:
317:
313:
307:
302:
297:
294:
290:
284:
279:
274:
273:
272:
271:
267:
261:
256:
252:
248:
244:
240:
230:
226:
223:
220:
216:
212:
208:
205:
202:
199:
196:
193:
190:
187:
184:
180:
177:
176:Find sources:
172:
169:
165:
159:
155:
151:
147:
142:
138:
133:
129:
125:
121:
117:
116:
112:
109:
106:
102:
99:
97:
94:
92:
89:
88:
87:
85:
80:
75:
74:
70:
64:
58:
51:
49:
45:
40:
34:
33:
29:
26:
19:
1219:
1217:
1166:
1139:
1068:
1047:
1026:
1022:
1005:
940:
934:
882:
878:
809:
759:
751:
747:
707:
686:
680:
645:Paula Brooks
621:
599:
595:
552:
499:
494:
404:
239:Paula Brooks
236:
224:
218:
210:
203:
197:
191:
185:
175:
77:
56:
54:
38:
35:
1006:Speedy keep
255:WP:DISAMBIG
201:free images
1106:reply here
911:reply here
875:WP:ALLPLOT
839:reply here
784:reply here
748:Short text
718:reply here
393:reply here
383:WP:SYNTHed
357:reply here
334:reply here
311:reply here
288:reply here
265:reply here
1224:talk page
755:pseudonym
612:WP:BEFORE
44:talk page
1226:or in a
1197:Rhino131
1181:Daranios
1118:Rhino131
1082:Rhino131
1052:Huntress
1048:Redirect
1031:WP:NPLOT
1027:draftify
991:Daranios
947:Daranios
901:WP:SYNTH
887:Daranios
828:Daranios
814:Daranios
764:Daranios
693:Daranios
667:Daranios
649:Daranios
600:together
571:Daranios
508:Daranios
502:it can,
487:creation
483:deletion
469:Daranios
369:Dimadick
164:View log
105:glossary
62:Doczilla
46:or in a
1050:to the
1035:Avilich
980:Piotrus
929:Piotrus
871:WP:WHYN
859:Piotrus
804:Piotrus
730:Piotrus
647:, too.
608:Piotrus
547:Avilich
530:Avilich
465:fixable
451:Avilich
432:Avilich
207:WPÂ refs
195:scholar
137:protect
132:history
82:New to
1203:Rtkat3
1193:, and
1173:Haleth
1029:Fails
1023:Delete
866:WP:GNG
810:before
746:: "3.
740:WP:GNG
736:WP:GNG
633:WP:GNG
604:WP:GNG
467:one).
413:Haleth
251:WP:GNG
245:, and
179:Google
141:delete
1140:might
879:first
760:first
567:WP:OR
485:than
222:JSTOR
183:books
158:views
150:watch
146:links
16:<
1207:talk
1189:Artw
1167:Keep
1152:talk
1136:this
1132:this
1122:talk
1086:talk
1069:Keep
1060:talk
1039:talk
1014:talk
1010:Artw
995:talk
951:talk
891:talk
883:then
873:and
818:talk
768:talk
697:talk
671:talk
653:talk
596:Keep
575:talk
534:talk
512:talk
495:very
473:talk
459:are
436:talk
417:talk
405:Keep
373:talk
215:FENS
189:news
154:logs
128:talk
124:edit
57:keep
1134:or
1076:or
1025:or
752:and
622:not
553:not
229:TWL
162:– (
1209:)
1185:,
1177:,
1154:)
1124:)
1088:)
1062:)
1041:)
1016:)
997:)
953:)
893:)
820:)
770:)
699:)
691:.
685:,
673:)
655:)
577:)
536:)
514:)
500:if
475:)
438:)
419:)
375:)
349:.
326:.
303:.
280:.
241:,
209:)
166:|
156:|
152:|
148:|
144:|
139:|
135:|
130:|
126:|
59:.
1205:(
1199::
1195:@
1191::
1187:@
1183::
1179:@
1175::
1171:@
1150:(
1120:(
1103:|
1084:(
1058:(
1037:(
1012:(
993:(
982::
978:@
949:(
931::
927:@
908:|
889:(
861::
857:@
836:|
826:@
816:(
806::
802:@
781:|
766:(
732::
728:@
715:|
695:(
669:(
651:(
573:(
549::
545:@
532:(
510:(
471:(
453::
449:@
434:(
415:(
390:|
371:(
354:|
331:|
308:|
285:|
262:|
233:)
225:·
219:·
211:·
204:·
198:·
192:·
186:·
181:(
173:(
170:)
160:)
122:(
107:)
103:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.