585:
finished article but simply show Basic has been met and a good article is possible.McCallion, Paul (2020-06-13). "RuPaul's Drag Race All Stars Recap: Man
Crushes". Vulture. Retrieved 2020-07-20."A Frontrunner Emerges and Cracker Crumbles on 'RuPaul's Drag Race All Stars' ". Towleroad Gay News. 2020-06-13. Retrieved 2020-07-20."Two of the fiercest Drag Race queens in HERstory faced off this week". GAY TIMES. 2020-06-13. Retrieved 2020-07-20."RuPaul's Drag Race All Stars Season 5 Episode 2 Live Stream: Watch Online". IroniqMedia.com. 2020-06-12. Retrieved 2020-07-20.Dzurillay, Julia; Articles, More; June 13, 2020 (2020-06-13). "'RuPaul's Drag Race: All-Stars 5' Episode 2 Recap — 'I'm in Love' With..." Showbiz Cheat Sheet. Retrieved 2020-07-20.Sheehan, John Benutty,Paul; Benutty, John; Sheehan, Paul (2020-06-13). "'RuPaul's Drag Race All Stars 5' episode 2 recap: Which queen returned as the 'lip sync assassin' in 'I'm in Love'? ". GoldDerby. Retrieved 2020-07-20.McCallion, Paul (2020-06-13). "RuPaul's Drag Race All Stars Recap: Man Crushes". Vulture. Retrieved 2020-07-20."'RuPaul's Drag Race All Stars' Season 5, Episode 2 recap: Everybody sing 'Love'". Xtra Magazine. 2020-06-13. Retrieved 2020-07-20."Shocking elimination rocks 'RuPaul's Drag Race All-Stars 5' episode 2". EW.com. Retrieved 2020-07-20."RuPaul's Drag Race All Stars' ode to celebrity crushes needs a remix". TV Club. Retrieved 2020-07-20.Carreiro, Justin (2020-06-13). "RuPaul's Drag Race All Stars Season 5 Episode 2 Review: I'm In Love". TV Fanatic. Retrieved 2020-07-20."'RuPaul's Drag Race All Stars 5' Episode 2 power ranking: Verse-atility". Xtra Magazine. 2020-06-14. Retrieved 2020-07-20."Here's 'Drag Race: All Stars' 5's Episode 2 Lip Sync Assassin". www.out.com. 2020-06-12. Retrieved 2020-07-20.Fitzgerald, Christine. "RuPaul's Drag Race All-Stars 5: Episode 2, 'I'm in Love!'". Socialite Life. Retrieved 2020-07-20.Dixon, Marcus James; Dixon, Marcus James (2020-07-13). "Lip Sync Assassins spoilers for 'RuPaul's Drag Race All Stars 5'". GoldDerby. Retrieved 2020-07-20.Hopefully these plus others yet to be identified meet the expectations of other editors.
904:
doing this but I have seen this in other entertainment wikiprojects. The aim of editing this topic should be to ensure that the information reaches as many of the readers as possible. Aside from the fact that content is already covered, very few people actually know the names of the episodes as they're not shown during broadcast. The very search term is niche. If I was a reader unfamiliar with the the topic, I would search for the season to see information about the episode or look for the list of episodes. A standalone article about the episode adds an additional layer of unnecessary navigation. I would understand if the episode had received coverage that wasn't trivial i.e. news coverage over its subject matter, an incident during the show, its filming/production values etc but it hasn't. The page views show that the topic isn't noteworthy for a standalone article and the coverage is largely sypnosis already covered. ≫
720:. Competition reality shows are usually given *some* flexibility as they need to summarize the plot while also giving brief descriptions of tasks/challenges and/or any temporary format changes. For reality shows most hover around 250-275 words. The plot summary for episode articles are usually limited to 400 words. My recommendation is 1.) Trim the episode summary at the main page. 2.) Move the article to draftspace and allow the editor time to format the article with inline citations. 3.) Advise the editor to add a Reception section.
793:. The site is an "Exclusive Member of Mediavine Food". Mediavine is a programmatic advertising campaign and owns Hollywood Gossip, TV Fanatic, and Food Fanatic. When freelancer authors load an article with Mediavine advertising it is published, of course with the advertising, and there you go. They get paid per visitor to the site without having to click on any ads. An editor adds the site to Knowledge and the author gets paid for every visitor. Another advertising site is the
425:, and this article can be improved through normal editing activities this should never have been put up for deleting.I’m personally not a fan of underdeveloped articles but Knowledge has a lot of them. So we base not on if an article has no sources, which is annoying, but if sourcing exists, which in this case they unquestionably do.
1011:- UX = user experience (sorry I used some tech lingo there). UX meaning how it feels from the user's point of view, where they access the information etc. Otherstuff is never a valid reason because it doesn't justify or mean that other articles have followed the rules either. Go off rules, guidelines, GA and FAs etc. ≫
933:
I hear you, I simply disagree. The obvious example is every episode article for the
Simpson’s. RPDR episodes get at least three times the coverage. The only thing this article really needs is a reception section and that’s easily possible to add given the sources already identified. So again, regular
876:
delve into details more and this is where those extra details can be added, whereas to do so at the parent articles would likely be Undue. This article’s creator should have also expanded the article but we’re not on a deadline. This is all to be fixed by our regular editing processes.I too wish that
584:
I’ve found a few reviews of the episode that not only verify everything in the article but also provide for extra content so the article can easily increase exponentially in size and quality. What remains is
Knowledge’s normal editing processes to improve the article. AfD is not intended to present a
951:
is not a good reason to cite. I'm absolutely firm coming from a UX point of view, that this is an unnecessary content fork and even if enough reception exists to make a critics reception/review section it would still be better served elsewhere. I disagree that articles should be created for the sake
903:
articles should only be created when there is a specific need and content goes beyond the synopsis of the episode. I think some projects get wrapped up in the idea of creating tonnes of good articles an an article for every possible related topic. - I'm not saying that the RuPaul project members are
825:
All useful insights and interesting, and again bolstering that neither deleting or draftifying is needed. All the cited issues can be resolved through regular editing just as they are on all the other thousands of articles that need work. There is zero indication the creator or anyone else will ever
1040:
With the helpful link provided below to a list of Good articles, it’s obvious that hundreds of episodes have been promoted, The
Simpson’s has nearly 300 alone. And several series like The X-Files obviously have one or a few editors devoted to the process. So normal editing can take stubs to GA even
984:
Otherstuff is completely valid when it points out community standards. I think everyone agrees that ideally these articles were more fully formed when created but quite often articles start with much much less content than what is here already. Our job is not to judge on what is there at the moment
320:
Other episodes of drag race (Rusicals S9-12, Makeover S10, Queens behind bars & divas lip sync live) all have the same format and they were not deleted. Why is The B*tchelor & I’m in Love! episodes being considered for deletion? It is just examining the episode in further detail and having
845:
With all due respect, the Nom made mention "The information is already contained at...", and I have also mentioned this, yet you have commented more than once eluding to points that you claim are not relevant to AFD, without addressing the issue that is relevant to AFD. A subject does not need
788:
I randomly looked at four of the sources to start. Some of the source authors are not actual reviewers or critics but entrepreneurs that have found a way to make money advertising on
Knowledge. It works exceptionally well when a person includes advertising links on a website that does not even
444:- If the sourcing to establish notability undoubtedly exists as claimed above, then it needs to be brought forward. There are no sources in the article. All I am able to find is episode recaps which is run of the mill coverage for any reality TV show episode. --
810:
and ew.com appear reliable. The bottom line is that "draftifying" will allow some corrections so the article can have a viable stand-alone status with a review of some of the "not so reliable sources" with inline citations used for actual verification. --
641:
just over expansion that could be resolved with reorganization. Currently there is navigation issue along with the redundant coverage. Considering this I can't see an argument for keeping this without resolving the issues of an improper split. --
877:
it was largely distinct from its parent articles but many stubs start off in exactly this way. We need to look at the obvious potential article, not dismissing solely on the present version. All articles are in a state of being improved.
707:
is widely covered by reliable sources it is possible there are articles that would add value to the reception section. It is also possible that the summary in the episode table needs trimmed to fit within 200-250 words. The
797:
hosted by A.V. Club, owned by Great Hill
Partners that also owns The Onion, Gizmodo, and Kotaku among others. Anyone can produce a recap site (advertising 101 teaches one how) as freelancers. Ironiq Network is owned by
215:
1041:
for episode articles despite the UX potentially not readily getting them at the correct article. Normal editing can resolve every deficiency cited, and this is more than an acceptable stub in the meantime.
934:
editing processes not requiring AfD or draftifying will answer those concerns. These articles are in the same boat as all other
Knowledge articles, they need someone willing to do a little work.
539:
However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface
703:
and one of the key points for a standalone episode article is
Reception. Most episode articles that lack a reception section usually become redirects or deleted if not improved. Since
754:
These are valid suggestions, and all within normal editing processes not requiring deletion or draftifying. The entire reception section can be built from sources already identified.
168:
557:
All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material.
209:
286:
527:
If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.
611:
115:
100:
55:. I have retargeted the original title to the unpunctuated disambiguation page, as an exclamation mark is not distinguishing for an exclamatory phrase.
785:
with no inline citations. Even if a subject is notable we have to correct duplication or merging to the parent article is still the only real option.
777:: I am leaning more towards draftify. After reading the comments of Whpq and many are "recaps" (recapitulation) as opposed to original reviews. The
688:
615:
529:
Being "notable" is one thing but does not mean a subject deserves a stand alone article because it exists. When notability is questioned there is a
510:
502:
331:
251:
1090:
254:. This article adds nothing new and serves as a synopsis of the episode. It's almost word-for-word identical to the prose from the series page. ≫
541:. Concerns of notability is evidenced by tags and certainly concerns brought up here. One cannot actually check for adherence to any of the
175:
630:
381:. Currently unsourced, so move into draft space to give editor some time to improve. If not improved, the draft page will be deleted. ---
695:
if I would come across this article I would move it to draftspace and advise the editor on how to improve and resubmit the article via
985:
but what easily can be there through normal editing.A reception section on this article would be inappropriate on any other article.
637:. This actually appears as a list of a lists that would allow the expansion of individual episodes. I do not see this as any form of
141:
136:
846:
coverage in two articles. To split an article unnecessarily, or start an article when the subject is already covered elsewhere, is
145:
230:
95:
88:
17:
806:. GoldDerby has an Editor-in-Chief and an editorial staff so it appears one out of four would be acceptable. Looking further,
634:
197:
128:
51:
607:
699:. It has the makings of a good article but the recaps would be better suited as inline citations. I do work a lot over at
726:
while start-class is a good template to go by and gives the editor an idea of what a
Reception section could look like.
1035:
485:
396:
366:
278:
109:
105:
1101:
462:
389:
191:
1145:
514:
40:
335:
722:
553:
All material in
Knowledge mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable.
404:. Another Believer stated it well. In the end, if improvements aren't made with sourcing, it'll be deleted. --
187:
623:
606:: Someone help me out here. There is sourcing that shows the subject is notable. A problem is that there is
1122:
1108:
1077:
1050:
994:
976:
943:
928:
886:
867:
842:
835:
820:
763:
749:
673:
651:
594:
576:
453:
434:
413:
313:
70:
713:
564:
1141:
1118:
1094:
1073:
1063:
1046:
1025:
990:
966:
939:
918:
882:
831:
759:
717:
590:
430:
382:
356:
303:
268:
237:
36:
856:
Spinoffs are intended to improve readability and navigation, not to evade Knowledge's content policies.
807:
132:
948:
738:
660:
comes out with each episode constitutes routine news coverage. Where is the enduring coverage. See
327:
618:(a very large stub class article) that makes this an unnecessary split. As presented this becomes a
847:
509:. An argument the article passes (easily meets) GNG is not substantiated. There are no references (
223:
638:
330:
is not a valid reason for keeping the article. It re-hashes the information already contained at
900:
851:
661:
560:
203:
84:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1140:
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
1114:
1082:
1069:
1042:
1012:
986:
953:
935:
905:
896:
878:
863:
827:
816:
755:
647:
586:
572:
548:
534:
530:
426:
409:
343:
290:
255:
65:
731:
619:
669:
542:
449:
422:
374:
What about the other episodes of drag race episode that have their own Knowledge page?
696:
692:
522:
339:
247:
124:
76:
899:
I feel like yourself and some of the other active project members missed the point.
778:
700:
518:
162:
826:
see or work on the article again, whereas in main space the public will do both.
789:
require clicking on an ad to get paid but just visiting the link. One example is
656:
No. None of that sourcing indicates notability. A bunch of episode recaps that
892:
859:
812:
643:
568:
472:
405:
56:
709:
665:
445:
321:
all episode info in one place (synopsis, lip sync and queens placement).
781:
is questionable as to why not use a source that is not a recap? There is
799:
626:
with a solution to merge the newer article back to the main article.
1089:? No. Good articles about television in general can be found here:
1134:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
783:
still the issue that the article currently is a duplicate split
465:
to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
804:"This is a media channel, by the fan for the fans, period."
687:
I saw a message about this article at the talk page for
158:
154:
150:
1068:, is there currently any Good-rated episode articles?
222:
513:
is only sourced by a "VH1 TV Schedule"), issues of
471:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
338:to which covers this topic. It is overkill and not
1091:Knowledge:Good_articles/Media_and_drama#Television
872:There is no evading going on, an episode article
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1148:). No further edits should be made to this page.
712:has a limit of 200 words for articles using the
332:RuPaul's_Drag_Race_All_Stars_(season_3)#Episodes
285:Note: This discussion has been included in the
252:RuPaul's_Drag_Race_All_Stars_(season_3)#Episodes
505:. Draftify may still be an alternate solution.
287:list of Television-related deletion discussions
496:: Per Nom. Draftify is a possible alternative.
612:List of RuPaul's Drag Race All Stars episodes
236:
8:
116:Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
633:it has (an example) a start class article
284:
250:. The information is already contained at
334:and there is also another article called
689:RuPaul's Drag Race All Stars (season 5)
616:RuPaul's Drag Race All Stars (season 5)
503:RuPaul's Drag Race All Stars (season 5)
52:Draft:I'm in Love! (RuPaul's Drag Race)
855:
556:
552:
547:. The second paragraph of the lead of
538:
526:
7:
850:. Currently the article is still a
614:. The subject is already covered in
631:List of RuPaul's Drag Race episodes
559:. I don't see a valid argument for
24:
507:See comments and rationale below
101:Introduction to deletion process
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
635:RuPaul's Drag Race (season 5)
608:RuPaul's Drag Race All Stars
563:and it doesn't appear to be
91:(AfD)? Read these primers!
1165:
336:List of Drag Race Episodes
1123:15:48, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
1109:14:27, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
1078:14:25, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
1051:15:48, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
1036:09:09, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
995:08:57, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
977:08:32, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
944:00:30, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
929:20:18, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
887:14:46, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
868:12:02, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
836:14:42, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
821:13:34, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
764:01:00, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
750:00:36, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
674:16:59, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
652:11:37, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
595:15:27, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
577:09:57, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
533:that must be satisfied.
486:06:21, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
454:01:47, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
435:08:39, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
414:01:56, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
397:01:09, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
367:08:56, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
314:21:12, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
279:21:12, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
71:16:12, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
1137:Please do not modify it.
723:The Unauthorized Rusical
691:and replying here. As a
421:, easily meets GNG. AfD
75:
32:Please do not modify it.
714:Template:Episode table
718:Template:Episode list
544:core content policies
342:for its own topic. ≫
89:Articles for deletion
555:it further states:
1087:RuPaul's Drag Race
848:redundant coverage
705:RuPaul's Drag Race
517:, and concerns of
1034:
975:
927:
531:"burden of proof"
519:original research
488:
365:
316:
312:
277:
106:Guide to deletion
96:How to contribute
1156:
1139:
1104:
1097:
1096:Another Believer
1067:
1064:Another Believer
1033:
1030:
1022:
1019:
1016:
974:
971:
963:
960:
957:
926:
923:
915:
912:
909:
843:User:Gleeanon409
746:
745:
743:
736:
482:
479:
476:
470:
468:
466:
392:
385:
384:Another Believer
364:
361:
353:
350:
347:
311:
308:
300:
297:
294:
276:
273:
265:
262:
259:
241:
240:
226:
178:
166:
148:
86:
63:
34:
1164:
1163:
1159:
1158:
1157:
1155:
1154:
1153:
1152:
1146:deletion review
1135:
1107:
1102:
1095:
1061:
1026:
1023:
1017:
1014:
967:
964:
958:
955:
919:
916:
910:
907:
742:
739:
732:
730:
729:
515:content forking
489:
480:
477:
474:
461:
459:
423:is not clean-up
395:
390:
383:
357:
354:
348:
345:
304:
301:
295:
292:
269:
266:
260:
257:
183:
174:
139:
123:
120:
83:
80:
57:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1162:
1160:
1151:
1150:
1130:
1129:
1128:
1127:
1126:
1125:
1099:
1085:, Specific to
1054:
1053:
1010:
1009:
1008:
1007:
1006:
1005:
1004:
1003:
1002:
1001:
1000:
999:
998:
997:
982:
840:
839:
838:
786:
769:
768:
767:
766:
740:
681:
680:
679:
678:
677:
676:
627:
622:that would be
598:
597:
579:
511:parent article
469:
458:
457:
456:
438:
437:
416:
399:
387:
372:
371:
370:
369:
318:
317:
244:
243:
180:
119:
118:
113:
103:
98:
81:
79:
74:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1161:
1149:
1147:
1143:
1138:
1132:
1131:
1124:
1120:
1116:
1112:
1111:
1110:
1105:
1098:
1092:
1088:
1084:
1081:
1080:
1079:
1075:
1071:
1065:
1059:
1056:
1055:
1052:
1048:
1044:
1039:
1038:
1037:
1031:
1029:
1021:
1020:
996:
992:
988:
983:
980:
979:
978:
972:
970:
962:
961:
950:
949:WP:OTHERSTUFF
947:
946:
945:
941:
937:
932:
931:
930:
924:
922:
914:
913:
902:
898:
894:
890:
889:
888:
884:
880:
875:
871:
870:
869:
865:
861:
857:
853:
849:
844:
841:
837:
833:
829:
824:
823:
822:
818:
814:
809:
805:
802:that states,
801:
796:
792:
787:
784:
780:
776:
773:
772:
771:
770:
765:
761:
757:
753:
752:
751:
748:
747:
744:
737:
735:
725:
724:
719:
715:
711:
706:
702:
698:
694:
690:
686:
683:
682:
675:
671:
667:
663:
659:
655:
654:
653:
649:
645:
640:
636:
632:
629:Looking over
628:
625:
621:
617:
613:
609:
605:
602:
601:
600:
599:
596:
592:
588:
583:
580:
578:
574:
570:
566:
562:
558:
554:
550:
546:
545:
540:
536:
532:
528:
524:
520:
516:
512:
508:
504:
500:
497:
495:
491:
490:
487:
484:
483:
467:
464:
455:
451:
447:
443:
440:
439:
436:
432:
428:
424:
420:
417:
415:
411:
407:
403:
400:
398:
393:
386:
380:
377:
376:
375:
368:
362:
360:
352:
351:
341:
337:
333:
329:
328:WP:OTHERSTUFF
326:
325:
324:
323:
322:
315:
309:
307:
299:
298:
288:
283:
282:
281:
280:
274:
272:
264:
263:
253:
249:
239:
235:
232:
229:
225:
221:
217:
214:
211:
208:
205:
202:
199:
196:
193:
189:
186:
185:Find sources:
181:
177:
173:
170:
164:
160:
156:
152:
147:
143:
138:
134:
130:
126:
122:
121:
117:
114:
111:
107:
104:
102:
99:
97:
94:
93:
92:
90:
85:
78:
73:
72:
69:
68:
64:
62:
61:
54:
53:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1136:
1133:
1086:
1057:
1027:
1013:
968:
954:
920:
906:
895:. To answer
873:
803:
794:
790:
782:
774:
733:
728:
727:
721:
704:
684:
657:
620:content fork
603:
581:
543:
506:
498:
493:
492:
473:
460:
441:
418:
401:
378:
373:
358:
344:
319:
305:
291:
270:
256:
245:
233:
227:
219:
212:
206:
200:
194:
184:
171:
125:I'm In Love!
82:
77:I'm In Love!
66:
59:
58:
49:
47:
31:
28:
1115:Gleeanon409
1113:Thank you!
1083:Gleeanon409
1070:Gleeanon409
1043:Gleeanon409
987:Gleeanon409
936:Gleeanon409
897:Gleeanon409
879:Gleeanon409
828:Gleeanon409
779:reliability
756:Gleeanon409
639:WP:FANCRUFT
587:Gleeanon409
427:Gleeanon409
246:Delete per
210:free images
852:WP:SPINOFF
791:TV Fanatic
734:Alucard 16
710:MOS:TVPLOT
662:WP:NOTNEWS
1142:talk page
952:of it. ≫
808:Gay Times
800:WBLZMedia
741:❯❯❯ chat?
624:redundant
561:a spinoff
50:moved to
37:talk page
1144:or in a
1058:Question
901:Spin off
891:I agree
775:Comments
685:Draftify
604:Comments
582:Comment.
551:states:
537:states:
525:states:
463:Relisted
402:Draftify
379:Draftify
169:View log
110:glossary
39:or in a
1018:Unique1
959:Unique1
911:Unique1
795:TV Club
567:. --
349:Unique1
340:notable
296:Unique1
261:Unique1
216:WP refs
204:scholar
142:protect
137:history
87:New to
893:Otr500
874:should
860:Otr500
813:Otr500
697:WP:AFC
693:WP:NPR
664:. --
658:always
644:Otr500
569:Otr500
549:VERIFY
535:NEXIST
523:WP:GNG
494:Delete
442:Delete
406:Kbabej
248:WP:GNG
188:Google
146:delete
60:BD2412
1093:. ---
701:WP:TV
610:and
499:Merge
231:JSTOR
192:books
176:Stats
163:views
155:watch
151:links
16:<
1119:talk
1103:Talk
1074:talk
1047:talk
1028:Talk
1015:Lil-
991:talk
969:Talk
956:Lil-
940:talk
921:Talk
908:Lil-
883:talk
864:talk
858:--
832:talk
817:talk
760:talk
716:and
670:talk
666:Whpq
648:talk
591:talk
573:talk
565:size
450:talk
446:Whpq
431:talk
419:Keep
410:talk
391:Talk
359:Talk
346:Lil-
306:Talk
293:Lil-
289:. ≫
271:Talk
258:Lil-
224:FENS
198:news
159:logs
133:talk
129:edit
1024:-{
981:UX?
965:-{
917:-{
521:.
501:to
481:Son
355:-{
302:-{
267:-{
238:TWL
167:– (
1121:)
1076:)
1060:.
1049:)
1032:}-
993:)
973:}-
942:)
925:}-
885:)
866:)
854::
834:)
819:)
762:)
672:)
650:)
593:)
575:)
478:My
452:)
433:)
412:)
363:}-
310:}-
275:}-
218:)
161:|
157:|
153:|
149:|
144:|
140:|
135:|
131:|
1117:(
1106:)
1100:(
1072:(
1066::
1062:@
1045:(
989:(
938:(
881:(
862:(
830:(
815:(
758:(
668:(
646:(
589:(
571:(
475:D
448:(
429:(
408:(
394:)
388:(
242:)
234:·
228:·
220:·
213:·
207:·
201:·
195:·
190:(
182:(
179:)
172:·
165:)
127:(
112:)
108:(
67:T
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.