1338:. This is ambiguous, subjective, and specifically chosen because notability has a particular meaning on WP, and we needed a more meaningless word. If you want to copy it into your sandbox and try to parse it out into some list that meets this criteria, then you can always do that, but this should still be deleted, because it does not appear to be a particularly plausible search term, and I don't see an obvious redirect other than the main article, for which people would presumably just search for the actual title.
1363:. "Outstanding elements of Babylon 5" is an absolutely terrible article title--I do not think there is anyone proposing anything be left at the current title except a redirect, and so to the extent your !vote is against the article title, it misses the point. I would be happy to break up this article RIGHT NOW, except there's this whole AfD thing going on, which prevents me from doing so. Change your !vote to
220:), but the resulting article is a mess, and merging a bunch of topics that fail notability does not make them notable as an aggregate. Topics in this article have no wider, cultural significance, no real world impact, and don't belong on Knowledge (XXG). Babylon 5 as a series has significant cultural influence, but Minbari Fighting Pike or Shadow Death Cloud do not, and adding them together doesn't change that.
975:
specific quotes, trimmed the unnecessary plot summary from multiple entries, and removed others entirely. Further improvements are limited only by my time. As such, all the previous delete !votes are moot, as they apply to a substantially earlier and inferior version of the article. I'll note that I've specifically addressed sourcing and references as requested by
Piotrus, Zxcvbnm, and Clarityfiend.
1317:
obviously defined inclusion criteria, 4) there is no requirement for GNG to be met by reliable, independent "not in universe" sources, 5) you haven't described any problem that cannot be fixed by regular editing, and of course 6) INDISCRIMINATE doesn't mean what you're using it to mean. My apologies that the discussion is so lengthy, but it was not my idea to have such a discussion here.
491:
popularity of a given universe, and they are reliable, ut I don't think they are sufficient sources for notability. If we allow such sources, we will have article about very minute elements of fictional universes, regardless of whether they meet GNG. It's not enough to have sources, they have to show the significance of the topic outside a given fictional universe. --
837:: The title of the list does not seem appropriate as it borders on POV issues (i.e. the inclusion of the word "outstanding" and the phrase "some of the most important" in the sentence at the top of the list). I will not say anything about the notability of this per say, but I would think that the title should change even if this is kept.
1074:
B5 articles, which prevents me from doing other things on
Knowledge (XXG), like GA reviews I've got pending. If you want to help me clean things up, I'll be happy to tag-team on it: Cut the cruft down and I can source the rest, but there's only one of me, and I happen to have four jobs and two degree programs I also have to invest in.
1678:- title is silly. "Outstanding" often implies a subjective quality assessment, of which this isn't (I realise it's intended as 'additional'. Perhaps it should be renamed to the form of "List of minor..." to make that clearer (and "Lists of minor" are so common there is a whole category for lists of minor fictional characters! (
336:
Well, if it is not referenced then it violates V and OR and should be removed. As for other stuff, it is either notable or not. If you find good sources about the cultural significance/etc. of
Minbari Fighting Pike, it probably should have its own article. Stuff like Triluminary which already lost at
321:
So what I hear you saying is that 2-3 sources, spread throughout the entire list of elements (because it is a prose list, really) are sufficient to meet GNG? I can do that. As far as the V removal, that only applies to material challenged in good faith because someone doubts its accuracy: You can't
1249:
and not on
Knowledge (XXG). The contents of this article are, as far as I can tell, impossible to describe in a way that is not "in world", and even if you could, there's nothing I see approaching any objective criteria for inclusion, which makes it an indiscriminate list based on original research.
1037:
I think races/civilizations and organizations might eventually merit merging, but B5 is so starship-heavy, I think keeping technology and starships separate makes more sense. BUT, if you want, we can resurrect the B5 Wikiproject and use it, rather than AfD's, to hash out where all this stuff should
952:
to demonstrate that deletion is inappropriate is that I happen to have firsthand knowledge that it is, in fact, inappropriate. Your statement mischaracterizes the GNG, my actions to bring the list into line with our content guidelines, and the depth of the sources I've found. Why don't you join in
490:
The problem is that your references are not showing the
Triliminary's significance outside the show. Stuff like 'The A-Z Guide to Babylon 5' or 'The Babylon File: The Unofficial Guide to J. Michael Straczynski's Bablyon 5' are encyclopedias of fictional universes. Existence of such books does show a
1073:
I have invested, over the years, $ 60 or so to acquire 5 books, with two more on the way: Babylon 5 aired when the
Internet was in its infancy, so much of the coverage is in Usenet or dead tree only. More esoteric sources are rare and cost-prohibitive. This is in addition to the hours I've spent on
929:
pleas. Ultimately, Knowledge (XXG) discourages including information with a trivial link to the real world, regardless of how many sources there are that are detailed in-universe examinations. Wikia is a place where that information can be expanded ad infinitum. Without evidence that the technology
1290:
The problem is that these sources tend to describe the subject from usually a completely in-world perspective, and if it's completely in-world, then it's just a selective plot summary. In comparison, a list of main characters can at least get out-of-world by talking about what actors played those
1088:
I'd really like to work with you, but the one problem is that you think that sourcing plot elements is important, but I stand with the other crowd who thinks it is mostly trivia that doesn't belong here. What we have to write and source is stuff about real life connections and significance. B5 is
1316:
Please read the above discussion, where all of your objections have already been answered: 1) "Outstanding" was a previous attempt to avoid putting "notable" in an article title. 2) It has already been proposed to be split/changed, 3) The proposed split articles (Organizations, Technology) have
1113:
without prejudice, work with me to merge the rest of the stuff into more well-organized list articles, and then continue working with me at a reasonable pace on the rest of the
Babylon 5 content so we can clean stuff up together, without holding the gun of AfD to the content. What do you have to
575:
standards. They're called the GNG, and met by being included in summary books like the ones I've cited. Getting an article on how someone assembled a cool-looking
Triluminary or a working Minbari fighting pike for Cosplay aren't it, and aren't really going to show anything other than enduring
1294:
The second problem is that there is no even semi-objective standard that I can tell for what would be an "outstanding element". In the case that you got into a content dispute, I don't see any source really at all that you could point to to say what was and was not outstanding, without relying
1271:
Your argument is entirely, thoroughly, and completely wrong. Writing out of secondary sources, no matter how much you may not like them, is not OR, not FANCRUFT. It's core
Knowledge (XXG) value: we write about what independent RS'es have covered. Magic: The Gathering certainly has a lot of
974:
the book I purchased with which to additionally source this article, which I had not expected to arrive until Monday, arrived earlier today. As such, I've flipped through it and sourced a couple of plot points. At this point, since this AFD was started I've added six secondary sources, with
532:
it appears in many news articles and the like, as well as books that are not specifically written on the subject of Star Wars and references in other famous media. The bar is high, but that's the way it's supposed to be in an encyclopedia, as it's not Wikia, where you can put any fancruft
978:
After mucking about in this and other B5 articles, I propose that rather than keeping this article as a dumping ground for miscellaneous B5 fictional elements, G'Quan Eth be merged into the episode in which it appears, and the rest of the article be split into two list articles,
429:
that I was the editor who proposed moving it here in the first place: While I have demonstrated that 'Triluminary' is sufficiently notable for a standalone article, I do not believe that the best way to represent individual fictional elements of a show that ended so long ago.
285:
It's a mess, I'll give you that--triluminary is in there twice. Since I have offline sources for pretty much everything in here... what would you like sourced? How many non-trivial, independent, RS sources would you prefer, divided between how many of these list elements?
1449:
Cruft is cruft, and of interest to only a minuscule subsection of of our readers. It belongs on fanpages, wikias, and geek sites - not in an encyclopedia. Plot elements belong in articles on the show itself, not some indiscriminate list of "OH, I LIKE this one!" trivia.
1582:
The title is a bit silly. Just under it, the contents of the page are described as the "mythological elements" of
Babylon 5. Searching for "outstanding" along with Babylon 5 only brings up this page. If anything the title should be Mythological elements.
1597:
Agreed. I'm tempted to just fix things--breaking up and renaming what is sourceable--despite the AfD, as this saga has been dragging on for a month now. I wouldn't want to circumvent the process, but the lack of closure here hinders progress.
371:? Significant elements of fictional franchises (Babylon 5 encompasses 5.5 seasons of shows, 2 aborted spinoffs, 5 TV movies, novels, comic books...) are necessary to understand them, and when not individually notable belong in list articles.
554:. I don't think B5 topics have a fraction of this type of coverage. Sad (because I think B5 is a much better show then SW), but we need to draw some standards. Well, enforce them, really, we already have them (they are called notability). --
1434:
Please red my last reply to GreenMeansGo, immediately above this, where I respond to these in detail. Well, except for FANCRUFT, which does not apply to reliably sourced plot elements: if it's sourced appropriately, it's not fancruft.
1295:
primarily on the opinion on editors. If you include every aspect of the world, then it is an indiscriminate list. If you include only certain aspects of the world at the preference of editors, then it is still an indiscriminate list.
341:, not to this sad list of trivia. And your time would be better spent referencing that article (I think she is notable, but you wouldn't know it from the terrible state of this plot-only summary, no significance section) article. --
177:
910:
reevaluation as there remains work to do, but I believe I have conclusively demonstrated that everything here can either be deleted or sourced, i.e., the article can be fixed through normal editing and deletion is unnecessary.
1182:. Even if every word of it was sourced, it would need to be to sources that themselves aren't fancruft, and to include some non-arbitrary criteria for inclusion, whereas the only criteria for inclusion now appears to be that
1056:, which is a major plot element, is currently in a terrible state and desperately needs referencing (hint) because in current state it begs to be taken here. (FYI, I'd try to reference it myself before taking it here...). --
52:. There seem to be people willing to work on improving this, so let's let them have a go, and then we can revisit the question of deletion of this article or whatever other articles are created from it, at another time. –
672:
1412:
term "outstanding" fit in the title? Who decides what is "outstanding"? Notable, I would understand, but then all entries would require an article establishing individual notability. No, this list is as stated above -
735:
337:
AfD before don't belong anywhere on Knowledge (XXG), well, outside mentions in the plot summaries for individual episodes or notable elements like characters. Frankly, the Triluminary should've been merged to article on
400:. Being that it's most likely in Babylon 5 Wiki already, I submit it should be deleted, and if anyone thinks they can reference it to the point of notability, draftified until such time as it's approved by a reviewer.
358:
Something doesn't violate OR just because it's unreferenced; surely you know better than that. Merging triluminary to Delenn would be inappropriate because of the three uses, two of them directly involve
773:, has just been published. I've ordered a copy, but Amazon doesn't expect it to be here until Monday. I expect there to be additional citations to every key fictional element discussed in this article.
240:
425:
the entry, a tactic which should probably be used on most of these elements, but which demonstrates that there is nothing wrong with this list that can't be solved by regular editing. You may
171:
851:
I agree. This was one of the first combined lists of semi-notable plot elements, and as such, "outstanding" was supposed to be a substitute for "notable", IIRC. I'd rather it change to
255:
130:
103:
98:
666:
729:
107:
1529:
270:
1109:
You don't have to agree with me to clean up the parts we both agree need to be cleaned up. I don't have the bandwidth to debate multiple AFDs at once. Withdraw your AfD of
300:
Sources that are not B5 primary materials, and that mention the topics in in-depth discussion? Go for it. Anything that is not going to be referenced is a valid target for
90:
953:
and help? There are a ton of articles, created in Knowledge (XXG)'s infancy, which could benefit from an editor or several who is willing to source things. I'll teach.
508:
The fact that the Triluminary--and pretty much every other fictional element referenced on this page--appears in a real world, dead-tree, major-house published book
137:
426:
217:
1679:
621:. It's also not clear to me how your critique of one source invalidates the multiple other independent, reliable secondary sources already in the article.
474:. Descriptions of 'elements' are not descriptions of 'works', and a collection of elements in prose list form is even more definitely not such a summary.
881:
That would make sense to me. Both of your suggest titles are much more neutral and would be more appropriate for this site. Thank you for your response.
603:
per nom. It's all in-universe plot description. The subsection on "G'Quan Eth" is particularly egregious, as is the third "reference" for Triluminary.
363:. Triluminary didn't "lose" an AfD: Go review it--I proposed it be merged because it was the right thing to have done anyways. Have you looked at
925:
Your constant attempts to stop the deletion of the article have become disruptive, at this point it's just obfuscating the discussion with repeated
208:
I really love B5, having seen the show 3-4 times but... this collection of minor plot elements and props has no place in Knowledge (XXG), failing
192:
1620:
You should just edit the page as you see fit. I don't think there is a rule against improving an article while an AfD is going, the opposite.
159:
1467:'cruft' is a term of art, and refers to details of a notable fictional franchise that are both 1) of limited interest, as you say, and 2)
448:- "significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included." It still violates
812:
independent, reliable, secondary sources. Summarizing a fictional work requires "analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis" per
1028:
1018:
61:
687:
17:
1713:
1699:
1664:
1629:
1607:
1592:
1572:
1541:
1520:
1503:
1480:
1462:
1444:
1429:
1376:
1354:
1326:
1311:
1285:
1266:
1224:
1206:
1164:
1123:
1101:
1083:
1068:
1047:
1032:
996:
962:
943:
920:
890:
876:
846:
825:
799:
782:
750:
630:
612:
585:
566:
546:
523:
503:
483:
465:
439:
413:
380:
353:
331:
316:
295:
277:
262:
247:
232:
72:
1012:
would be an upmerge target for several B5 organization articles, and could potentially be merged with the civilizations list. ----
654:
153:
1417:. Whatever elements are truly outstanding (if any) should be merged into the Babylon 5 article, and we can nuke this from orbit.
805:
717:
1625:
1588:
1008:
would be a suitable list article to upmerge a lot of B5 articles that might fail the GNG (e.g. perhaps the starships list) while
1694:
514:
the evidence of real-world impact. What else would you expect to see in terms of real world coverage of a fictional element?
149:
1704:
I completely agree. Once this AfD closes, I can begin meaningful rearchitecting of this content into a better presentation.
1516:
322:
both say 'NN fancruft' and 'I don't believe it's true.' Both are valid deletion reasons, but they're opposite of each other.
1291:
characters, what the reviews of their performances wrote, and maybe whether they received personal recognition for the role.
94:
804:
You can look at the first bits online, and frankly I find it looks a lot like a cross between the books I already have and
1642:
1550:
1142:
199:
648:
552:
1734:
711:
86:
78:
40:
1675:
1621:
1584:
1401:
1175:
471:
449:
860:
368:
364:
644:
707:
1009:
856:
1512:
984:
930:
contributed to the show's success or resonated in the real world, it's just claiming notability by association.
165:
65:
694:
617:
I'm sorry if it's not clear what that reference is, but it is confirmation by the author of a plot point, per
1005:
980:
852:
757:
771:
1405:
1352:
1309:
1264:
1204:
608:
57:
1730:
36:
1414:
1212:
1179:
209:
1238:
1409:
660:
397:
1690:
743:
723:
680:
274:
259:
244:
185:
1110:
1709:
1603:
1537:
1476:
1440:
1372:
1322:
1281:
1220:
1187:
1119:
1079:
1043:
992:
958:
916:
872:
821:
778:
626:
581:
519:
479:
435:
376:
327:
291:
1331:
926:
1089:
important not because it had (pretty good) plot, but because of the real life impact it had. --
1658:
1339:
1296:
1272:
secondary RS'es as well, so I have no idea what your actual argument boils down to other than
1251:
1191:
1095:
1062:
1023:
1013:
937:
793:
604:
560:
540:
497:
459:
407:
347:
310:
226:
53:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1729:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1273:
813:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1452:
1419:
886:
842:
360:
1334:
clarifies indiscriminacy with regard to lists, saying the criteria for inclusion should be
907:
618:
445:
213:
1183:
1684:
1566:
1211:
I'm sorry, but isn't a major house published dead-tree book entirely incompatible with
1158:
576:
popularity at this point. Nothing in the GNG demands the sort of coverage you ask for.
1052:
The issue is, can we find sources to show that those techs and orgs are notable? Even
301:
1705:
1599:
1533:
1499:
1472:
1436:
1368:
1318:
1277:
1216:
1115:
1075:
1039:
988:
954:
912:
868:
817:
774:
622:
577:
515:
475:
431:
372:
323:
287:
1004:
article between Jclemens. Having this miscellaneous article makes no sense, but the
1653:
1106:
1091:
1058:
933:
789:
556:
536:
493:
455:
403:
343:
306:
222:
124:
1246:
882:
838:
529:
1561:
1153:
1053:
808:. However, you make a fundamental error: plot summaries in published books
1495:
551:
Exactly. Lightsabers are notable because there is a ton of articles like
1359:
The inclusion criteria for the two proposed articles are pretty clear:
1528:
Further sourced material has since been merged into this article per
338:
216:. It is a result of the some former AfDs that ended in 'merge' (ex.
863:. If people would stop AfD'ing stuff and actually try and help me
396:- It doesn't seem like any of the information here doesn't violate
1361:
Multiply reliably sourced appearing in Babylon 5 fictional works
1723:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
304:
removal anyway, section by section. Not much will be left... --
1245:, and that's why excessively trivial and arbitrary details go
1645:
to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
1553:
to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
1365:
Keep and break up, renominate new articles for AfD if desired
1145:
to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
816:. Quoting such a work is about the only thing that does not.
859:(and sourcing them, obviously), and merging the places into
855:, merging some stuff in, splitting out the organizations to
787:
Cool. I hope it will have more then just plot summaries. --
906:
to the article. I am not finished, nor am I asking for a
1336:
unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources
1186:. This adds little to nothing beyond what is provided by
1530:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Phased plasma gun
903:
422:
421:
2 RS'es for Triluminary itself. You'll note that I've
241:
list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions
120:
116:
112:
742:
679:
184:
256:
list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions
1651:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
1559:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
1237:How many books do you think have been published on
1151:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
756:
693:
198:
218:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Triluminary
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1737:). No further edits should be made to this page.
271:list of Television-related deletion discussions
1184:a particular editor decided to write about it
8:
1680:Category:Lists_of_minor_fictional_characters
269:Note: This debate has been included in the
254:Note: This debate has been included in the
239:Note: This debate has been included in the
1367:and we can change the whole conversation.
268:
253:
238:
867:stuff with this, it'd be a lot easier...
1335:
1190:, and belongs on Wikia, if anywhere.
1092:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus
1059:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus
790:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus
557:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus
494:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus
344:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus
307:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus
223:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
1682:). So, something akin to that? .../
1471:. If it's RS'ed, it's not cruft.
24:
1022:06:36, 1 October 2017 (UTC) ----
87:Outstanding elements of Babylon 5
79:Outstanding elements of Babylon 5
452:as a "summary-only description".
1469:not themselves reliably sourced
806:The Lurker's Guide to Babylon 5
963:04:17, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
944:09:40, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
921:06:28, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
891:15:54, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
877:05:06, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
861:List of locations in Babylon 5
847:18:23, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
826:18:22, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
800:09:29, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
783:09:12, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
631:00:54, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
613:23:07, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
586:17:53, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
567:09:32, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
547:09:09, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
524:07:03, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
504:05:32, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
484:18:39, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
466:18:27, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
440:18:19, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
414:16:28, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
381:07:00, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
369:List of locations in Babylon 5
365:List of starships in Babylon 5
354:05:07, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
332:17:10, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
317:09:20, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
296:09:08, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
278:08:37, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
263:08:37, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
248:08:37, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
233:08:17, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
1:
1714:06:54, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
1700:05:58, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
1665:06:45, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
1630:18:42, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
1608:01:38, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
1593:19:38, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
1573:19:33, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
1542:06:49, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
73:13:32, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
1521:10:05, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
1504:15:38, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
1481:06:56, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
1463:12:53, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
1445:05:49, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
1430:22:04, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
1377:06:56, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
1355:10:29, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
1327:05:49, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
1312:21:51, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
1286:21:03, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
1267:16:44, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
1225:16:37, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
1207:14:31, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
1165:05:26, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
1124:07:02, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
1102:14:50, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
1084:02:36, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
1069:14:16, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
1048:23:34, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
1033:06:36, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
997:04:48, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
1754:
1010:Organizations in Babylon 5
857:Organizations in Babylon 5
985:Organization in Babylon 5
1726:Please do not modify it.
470:Please stop misapplying
32:Please do not modify it.
1006:Technology of Babylon 5
981:Technology of Babylon 5
853:Technology of Babylon 5
528:In terms of stuff like
1408:- and where does the
1513:FreeKnowledgeCreator
1239:Magic: The Gathering
902:I continue to make
1400:as a violation of
1188:Template:Babylon 5
770:a new print book,
423:seriously abridged
1698:
1667:
1575:
1402:WP:INDISCRIMINATE
1176:WP:INDISCRIMINATE
1167:
941:
544:
472:WP:INDISCRIMINATE
463:
450:WP:INDISCRIMINATE
411:
280:
265:
250:
1745:
1728:
1688:
1663:
1661:
1656:
1650:
1648:
1646:
1569:
1564:
1558:
1556:
1554:
1459:
1457:
1426:
1424:
1350:
1349:
1346:
1343:
1307:
1306:
1303:
1300:
1262:
1261:
1258:
1255:
1202:
1201:
1198:
1195:
1156:
1150:
1148:
1146:
1098:
1065:
948:The reason I am
932:
796:
761:
760:
746:
698:
697:
683:
563:
535:
500:
454:
402:
361:Jeffrey Sinclair
350:
313:
229:
203:
202:
188:
140:
128:
110:
70:
34:
1753:
1752:
1748:
1747:
1746:
1744:
1743:
1742:
1741:
1735:deletion review
1724:
1668:
1659:
1654:
1652:
1641:
1639:
1576:
1567:
1562:
1549:
1547:
1455:
1453:
1422:
1420:
1347:
1344:
1341:
1340:
1304:
1301:
1298:
1297:
1259:
1256:
1253:
1252:
1247:on the fan wiki
1199:
1196:
1193:
1192:
1168:
1154:
1141:
1139:
1100:
1096:
1067:
1063:
1038:actually go...
1031:
1021:
942:
798:
794:
703:
640:
565:
561:
545:
502:
498:
464:
412:
352:
348:
315:
311:
231:
227:
145:
136:
101:
85:
82:
69:
66:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1751:
1749:
1740:
1739:
1719:
1718:
1717:
1716:
1649:
1638:
1637:
1636:
1635:
1634:
1633:
1632:
1613:
1612:
1611:
1610:
1557:
1546:
1545:
1544:
1523:
1511:per Jclemens.
1506:
1494:per Jclemens.
1489:
1488:
1487:
1486:
1485:
1484:
1483:
1394:
1393:
1392:
1391:
1390:
1389:
1388:
1387:
1386:
1385:
1384:
1383:
1382:
1381:
1380:
1379:
1292:
1230:
1229:
1228:
1227:
1149:
1138:
1137:
1136:
1135:
1134:
1133:
1132:
1131:
1130:
1129:
1128:
1127:
1126:
1090:
1057:
1027:
1017:
999:
976:
969:
968:
967:
966:
965:
931:
897:
896:
895:
894:
893:
832:
831:
830:
829:
828:
788:
764:
763:
700:
636:
635:
634:
633:
598:
597:
596:
595:
594:
593:
592:
591:
590:
589:
588:
555:
534:
492:
488:
487:
486:
453:
416:
401:
391:
390:
389:
388:
387:
386:
385:
384:
383:
342:
305:
282:
281:
275:Mark the train
266:
260:Mark the train
251:
245:Mark the train
221:
206:
205:
142:
81:
76:
67:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1750:
1738:
1736:
1732:
1727:
1721:
1720:
1715:
1711:
1707:
1703:
1702:
1701:
1696:
1695:Contributions
1692:
1687:
1686:
1681:
1677:
1673:
1670:
1669:
1666:
1662:
1657:
1647:
1644:
1631:
1627:
1623:
1619:
1618:
1617:
1616:
1615:
1614:
1609:
1605:
1601:
1596:
1595:
1594:
1590:
1586:
1581:
1578:
1577:
1574:
1571:
1570:
1565:
1555:
1552:
1543:
1539:
1535:
1531:
1527:
1524:
1522:
1518:
1514:
1510:
1507:
1505:
1501:
1497:
1493:
1490:
1482:
1478:
1474:
1470:
1466:
1465:
1464:
1461:
1460:
1448:
1447:
1446:
1442:
1438:
1433:
1432:
1431:
1428:
1427:
1416:
1411:
1407:
1406:WP:INUNIVERSE
1403:
1399:
1396:
1395:
1378:
1374:
1370:
1366:
1362:
1358:
1357:
1356:
1353:
1351:
1337:
1333:
1330:
1329:
1328:
1324:
1320:
1315:
1314:
1313:
1310:
1308:
1293:
1289:
1288:
1287:
1283:
1279:
1275:
1270:
1269:
1268:
1265:
1263:
1248:
1244:
1240:
1236:
1235:
1234:
1233:
1232:
1231:
1226:
1222:
1218:
1214:
1210:
1209:
1208:
1205:
1203:
1189:
1185:
1181:
1177:
1173:
1170:
1169:
1166:
1163:
1162:
1161:
1157:
1147:
1144:
1125:
1121:
1117:
1112:
1108:
1105:
1104:
1103:
1099:
1093:
1087:
1086:
1085:
1081:
1077:
1072:
1071:
1070:
1066:
1060:
1055:
1051:
1050:
1049:
1045:
1041:
1036:
1035:
1034:
1030:
1029:contributions
1025:
1020:
1019:contributions
1015:
1011:
1007:
1003:
1000:
998:
994:
990:
986:
982:
977:
973:
970:
964:
960:
956:
951:
947:
946:
945:
939:
935:
928:
924:
923:
922:
918:
914:
909:
905:
901:
898:
892:
888:
884:
880:
879:
878:
874:
870:
866:
862:
858:
854:
850:
849:
848:
844:
840:
836:
833:
827:
823:
819:
815:
811:
807:
803:
802:
801:
797:
791:
786:
785:
784:
780:
776:
772:
769:
766:
765:
759:
755:
752:
749:
745:
741:
737:
734:
731:
728:
725:
722:
719:
716:
713:
709:
706:
705:Find sources:
701:
696:
692:
689:
686:
682:
678:
674:
671:
668:
665:
662:
659:
656:
653:
650:
646:
643:
642:Find sources:
638:
637:
632:
628:
624:
620:
616:
615:
614:
610:
606:
602:
599:
587:
583:
579:
574:
570:
569:
568:
564:
558:
553:
550:
549:
548:
542:
538:
531:
527:
526:
525:
521:
517:
513:
512:
507:
506:
505:
501:
495:
489:
485:
481:
477:
473:
469:
468:
467:
461:
457:
451:
447:
443:
442:
441:
437:
433:
428:
424:
420:
417:
415:
409:
405:
399:
395:
392:
382:
378:
374:
370:
366:
362:
357:
356:
355:
351:
345:
340:
335:
334:
333:
329:
325:
320:
319:
318:
314:
308:
303:
299:
298:
297:
293:
289:
284:
283:
279:
276:
272:
267:
264:
261:
257:
252:
249:
246:
242:
237:
236:
235:
234:
230:
224:
219:
215:
211:
201:
197:
194:
191:
187:
183:
179:
176:
173:
170:
167:
164:
161:
158:
155:
151:
148:
147:Find sources:
143:
139:
135:
132:
126:
122:
118:
114:
109:
105:
100:
96:
92:
88:
84:
83:
80:
77:
75:
74:
71:
63:
59:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1725:
1722:
1683:
1671:
1640:
1579:
1560:
1548:
1525:
1508:
1491:
1468:
1451:
1418:
1397:
1364:
1360:
1242:
1171:
1159:
1152:
1140:
1111:Grey Council
1024:Patar knight
1014:Patar knight
1001:
972:Further note
971:
949:
904:improvements
899:
864:
834:
809:
767:
753:
747:
739:
732:
726:
720:
714:
704:
690:
684:
676:
669:
663:
657:
651:
641:
605:Clarityfiend
600:
572:
510:
509:
418:
393:
207:
195:
189:
181:
174:
168:
162:
156:
146:
133:
54:filelakeshoe
50:no consensus
49:
47:
31:
28:
1674:Agree with
1415:WP:FANCRUFT
1213:WP:FANCRUFT
1180:WP:FANCRUFT
730:free images
667:free images
210:WP:NOTWIKIA
172:free images
1660:Talk To Me
1410:WP:PEACOCK
1097:reply here
1064:reply here
795:reply here
562:reply here
530:lightsaber
499:reply here
398:WP:NOTPLOT
349:reply here
312:reply here
228:reply here
1731:talk page
1685:NemoThorx
1676:Mr. Magoo
1622:Mr. Magoo
1585:Mr. Magoo
1054:Psi Corps
37:talk page
1733:or in a
1706:Jclemens
1643:Relisted
1600:Jclemens
1551:Relisted
1534:Jclemens
1473:Jclemens
1437:Jclemens
1369:Jclemens
1332:WP:NLIST
1319:Jclemens
1278:Jclemens
1217:Jclemens
1178:list of
1143:Relisted
1116:Jclemens
1076:Jclemens
1040:Jclemens
989:Jclemens
955:Jclemens
927:WP:MERCY
913:Jclemens
869:Jclemens
818:Jclemens
775:Jclemens
623:Jclemens
578:Jclemens
516:Jclemens
476:Jclemens
432:Jclemens
373:Jclemens
324:Jclemens
288:Jclemens
131:View log
39:or in a
1672:Comment
1655:Kagundu
1580:Comment
1274:WP:NIME
1107:Piotrus
950:working
934:ZXCVBNM
835:Comment
814:WP:PSTS
736:WP refs
724:scholar
673:WP refs
661:scholar
537:ZXCVBNM
456:ZXCVBNM
404:ZXCVBNM
178:WP refs
166:scholar
104:protect
99:history
1398:Delete
1172:Delete
1114:lose?
908:WP:HEY
883:Aoba47
839:Aoba47
708:Google
645:Google
619:WP:SPS
601:Delete
533:there.
446:WP:GNG
394:Delete
339:Delenn
214:WP:GNG
212:, and
150:Google
108:delete
1458:pIron
1425:pIron
1243:A lot
1002:Split
751:JSTOR
712:books
688:JSTOR
649:books
193:JSTOR
154:books
138:Stats
125:views
117:watch
113:links
16:<
1710:talk
1691:talk
1626:talk
1604:talk
1589:talk
1538:talk
1526:Note
1517:talk
1509:Keep
1500:talk
1492:Keep
1477:talk
1441:talk
1404:and
1373:talk
1323:talk
1282:talk
1221:talk
1120:talk
1080:talk
1044:talk
993:talk
983:and
959:talk
938:TALK
917:talk
900:Note
887:talk
873:talk
843:talk
822:talk
779:talk
768:Note
744:FENS
718:news
681:FENS
655:news
627:talk
609:talk
582:talk
573:have
541:TALK
520:talk
480:talk
460:TALK
444:Per
436:talk
427:note
419:Keep
408:TALK
377:talk
328:talk
302:WP:V
292:talk
186:FENS
160:news
121:logs
95:talk
91:edit
1568:947
1496:BOZ
1454:Scr
1421:Scr
1215:?
1160:947
1026:- /
1016:- /
810:are
758:TWL
695:TWL
571:We
367:or
200:TWL
129:– (
1712:)
1693:•
1628:)
1606:)
1591:)
1540:)
1532:.
1519:)
1502:)
1479:)
1443:)
1375:)
1325:)
1284:)
1276:.
1241:?
1223:)
1174:-
1122:)
1082:)
1046:)
995:)
987:.
961:)
919:)
889:)
875:)
865:do
845:)
824:)
781:)
738:)
675:)
629:)
611:)
584:)
522:)
511:is
482:)
438:)
379:)
330:)
294:)
273:.
258:.
243:.
180:)
123:|
119:|
115:|
111:|
106:|
102:|
97:|
93:|
64:)
60:/
1708:(
1697:)
1689:(
1624:(
1602:(
1587:(
1563:J
1536:(
1515:(
1498:(
1475:(
1456:★
1439:(
1423:★
1371:(
1348:G
1345:M
1342:G
1321:(
1305:G
1302:M
1299:G
1280:(
1260:G
1257:M
1254:G
1219:(
1200:G
1197:M
1194:G
1155:J
1118:(
1094:|
1078:(
1061:|
1042:(
991:(
957:(
940:)
936:(
915:(
885:(
871:(
841:(
820:(
792:|
777:(
762:)
754:·
748:·
740:·
733:·
727:·
721:·
715:·
710:(
702:(
699:)
691:·
685:·
677:·
670:·
664:·
658:·
652:·
647:(
639:(
625:(
607:(
580:(
559:|
543:)
539:(
518:(
496:|
478:(
462:)
458:(
434:(
410:)
406:(
375:(
346:|
326:(
309:|
290:(
225:|
204:)
196:·
190:·
182:·
175:·
169:·
163:·
157:·
152:(
144:(
141:)
134:·
127:)
89:(
68:
62:c
58:t
56:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.