1151:, and judging it worthless because it has not been brought up to an arbitrary standard in an arbitrary length of time goes against guideline. All such lists are mutable and need upkeep and care. It may just be that editors who might wish to do so are waiting to see if it survives this AfD... as they may reason, "why do any work if the list is hated so much and is going to be tossed anyway?"
610:, and that discussion was closed as a snowball keep. Unlike the list being discussed in this debate, I have no doubt that reliable sources exist for the anime list (and in many cases, these sources are already present on the series' article or episode list), it's just a matter of someone adding them. In addition, the anime list is being actively maintained by the
504:
Hey, if we wanted to "be bold" we would simply blank the page. We'll stick to helping improve
Knowledge by removing false information. There's no excuse for someone to toss out figures without saying where they got them from. Some of the numbers on here have obviously been made up by someone who
264:
To answer your question, I think that when the nominator is saying unmaintanable, it's not that a program would be omitted from the list, but that the number of episodes of Sports Center or the Today Show changes every day. I'm going to ask the question, how is this "well sourced and referenced"?
994:
I think that Metro and I have made our point that editors shouldn't smugly toss out numbers without any proof, and without any citations to verifiable sources. What we've done is very useful and very helpful. In answer to his question (how much isn't false or inaccurate), a lot of the soap opera
514:
show most certainly has not been on every single morning since 1952-- it was Monday through Friday until more recent years, when it expanded to weekends. Get a calculator and try running some of these numbers. It's not that difficult-- there are at least 260 weekdays (Monday through Friday) in a
1250:
now. Thank you to everyone who added citations, and thank you to the nominator and the persons who pointed out the serious problems that this list had. But for the nomination and the harsh-but-true criticism, there would have been no incentive for anyone to fix it. This is how AfD should work,
1226:
show until such time as they celebrate a clear milestone, and I feel that if a clear milestone and date are given in the references, it's not original research to include a more up-to-date approximation if the reader can work out or double check the figure for themselves. This type of list is not
1035:
I seriously doubt any of the editors who have worked on the article have done so "smugly". Yes, the article needs sources, and no one is arguing that, but this is another example of assuming bad faith on the part of the editors working on an article. Please keep comments focused on discussing the
860:
here. It's likely most of the article contains all or mostly accurate information. There's no one here who doesn't agree the article needs to be cleaned up, but your acerbic comments throughout this discussion are out of line. If you have something useful to say, please do so. Otherwise, we don't
462:
This list has been tagged since
October for improvement, and since December for sourcing. The only "improvement" was made by one editor who added more programmes and more 'Since ...' "sources". I see nothing wrong with including episode totals on individual articles, but I think this isn't really
157:
acknowledge a 10,000th episode in
November? Has SC had a 30,000th episode? I think that this one has gone a step too far by trying to be too precise, without the tools that precision requires, and with no explanation as to how the figure was reached. It's not necessarily trivial, since the
1073:
debuted in 1979, so let's put the over/under at 30,000 episodes"). Not to cast aspersions on your calculations, but these figures aren't too far from the numbers in this list (although, there is a possibility
Hoffman used Knowledge as a source), and see my possible explanation above of the
1255:
fixed, and those that are not up to par are deleted. While an unsourced list was tolerated when
Knowledge was working its way up, Knowledge has become the most popular site on the internet. In articles that people rely upon, verifiable sources have to be standard equipment, not options.
573:, I'm fairly certain that Metro isn't ending the comment with what might be mistaken for a keep vote. Normally, I would not do an edit on someone else's comment, and I apologize in advance, but there seems to be enough confusion about the lack of any sources for the article in question.
937:
a falsehood or inaccuracy?" Your comment implies that you believe everyone who has contributed to the article was purposely including falsehoods and inaccuracies. That is clearly an assumption of bad faith. If you want to discuss the merits of the article as it stands, then
127:
Indiscriminate "trivial" list. Mostly unsourced original research, or numbers from unreliable sources (TV.com - "where the fans run the show"). Aside from shows that are no longer in production, this is an unmaintainable list that will become quickly outdated. ~~
1096:
This is the problem - there is some well-sourced material out there, but it is out of date. December 2007 is over a year ago, and if that is all we have to go on (aside from "approximations") then it seems pretty pointless to me to have this article. ~~
1114:. The solution to unsourced or inappropriately-sourced and possibly inaccurate numbers is to replace them with appropriately sourced and accurate numbers, or, where the exact number is unknown or changing on a daily basis, reasonable approximations.
140:
I hate to say delete when someone has clearly gone to a lot of work on this, but I doubt the figures and the list is unsourced. All the footnotes are truly for notes like "as of
January 1, 2009", rather than sources. This one makes a good
1006:
had its 10,000th on
November 12. SportsCenter likes to call its shows, shown three times a day, "episodes", and they celebrated 30,000 in 2007. The numbers for news shows appear to be made up-- the example of 20,718 installments of
509:
show is a perfect example of that-- supposedly it has had "20,718" episodes from
January 14, 1952 to January 1, 2008. But in that same 56 years, there hadn't even been 20,500 mornings (get a calculator and do the math), and the
880:
assuming good faith; you just don't seem to like the fact that I disagree with you. The end discussion will be based on consensus, won't it? How will we have that if we don't hear out differing opinions? And maybe it
607:
541:
one is because it almost entirely consists of original research and fake sources. If you want to prove that the article is notable, add some real sources; simple as that. Even adding one or two sources should prove
175:
This point is actually made evident by the fact that
Coronation Street and Hollyoaks are listed as having "seasons", which they don't - they are produced all year round with no breaks between different series. ~~
473:
It's only 2 or 3 months then since it was tagged. There's no timeline to get things cleaned up. There is no policy that states if something is cleaned up within x amount of time it should be deleted. Maybe
87:
82:
447:, so please drop the "it isn't encyclopedic" argument as it doesn't hold up. Cleanup entails many things, including adding proper citations. So yes, cleanup. Do you object to cleanup for some reason? ···
91:
329:
Please re-read what I wrote. I said "sourceable", not "sourced". Just because the current references for the article are not sufficient does not mean that there are not other better sources out there.
74:
666:
Hmmm-- the sourcing on the anime episode count is every bit as good as the sourcing on this article. Since it's anime, though, it might be more likely to "magically" improve on its own...
406:. I can see a need for cleanup, but taking an article to AfD is not the proper way to do that. Tag the article with various cleanup tags. I also agree with the other keep comments. ···
240:
Welll sourced and referenced article. An easily maintained list - how is this "unmaintainable"? How many shows are going to sneak by with 20,000+ episodes and not be included?
120:
721:
78:
644:
show discrepancy can possibly be explained by the fact that from 1952 to 1958, the show was broadcast live as separate two-hour editions for each U.S. time zone (
747:
308:
70:
62:
355:
1290:
1265:
1236:
1206:
1192:... a day or a week or month later that number changes, but that does not undo the fact that it was at one time verified. Such lists need upkeep.
1181:
1165:
1138:
1123:
1100:
1087:
1042:
1024:
971:
948:
924:
895:
867:
847:
832:
809:
789:
762:
736:
707:
693:
675:
657:
627:
597:
582:
560:
524:
491:
466:
453:
431:
412:
394:
374:
359:
338:
322:
297:
274:
253:
228:
200:
179:
167:
131:
56:
172:
I appreciate that someone has obviously put work into this article, but with little to no references, it is - as you put it - inaccurate trivia.
1218:
I've held off taking part in this AfD as I kind of see the point of the nominators, however as of today almost all the top items on this list
1227:
merely "trivia", and would not be out of place in a moderately specialised encyclopedia of television (i.e. Knowledge is not
Britannica). --
685:
619:
351:
1011:
in 56 years would mean that it was on every morning, and on twice on several hundred other mornings. Even sillier is the number for
191:- This is a good and useful list. Not "trivia". The solution is to fix it, clean it, source it ... not to delete it. Thanks. (
942:
it rather than tossing out comments or questions such as that. Such questions do nothing to further discussion of the article. ···
933:
I don't have any problem with you disagreeing with me. I have a problem with arrogant questions such as "How much of the article
153:
show as of 1/1/08? Every once in awhile, there will be a celebration of some sort where a program reaches a milestone, but did
1222:
been sourced (I've just added three or four references myself). I agree with the removal of contentious inclusions such as the
17:
1000:
1069:
show, which debuted in 1952 — five, then six, now seven mornings a week. That's more than 20,000 episodes, all told.", "
463:
useful, and I stand by my unmaintainable stance - it is far too much work to keep this up to date and well sourced. ~~
196:
158:
longevity of a show is often marked by recognized in the ----nth episode, but there's no room for inaccurate trivia.
350:
and source better, the population of the earth and GNP of countries change continually, but we update once a year. --
1311:
1201:
1174:
The problem is the lack of well sourced content, and the fact that reasonable approximations seems to go against
1160:
919:
827:
784:
149:, but do we know for sure that there have been 31,195 episodes as of January 9, 2009? Or 20,718 episodes of the
36:
1310:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
689:
623:
1188:
Numbers that change on a daily basis can be verified for the moment or date they were posted, which meets
443:
disagrees with you as there are literally thousands of lists here. In fact, there are over 1200 which are
192:
1051:
A possible source for many of these figures may be from this December 2007 article by Ken Hoffman in the
818:
is the way to go to address any problems with sourcing or accuracy, perceieved or actual. Best regards,
334:
293:
1015:-- on the air for the last "4,811" Sundays, which would mean that it's been on TV for about 90 years.
1194:
1153:
912:
820:
777:
381:
He's referring to lists that change all the time, but can easily be maintained. Just like this one.
1261:
1020:
805:
671:
578:
520:
270:
219:
163:
1148:
1058:
645:
588:
1119:
1053:
907:
815:
772:
757:
731:
551:
487:
390:
249:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1278:
1232:
1083:
681:
653:
615:
330:
289:
211:
611:
440:
1257:
1134:
1016:
967:
958:
891:
843:
801:
667:
593:
574:
556:
516:
475:
427:
370:
318:
266:
224:
159:
1274:
1179:
1098:
1037:
943:
862:
857:
705:
464:
448:
407:
177:
129:
1115:
754:
728:
587:
No, that was actually a good call. :) But while we're at it, should we also delete
515:
year, so divide the alleged number of episodes by the length of time referred to.
480:
444:
425:
It's just a list. It isn't a badly-written list, but it isn't encyclopedic either.
383:
242:
50:
108:
648:). The episode count may be including four episodes a day for about six years. --
1228:
1189:
1175:
1079:
649:
1277:
in no way stipulates that articles should be deleted if they need improvement.
1132:
Maybe, but this is the third day, so why hasn't anyone added said sources yet?
1061:. Hoffman gives episode counts for a number of primetime and news programs ("
999:
actually broadcast its 11,000th episode today, which I can show by this link
505:
multiplied the age of the series by the days of the year. The entry for the
775:
for formatting and ref fixes. Its a keeper and better than many such lists.
800:
Yes, other than the falsehoods and the inaccuracies, it's really good.
265:
Those little numbers after each entry don't lead to any citations.
614:(I confess I have no idea of the status of this list, however). -
1304:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
885:
likely that the article could be accurate, but we need inline
478:
and find sources/refs yourself to help improve the article.
115:
104:
100:
96:
1065:
has aired more than 4,750 episodes", "Same with the
704:
I think it wouldn't be a bad idea, to be honest. ~~
145:as to how many episodes there have been for ESPN's
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1314:). No further edits should be made to this page.
312:section. Those aren't sources; they're comments
722:list of Television-related deletion discussions
606:I'd like to point out that the anime list has
906:And such sourcing would then be a reason for
814:Thank you agreeing that the article is good.
8:
1251:where articles that "can be" fixed actually
71:List of television programs by episode count
63:List of television programs by episode count
748:list of Lists-related deletion discussions
1036:article rather than the contributors. ···
746:: This debate has been included in the
720:: This debate has been included in the
288:Easily sourceable, not really trivial.
995:numbers are probably close-- in fact,
861:need such unhelpful comments here. ···
210:What, exactly, is your definition of "
7:
608:already been nominated for deletion
550:votes seem to only be backed up by
24:
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1059:Prime time for a big Smackdown
680:See my above reply to Metro. -
352:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )
1:
961:, will you? (And the article
1291:20:28, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
1266:16:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
1237:03:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
1207:09:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
1182:01:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
1166:09:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
1139:01:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
1124:00:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
1101:01:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
1088:01:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
1043:06:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
1025:23:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
972:19:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
949:06:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
925:09:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
896:23:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
868:22:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
848:20:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
833:03:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
810:02:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
790:00:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
763:23:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
737:23:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
708:21:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
694:01:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
676:21:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
658:04:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
628:01:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
598:20:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
583:19:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
561:16:27, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
525:14:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
492:11:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
467:10:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
454:06:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
432:05:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
413:03:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
395:08:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
375:00:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
360:00:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
339:18:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
323:19:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
298:18:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
275:18:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
254:18:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
229:17:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
201:16:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
180:14:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
168:14:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
132:09:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
57:07:30, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
841:a falsehood or inaccuracy?
546:notability; right now, the
1331:
537:lists are unencyclopedic;
965:slightly improving now.)
1307:Please do not modify it.
1135:THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL
968:THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL
892:THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL
844:THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL
837:How much of the article
594:THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL
557:THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL
428:THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL
371:THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL
319:THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL
225:THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL
32:Please do not modify it.
856:Please can it with the
858:bad faith assumptions
1147:Because there is no
1078:show discrepancy. --
1273:. No offense, but
569:Speaking of being
554:and nothing else.
44:The result was
1287:
1283:
1178:, doesn't it? ~~
1054:Houston Chronicle
997:Days of Our Lives
765:
751:
739:
725:
533:And I didn't say
193:Joseph A. Spadaro
1322:
1309:
1288:
1285:
1281:
1197:
1156:
1040:
946:
915:
910:, not deletion.
889:, not comments.
865:
823:
780:
760:
752:
742:
734:
726:
716:
682:User:Dinoguy1000
616:User:Dinoguy1000
483:
451:
410:
386:
245:
118:
112:
94:
53:
34:
1330:
1329:
1325:
1324:
1323:
1321:
1320:
1319:
1318:
1312:deletion review
1305:
1279:
1195:
1154:
1038:
1004:All My Children
957:Sheesh; take a
944:
913:
863:
821:
778:
758:
732:
481:
449:
408:
384:
243:
155:All My Children
114:
85:
69:
66:
51:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1328:
1326:
1317:
1316:
1300:
1299:
1298:
1297:
1296:
1295:
1294:
1293:
1240:
1239:
1212:
1211:
1210:
1209:
1185:
1184:
1171:
1170:
1169:
1168:
1142:
1141:
1127:
1126:
1108:
1107:
1106:
1105:
1104:
1103:
1091:
1090:
1063:Meet the Press
1048:
1047:
1046:
1045:
1028:
1027:
1013:Meet the Press
1009:The Today Show
991:
990:
989:
988:
987:
986:
985:
984:
983:
982:
981:
980:
979:
978:
977:
976:
975:
974:
952:
951:
930:
929:
928:
927:
899:
898:
871:
870:
851:
850:
793:
792:
766:
740:
713:
712:
711:
710:
699:
698:
697:
696:
663:
662:
661:
660:
637:
636:
635:
634:
633:
632:
631:
630:
612:parent project
601:
600:
564:
563:
528:
527:
501:
500:
499:
498:
497:
496:
495:
494:
470:
469:
457:
456:
435:
434:
416:
415:
400:
399:
398:
397:
378:
377:
363:
362:
344:
343:
342:
341:
326:
325:
301:
300:
282:
281:
280:
279:
278:
277:
257:
256:
234:
233:
232:
231:
205:
204:
185:
184:
183:
182:
173:
125:
124:
65:
60:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1327:
1315:
1313:
1308:
1302:
1301:
1292:
1289:
1276:
1272:
1269:
1268:
1267:
1263:
1259:
1254:
1249:
1246:
1245:
1244:
1243:
1242:
1241:
1238:
1234:
1230:
1225:
1221:
1217:
1214:
1213:
1208:
1205:
1204:
1203:
1199:
1198:
1191:
1187:
1186:
1183:
1180:
1177:
1173:
1172:
1167:
1164:
1163:
1162:
1158:
1157:
1150:
1146:
1145:
1144:
1143:
1140:
1137:
1136:
1131:
1130:
1129:
1128:
1125:
1121:
1117:
1113:
1110:
1109:
1102:
1099:
1095:
1094:
1093:
1092:
1089:
1085:
1081:
1077:
1072:
1068:
1064:
1060:
1056:
1055:
1050:
1049:
1044:
1041:
1034:
1033:
1032:
1031:
1030:
1029:
1026:
1022:
1018:
1014:
1010:
1005:
1001:
998:
993:
992:
973:
970:
969:
964:
960:
956:
955:
954:
953:
950:
947:
941:
936:
932:
931:
926:
923:
922:
921:
917:
916:
909:
905:
904:
903:
902:
901:
900:
897:
894:
893:
888:
884:
879:
875:
874:
873:
872:
869:
866:
859:
855:
854:
853:
852:
849:
846:
845:
840:
836:
835:
834:
831:
830:
829:
825:
824:
817:
813:
812:
811:
807:
803:
799:
798:
797:
796:
795:
794:
791:
788:
787:
786:
782:
781:
774:
770:
767:
764:
761:
756:
749:
745:
741:
738:
735:
730:
723:
719:
715:
714:
709:
706:
703:
702:
701:
700:
695:
691:
687:
686:66.116.24.177
683:
679:
678:
677:
673:
669:
665:
664:
659:
655:
651:
647:
643:
640:The apparent
639:
638:
629:
625:
621:
620:66.116.24.177
617:
613:
609:
605:
604:
603:
602:
599:
596:
595:
590:
586:
585:
584:
580:
576:
572:
568:
567:
566:
565:
562:
559:
558:
553:
549:
545:
540:
536:
532:
531:
530:
529:
526:
522:
518:
513:
508:
503:
502:
493:
489:
485:
484:
477:
472:
471:
468:
465:
461:
460:
459:
458:
455:
452:
446:
442:
439:
438:
437:
436:
433:
430:
429:
424:
420:
419:
418:
417:
414:
411:
405:
402:
401:
396:
392:
388:
387:
380:
379:
376:
373:
372:
367:
366:
365:
364:
361:
357:
353:
349:
346:
345:
340:
336:
332:
328:
327:
324:
321:
320:
315:
311:
310:
305:
304:
303:
302:
299:
295:
291:
287:
284:
283:
276:
272:
268:
263:
262:
261:
260:
259:
258:
255:
251:
247:
246:
239:
236:
235:
230:
227:
226:
221:
218:as unsourced
217:
213:
209:
208:
207:
206:
202:
198:
194:
190:
187:
186:
181:
178:
174:
171:
170:
169:
165:
161:
156:
152:
148:
144:
139:
136:
135:
134:
133:
130:
122:
117:
110:
106:
102:
98:
93:
89:
84:
80:
76:
72:
68:
67:
64:
61:
59:
58:
55:
54:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1306:
1303:
1270:
1252:
1247:
1223:
1219:
1215:
1202:
1200:
1193:
1161:
1159:
1152:
1133:
1111:
1075:
1071:SportsCenter
1070:
1066:
1062:
1052:
1012:
1008:
1003:
996:
966:
962:
939:
934:
920:
918:
911:
890:
886:
882:
877:
842:
838:
828:
826:
819:
785:
783:
776:
771:and send to
768:
743:
717:
641:
592:
570:
555:
547:
543:
538:
534:
511:
506:
479:
426:
422:
403:
382:
369:
347:
317:
316:as sources.
313:
307:
306:Look at the
285:
241:
237:
223:
215:
188:
154:
150:
147:SportsCenter
146:
142:
137:
126:
49:
45:
43:
31:
28:
1149:WP:DEADLINE
404:Strong Keep
331:Umbralcorax
290:Umbralcorax
959:chill pill
908:WP:CLEANUP
816:WP:CLEANUP
773:WP:CLEANUP
646:Infoplease
552:WP:ILIKEIT
1258:Mandsford
1017:Mandsford
802:Mandsford
668:Mandsford
575:Mandsford
517:Mandsford
421:Clean up
314:disguised
267:Mandsford
220:listcruft
160:Mandsford
1196:Schmidt,
1155:Schmidt,
914:Schmidt,
822:Schmidt,
779:Schmidt,
445:featured
441:WP:LISTS
121:View log
1271:Comment
1116:DHowell
1002:-- and
940:discuss
887:sources
755:the wub
729:the wub
482:Lugnuts
476:be bold
385:Lugnuts
244:Lugnuts
138:Comment
88:protect
83:history
52:MBisanz
1275:WP:DEL
1229:Canley
1080:Canley
650:Canley
368:What?
216:Delete
212:trivia
116:delete
92:delete
1224:Today
1076:Today
1067:Today
935:isn't
839:isn't
642:Today
512:Today
507:Today
423:what?
309:notes
151:Today
143:guess
119:) – (
109:views
101:watch
97:links
16:<
1286:ANDA
1282:ARTH
1262:talk
1248:Keep
1233:talk
1220:have
1216:Keep
1190:WP:V
1176:WP:V
1120:talk
1112:Keep
1084:talk
1021:talk
806:talk
769:Keep
759:"?!"
744:Note
733:"?!"
718:Note
690:talk
672:talk
654:talk
624:talk
589:this
579:talk
571:bold
548:keep
544:some
539:this
521:talk
488:talk
391:talk
356:talk
348:Keep
335:talk
294:talk
286:Keep
271:talk
250:talk
238:Keep
197:talk
189:Keep
164:talk
105:logs
79:talk
75:edit
46:keep
1253:are
1039:日本穣
945:日本穣
864:日本穣
753:--
750:.
727:--
724:.
684:as
618:as
535:all
450:日本穣
409:日本穣
214:"?
1264:)
1235:)
1122:)
1086:)
1057::
1023:)
963:is
883:is
878:am
876:I
808:)
692:)
674:)
656:)
626:)
591:?
581:)
523:)
490:)
393:)
358:)
337:)
296:)
273:)
252:)
222:.
199:)
166:)
107:|
103:|
99:|
95:|
90:|
86:|
81:|
77:|
48:.
1284:P
1280:D
1260:(
1231:(
1118:(
1082:(
1019:(
804:(
688:(
670:(
652:(
622:(
577:(
519:(
486:(
389:(
354:(
333:(
292:(
269:(
248:(
203:)
195:(
162:(
123:)
113:(
111:)
73:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.