1013:. Arguing that other pages existing in the same vein is a reason alone for existence is not a good path to take BUT if this was one of those pages, I'm fairly sure it'd be given adequate time to respond to criticisms lest a rabid fanbase emerge and tear down the walls of the Internet. A lot of the traps do get sources, particularly on home releases of the films and the concepts behind them is interesting and not particularly fan as much as pertinent info relating to the Saw series. Considering the traps are the major focal point of the series, a major selling point of the films and generally involved with, based on or inspiring of the plot, they are valid information that with some upkeep can become a decent article here on Wiki. Keep.
736:
raised in the previous AFD, and I'd like to see someone answer that by providing some substantial secondary sources. There might be a couple in the article now, but the unfortunate formatting makes it near impossible to tell what sort of sources are there at a glance, and I don't feel obligated to search myself, since my comment is neutral. ;) What is really needed is some secondary sources that focus on the traps themselves—not the film or the plot—that can provide the basis for an encyclopedic article. Right now, this article is an extension of the film articles instead of an article about the traps, if you catch my drift.
1315:
because they can pass a more objective judgment, not having any emotional investment in that particular article. Editors of good standing are involved in AFDs, and recommendations need to be more than just votes, involving considerations of policies and guidelines. If the article at risk matches the policies and guidelines as perceived by these outside editors, then the article should ultimately be okay. As you can tell here, there is not such a clear consensus -- the issue is more about the topic than the content, which I think everyone can agree warrants clean-up. —
456:
character/film related articles, and as of late most of my Wiki-attention has been on another article which I am trying to get to featured status. But I will try to get to this article, and it's certainly not impossible to fix this up. Critical reception and impact on popular culture (already the Saw traps are the subject of a fairly signicant haunted house attraction in
California, and I've lost count of how many shows have played upon them) as well as inspiration and cited comparisions to preexisting objects in real life.--
2189:. As a subject matter in and of itself, the traps may be interesting. Personally, I have some doubts about this because of the lack of external, out of universe references on the subject. But, assuming such references could be found, I could see the encyclopedic value of such an article. If instead we had an article called "List of Campbell's Soup Cans" that detailed every single can that they've produced and the labels they've put on them, I'd consider that pretty worthless and unencyclopedic. Just because we
1989:: I see a lot of deletes, so it's not looking good for this page. Anyways, I was just wondering if this page could be redirected, instead of just flat out deleted. I guess a lot of editors have spent a lot of time on this page, and it would be a shame for so much to go. A redirect would ensure for a good result for everyone. All those would said delete can be happy that they'll never have to see this page again, and all those who say keep can work on it on their sandbox. Would that be a fair compromise?
2073:- I am not a member of any project regarding this particular subject, and i feel that the information is rather useful since sometimes i cannot make heads or tails about the movies when i see them. Since there is considerable wikipedia presence from other notable movie series (e.g. Dune, Star wars, star trek to name a few) I dont see why the Saw series (which created a renaissance of sorts for horror movies) cannot enjoy the same consideration. --
443:, deletion should only be used in cases where it's beyond salvaging...I.E. hoaxes, vanity pieces, obscure items that have featured virtually no coverage. I don't see how an article describing one of the bigger premises of a notable horror film series is any less valid than a list of James Bonds' gadgets with no real world information, or a list of magical objects in Harry Potter's universe (both of which are articles). And yes, I
852:"cruft", you should complain instead that they have not provided a reason for deletion. When Stifle says "Per the general weight of comments." in his closing argument, I suspect that means that he gives strong weight to a well-presented argument like this, and little or no weight to arguments like "Strong Keep Don't see why it shouldn't be kept." and delete comments that mention cruft with no rationale.
158:
1296:
been on AFD for a bit (the reason I have so many edits on AFD as
Hammersoft said is because I keep the COI log on my watchlist to look out for vanity articles) doesn't mean I knew about this. I just knew that hiring single-purpose accounts to say what you want them to say was against the rules. Either way, told them not to come on, and if they do, I'll take responsibility for it. --
1167:
addition to asking them for their own argument, I asked them for help on improving the article. Or is asking for their help on improving the article against the rules as well? Heck, I'm willing to bet that the people I asked won't even show up on this AFD in the first place. If you want, I can tell them to stay out of the argument, if that makes you feel any better.--
2100:. Further, that other similar articles exist does not mean by default this article should stay. If that were a valid argument, someone could create 20 articles of a particular type applying to 20 different subjects, and then refute any AfD by saying "But it exists over there and there, so it should exist here". See also
1148:. You didn't ask them to make their own arguments, you asked them to make their own arguments to keep. That is an important distinction, and is vote stacking. This AfD is corrupted by your actions. Given that you've made 348 edits to AfDs since the beginning of this year, you are certainly well aware of this concept. --
451:. But if I were to nominate either of those articles for deletion (but I won't, as that would be disrupting Knowledge (XXG) to prove a point) they would undoubtedly be kept, mainly because Harry Potter and James Bond are both much more popular franchises and would have more people coming up to save it.
2193:
include something doesn't mean we should. As I noted, we're not a compendium of ALL knowledge. If you can find external, out of universe references to each and every one of these traps you might have an argument for this list. I am certain you can not. But, you can find at least a few such references
2169:
Yes, but only if you assume the arguments made by editors like Bud001 are flawed. If you step back and think about it, this is actually quite interesting. We're all looking at the same article, but some people see cruft while others see information of encyclopedic value. Who's right? I am actually
1884:
It's not a question of editors' being "rude" about offers to "fix" articles at AFD or DRV. It's that many of us who've been around AFD for a while have far too often seen articles kept with promises that the problems with them will be addressed and then they aren't. Such promises would stand a better
881:
and remove the bold print from the word "Delete" in that quote -- although it is formatted as quote, it nonetheless gives the impression that there is a !vote from
Protonk, who has not weighed in here yet. The quote remains -- I have no problems with its presence -- but I don't want a closing admin
1424:
I have and continue to operate under this? This is the first time I've done this, unless there's some other occasion I'm forgetting. (Scratch that, now someone will go through my logs and find something two years ago to disprove what I've just said...) I don't know what repeatedly hammering this is
1295:
is up for deletion, I thought I should notify editors who worked on the article in the past, not people who haven't. And it's already a given that someone who worked on the article is going to say "Keep" regardless of what I say. And I wasn't deliberately trying to rig the system; just because I've
1224:
Though I appreciate the attempt, unfortunately no I am not happy. The people who received this notice have an interest in the series and are biased in favor of the article being kept. This is why AfDs run through AfD, and not through project pages where appropriate. Else, we'd never delete anything
497:
The ideal presentation would be more focus on the traps and less focus on some of the excessive plot information that's occurred recently. In addition, as I explained on my post, more focus on information outside of the films...what impact the traps themselves have had on popular culture, reception
397:
I did read the DRV and I also read the AFD that preceded it. The article was correctly deleted and the article's supporters should count their blessings that the closing admin decided to reverse himself. The article remains out of compliance with a number of
Knowledge (XXG) policies and guidelines.
2150:
Yes, that is an essay—an essay that shows why certain arguments are not based in policies or guidelines, or or sometimes contradictory to policies or guidelines. Hammersoft is using that essay to show why this common argument is flawed—I don't see the problem here. The "may be heeded or not" means
1756:
per previous discussion. Having this long list of traps, for me, is like extending the length of plot for the movies. No need to have all these details and plot observations. I see some good references like that "According to director David Hackl, one trap that has been constructed for Saw V could
1586:
Since Stifle was kind enough to put the big "notavote" template at the top, I thought I should explain this a bit. I asked a group of people who edited the article previously and were not aware of a deletion discussion going on. When I found out this was discouraged, I notified them again and told
2384:
if it cannot. To repeat what I stated at the previous AfD, an incredible amount of time and effort went into collecting this wonderful collection of movie trivia. If editors wish to make it encyclopedic and worthy of Wiki, I say let 'em, as that improves Wiki. Putting them "on the clock" to do so
1869:
since there were problems in the decision to close the second AfD (as per DGG's original comments in the DRV for the article) and since the article's supporters have repeatedly offered to fix the article, I am asking that this nomination be withdrawn and that the article's supporters be given two
1864:
Because no one demanded it. The original AfD ended as a no consensus, erring to keep, and the closing admin in that AfD never set a timeline to get it fixed by X-day. No one had any problems with the article afterwards. I would also point out that offers were made to improve the article in the
1405:
guideline, but still feels it doesn't apply. He has and continues to operate under the false impression that people who have a potential stake in an article should be informed that it might be deleted, and worse that it's ok to advocate for them to vote to keep it. I hope he's finally learned his
2284:
With respect, of the 49 references you refer to as "reliable" and "verifiable", 8 are photos of the script (and copyvios at that), 21 are simply screenshots of a scene or storyboard, 9 are invalid e-bay auctions, one leads to a bad reference on a site, and one of the references is repeated three
1899:
An article of this size and depth will take a lot of time to get its references in order and to get its text in keeping with the style that some people have advocated. Expecting a quick fix is not realistic. And, besides, "many of us who've been around AFD for a while" actually have a history of
1382:
nominated because I didn't recall anything in it that needed to be dredged up for this one (besides unpleasant memories), except that it was kept. And yes, I've been on
Knowledge (XXG) a long time. And yes, I've participated in quite a few AFDs. And in all that time, the only time the subject of
1314:
article was up for deletion, don't you think that the editors who worked on it are more biased to keep it? Granted, I've seen editors concede that their pet projects shouldn't be part of
Knowledge (XXG), but that is the exception. Editors who have not edited the article should be more welcomed
851:
Protonk used the word "fancruft", but this is clearly not an "I don't like it" argument. It's a serious concern about the existence of secondary sources—one that has not been adequately responded too, I might add. If someone says "Delete this cruft", instead of jumping on them for using the word
735:
concerns, as noted, and possible original research issues. I see a glimmer of a possible article in the inclusion of some development-style information in some of the traps, but not enough to convince me that the material shouldn't be in the film articles instead. There were notability concerns
370:
There was no requirement a year ago to rewrite it -- that AfD ended in No
Consensus. Quite frankly, we shouldn't even be having this discussion. The second AfD was clearly a No Consensus situation and it should've been closed that way -- read the DRV to see why we're back on the AfD carousel.
1166:
The last time it was deleted, various people who've contributed to the articles had no idea that a discussion was even going on and were only aware of it once the article was deleted. So I thought it would be fair that since it's up for discussion again. And I wasn't "canvassing" for votes. In
583:
If push comes to shove, I could agree to that proposition. I don't know, maybe the traps could be redistributed to their articles about the film that they appeared in. At this point I'm just getting weary of the whole thing, so your idea would probably be the best solution if this article gets
2456:
timeline requirement to get the article fixed by X-date. I hope I am not being rude when I say that the "why didn't you fix it earlier?" thrust is a phony argument. For Erik: yes, it will be fixed. It will take time, due to the article's length and depth, but it will get done. That's why
2429:
If this article stays, could someone at least step in and get rid of the
Photobucket and eBay citations? I mean, really... regardless of the topic, it seems a little embarrassing to see these places cited. I'll try to do this myself depending on the outcome and on if I swing by later on.
455:
on the other hand, is not as popular and it's far easier for someone to go "Blech, more torture porn. Who needs articles about it?" and write it off as cruft. Does the article need a lot of work? Absolutely. I admit that I haven't been too focused on the article lately as I usually edit
1406:
mistake, and does not repeat it in the future. It takes uninterested parties to evaluate the encyclopedic value of an article and how it meshes with our existing policies. 28 people being asked to vote to keep this article does absolutely nothing to further that purpose. --
1870:
weeks to either fix it up or merge the data into the exisiting "Saw" articles. If, after, two weeks, this task is not completed, the nominator for this AfD (also the closing admin on the second AfD) can have the full right to speedy delete the article. Is that fair?
1243:
None of the people who I notified have even come onto the discussion, and probably wouldn't have in the first place. I mean, if it gets to the point where this AFD is bombarded with people yelling "Keep" I'll take responsibility for it but I don't see that happening
1185:
But for the record, I'm being honest in saying that I wasn't aware that asking people who've edited the articles before for their opinion was against the rules. I was just under the impression that making sockpuppets and asking people to register on your behalf
1383:
canvassing was brought up was in that AFD discussion a year ago. If I had known that 'canvassing' would have sent the Wiki-police to my door and cause such a furor like it has, why the Hell would I do it on
Knowledge (XXG) in the first place? Sheesh. I'm not
770:
271:
84:
79:
1478:--I don't see why such a long and trivial article needs to have a place on Knowledge (XXG). Isn't there a Saw website or listserv where the fans can go for this kind of information? And Protonk makes a good point about these references--they are laughable.
1458:
I have a high tolerance for this sort of plot-like material, but the detail is excessive. Given that the traps are apparently the main content of the work as a whole, some of the content could be used to expand the description in the main article.
1865:
second AfD and the subsequent DRV if the article was allowed to stay online -- and both offers were rudely ignored. (This overhaul will take at least a week or two, given the depth and scope of the article and the need to fix the references.)
1262:
Judging from the message you left, "apparently notifying you because you were interested is against the rules", you seem to still not understand the problem. Notifying interested editors is not the problem. The problem is that you delivered a
2014:
A good observation, Cornucopia, but it is easy to forget these things aren't decided by a head count. Besides, the second AfD went 13-12 in favour of keeping, but the closing admin opted to delete rather than call it as "no consensus."
1113:
not be aware of the discussion of whether or not the article be kept? I also asked for help in improving the article. If no one's aware of the fact that it's in danger of deletion, why would they bother to try to improve the article? I
2210:(@ Ecoleetage) I'm not assuming the argument is flawed. I read the argument, and having previously read Knowledge (XXG) policy and guidelines, came to the realization that it is not based in those policies and guidelines. The essays
2194:
for the traps as a whole, as a subject matter in and of itself. That merits something like "Traps in the Saw film series". Some material from this list might be recoverable in support of that article, but this article needs to go. --
512:
So can we not include that information in each film article? It just seems like each film is trap-driven, so why can't these details be explored at the separate article? I am not seeing the need for this particular topic. Why not
2091:
That something is useful does not make it encyclopedic. This is a subtle, but important point that tends to be lost on many
Knowledge (XXG) editors. Knowledge (XXG) is not the compendium of all knowledge. It's the compendium of all
2261:
as grotesque as I find the film, the article is a perfectly appropriate fork of a notable film, and the details contained therein are supported by reliable and verifiable sources. At least thinking of the gory details of the
1587:
them it would be best to stay away from this discussion. As of now, none of the people I 'notified' have yet to show up in the discussion, and I've already said twice now that I would take full responsibility if they did.--
2336:
I respectfully disagree on that opinion -- it would probably require some offline searching in books and in horror film magazines (not every magazine has an online mirror). It can be done, but it will take some time.
1346:
74:
837:
prior to closing this if there is even a hint that it might be closed as "no consensus, default to keep". There isn't a single reliable source posted. Not even to reviews of the movie. Doesn't belong on wikipedia."
1939:
This is actually round three -- and an illegitmate one, IMHO. Again, we shouldn't be having this discussion since it became clear, as per DGG's original comments in the DRV, that the second AfD was improperly closed.
2319:
I don't think it can be done properly period. Try searching for these traps by name. You'll see what I mean. As a subject matter in entirety, yes. But, out of universe references for the individual traps? No.
2184:
The term "encyclopedic value" suffers from significant interpretation. For my part, I could see the encyclopedic value of an article titled "Traps in the Saw film series" that was something along the lines of
296:. Articles should only be considered for deletion if they are hopelessly beyond salvaging. This is clearly not the case. Yes, the article is imperfect. However, offers were made in the second AfD and in the
474:
May I ask what you envision would be the ideal presentation of this article if you and others could devote time to it? Would there be as much plot detail? What kind of real-world context would be explored?
2285:
times. 41 out of 49 references are essentially junk. There might...might...be enough out of universe references to warrant a subject article, but not an article such as this detailing each and every trap. --
1918:
by the close of the AFD. What I am saying is that those wanting it kept need to demonstrate that the article has been improved, especially since this is round three (round four, really) for this article.
1689:
I still endorse deletion. No indication has been given that the traps in saw are the subject of third party sources. Without those sources, this is an editor selected collection of salient plot points.
1757:
have potentially killed the actor placed in it." I think we can put some selective information to the articles and not construct a whole list of the traps because it's like rewriting the whole plot. --
1078:). The newsletter implores readers to go and argue here why this article should be kept, not help decide it's fate, but actively ask them to vote to keep it. Newsletter has been delivered to 28 editors
773:. I'm certainly interested in what Stifle meant in the second AFD when he said "Per the general weight of comments" since nine people who said delete used the word "cruft" (as in, "I don't like it"). --
2136:
based upon your judgement and discretion" (the italics are mine). Bud001 is not off-base in noting the inherent notability of the "Saw" films and the value of the information provided in this article.
2029:
Redirection is probably not warranted, as there is no obvious redirect target since the list covers multiple films, and the likelihood of someone's searching for this specific string seems pretty low.
1126:
and to add real world information. Am I not allowed to do that? Jesus Christ. It's not as if I'm hiring a bunch of meat puppets from school and asking them to mindlessly storm the AFD with "Keeps".--
1356:
I don't see how you now can say that you were not aware that it is inappropriate to canvass interested people and encourage them to vote keep in this discussion. I don't know what to make of it. --
707:
the other way around. There is far more plot detail than any informative real-world context from secondary sources. None of the sources that do exist really exercise significant coverage about
559:
film articles, though, and they struck me as awfully empty considering the content of this particular list. Can the content not be trimmed and redistributed? I mean, as the article stands, it
541:
article and it grew too long and was put back into a seperate article. Detailing the traps on the film articles would already make them more plot heavy, and they already need to be less.--
791:, which includes "Knowledge (XXG) articles are not simply plot summaries", is most certainly official Knowledge (XXG) policy. A mere "mention" of a trap in a review does not constitute a
2457:
CyberGhostFace and I (CyberGhostFace and me? -- which is right?) kept offering to fix it without having that Damoclean sword hanging over us. If an article can be fixed, why delete it?
112:
107:
965:
based upon your judgement and discretion" (the italics are mine). The fact that Deon555 has already referenced it should provide some degree of confirmation to its encyclopedic value.
116:
819:"Delete. Fancruft. Not covered in reliable sources. Just because it can't be merged into the film or the fim series doesn't mean we need an article on it. The article consists of
165:
1739:
excessively. The traps are a prominent part of the series, but the plot sections in the main articles should be enough to cover the important details. The rest is just unnecessary.
989:
640:
If you believe that the list of Bond gadgets or the list of Potter items fail Wiki-policies and guidelines the way that this article does, feel free to nominate them for deletion.
145:
1885:
chance of being paid attention to if accompanied, during the course of the AFD, by actual improvements to the article or at least the location of sources that address the issues.
99:
1514:
Not crazy about the Knowledge (XXG) article's plot detail, but this magazine article gives a little more weight to talking about the "methods" (mostly traps). If anyone has
670:
were to be nominated for AFD, they would probably have better chances of being kept only because they're more popular and would have more people running to its defense.--
992:), and a huge number of the "references" are to pictures of the traps off of photobucket and similar, a large number of which violate copyright (reproducing the scripts
321:- supporters of the article have had over a year since the first AFD to make this article compliant with relevant policies and guidelines, including but not limited to
297:
827:
information almost entirely. Links to photos on EBAY as sources??? Links to Photobucket shots of the script as sources???? How did this survive AfD before? I
1542:
Their website is abysmal. Does anyone know if this is worth trudging to a library for a back issue? 106-108 could very well be a 1 page "feature" on page 107.
615:
300:
to edit this down to Wiki-friendly standards. I would gladly invite all interested “Saw” fans to join an effort to save this article. After all, we are here to
2170:
enjoying all of the opinions here -- I should commend everyone who participated here, since this is one of the livelier AfD discussions I've seen in some time.
414:
Well, if it was correctly deleted, it wouldn't have been relisted again. The article's detractors should count their blessings that they are getting a do-over.
2466:
2445:
2417:
2399:
2360:
2346:
2329:
2314:
2294:
2275:
2249:
2231:
2203:
2179:
2164:
2145:
2113:
2082:
2059:
2038:
2024:
2005:
1971:
1949:
1928:
1909:
1894:
1879:
1852:
1835:
1811:
1790:
1766:
1748:
1725:
1699:
1681:
1656:
1614:
1596:
1576:
1551:
1533:
1487:
1470:
1434:
1425:
going to get: I've already taken full responsibility and told the people who edited the article not to participate in the AFD. What else am I supposed to do?--
1415:
1396:
1369:
1330:
1305:
1284:
1253:
1234:
1215:
1195:
1176:
1157:
1135:
1099:
1048:
1022:
1005:
974:
936:
914:
891:
865:
804:
782:
749:
726:
679:
653:
630:
593:
578:
550:
532:
507:
490:
465:
423:
407:
380:
362:
338:
313:
287:
57:
1035:
get adequate time to respond to criticisms. The first AFD was over a year ago. Information included with the DVD releases are not independent, thus they fail
1843:: To the keep !voters who suggest this can be improved — please explain why it has not been improved significantly in the 13 months since the first AFD?
2301:
Indeed, and that is why I kept saying it would take at least a week or two to track down the proper references to make the article appropriate, as per
2218:
happen to explain the rationalization I used to arrive at that conclusion, but are not the reasons I came to that decision. Does that make it clear?
1060:
This deletion discussion has been hopelessly corrupted by canvassing attempts by Wikiproject Saw via their October newsletter delivered to users by
1345:
CyberGhostface, you have over 18,000 edits since 5 March 2005, many of which were in deletion discussions. This very same canvassing happened in
988:
this is an encyclopedia, not a fan guide. Not to mention the fact that 20% of the "references" are to e-bay auctions no longer in existence (
563:
like an accumulation of plot detail and does not use reliable sources. If the article is kept, I really hope that improvement can be seen. —
1959:
1627:
1071:
788:
174:
1631:
204:
1378:
Thanks for the accusation. That first nomination was a year ago, and no I didn't bother to refresh myself on it when the article was
537:
I'm not strongly against the idea of a merge if that's the only alternative to deletion. But a section about "Traps" was once on the
17:
2151:
that you're free to ignore the essay and spout the flawed arguments, not that you're free to ignore why the arguments are flawed.
2128:
is policy - they are points raised in an essay. If your read the top of the page that has those links, it clearly states: "Essays
103:
1572:
1140:
I'm dead serious. AfD is not a vote. Canvassing interested people encouraging them to vote keep is way, way out of line. See
812:(ec) I'm getting tired of this whole "cruft" thing. I hope Protonk won't mind me copying his comment from the last AFD here:
190:
2043:
Oh, okay, I just wanted everyone to keep in mind that redirection is a possibility. Thanks for the kind reply Ecoleetage.
1780:
95:
63:
2215:
769:
series, and it can be improved through normal editing. It's not a hopeless case. There was no consensus to delete in the
2485:
993:
448:
36:
1819:
555:
I think we can agree that plot detail could be cut back, no matter where we focus on the traps. I was browsing the
2441:
1721:
1529:
1326:
1018:
722:
711:; is there a reason to break out each individual film article when it comes to covering the traps from each film? —
574:
528:
486:
349:
states, "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD." If being an
765:
series and I'm sure many of the reviews mention the traps. This article adds to Knowledge (XXG)'s coverage of the
163:
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
2394:
53:
236:
2484:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1623:
1610:
1592:
1430:
1392:
1301:
1249:
1211:
1191:
1172:
1131:
1065:
675:
589:
546:
503:
461:
358:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1967:
1848:
1831:
932:
283:
2125:
2121:
2101:
2097:
1402:
1350:
1145:
757:, it's not "original research" to summarize a part of a film. And there is no policy against "trivia." And
220:
194:
1762:
1643:
957:
are based in an essay, not Knowledge (XXG) policy, and the essay is prefixed with the notice that "Essays
1105:
Are you serious? The first time (after the article was deleted) numerous people e-mailed me because they
350:
179:
2452:
For Hammersoft: Again...when the first AfD closed as "no consensus" and the article was kept, there was
2186:
1672:. The films are good films. They are popular films, but this article is appalling fancruft and must go.
1014:
1225:
that isn't encyclopedic. The AfD is still polluted. It's an unfortunate situation, but it's reality. --
2462:
2413:
2387:
2356:
2342:
2325:
2310:
2290:
2245:
2225:
2199:
2175:
2158:
2141:
2109:
2053:
2020:
1999:
1945:
1905:
1875:
1652:
1411:
1278:
1230:
1153:
1095:
1001:
970:
887:
859:
743:
419:
376:
309:
49:
1774:
This list seems unnecessary and all of this should be in the plot sections of the individual films.
1401:
Thanks for the diff Suntag. I think the crux of this is that CyberGhostface was and is aware of the
954:
924:
2266:
films might help replace the far more gruesome aspects of the XfD process that give me nightmares.
1619:
1606:
1588:
1426:
1388:
1297:
1245:
1207:
1187:
1168:
1127:
1061:
778:
671:
585:
542:
499:
457:
354:
2211:
950:
920:
2271:
2034:
1924:
1890:
1827:
1807:
1677:
1568:
1044:
800:
761:
never had consensus to be added to policy anyway. There are plenty of film reviews regarding the
649:
403:
334:
226:
157:
2305:. If it is going to be fixed, it should be done correctly and not in a beat-the-clock fashion.
663:
2381:
1785:
1758:
1695:
1547:
1500:
910:
843:
625:
514:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1669:
878:
824:
758:
732:
694:
322:
2078:
1483:
1360:
1799:
1736:
1141:
1107:
weren't even aware of the discussion going on in the first place until after it was deleted
902:
641:
346:
2458:
2409:
2352:
2338:
2321:
2306:
2286:
2241:
2220:
2195:
2171:
2153:
2137:
2105:
2045:
2016:
1991:
1941:
1901:
1871:
1648:
1407:
1273:
1226:
1149:
1091:
997:
966:
883:
854:
738:
440:
415:
372:
305:
2302:
1823:
1036:
905:
once, let's save it again. It's a fantastic article, and I've referenced it many a time.
820:
792:
326:
2351:
The harder you have to dig, the harder you should be asking "Is this really notable?" --
1090:. Discussion should be immediately closed as hopelessly corrupted. AfD is NOT a vote. --
2437:
1717:
1525:
1322:
774:
718:
570:
524:
482:
2267:
2240:
I understand where you are coming from, yes. And I respect where you are going, too.
2030:
1920:
1886:
1803:
1744:
1673:
1564:
1518:, this might be worth finding out about this look at traps from a secondary source. —
1466:
1040:
796:
645:
538:
399:
330:
1506:
Graphically highlights the different methods used to torture and kill people in the
498:
they may have received, information on the concept and creation of the traps, etc.--
1775:
1691:
1543:
906:
839:
622:
254:
242:
210:
133:
1914:
Me amongst them, in point of fact. I'm not suggesting that the article has to be
189:
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to
2074:
1963:
1844:
1479:
1357:
928:
279:
2385:
ASAP, is not per guideline. Wiki has all the time it needs. Respects to all,
2431:
1711:
1519:
1495:
For what it's worth, this looks like an article that could match the topic:
1316:
712:
666:. I don't think they should be deleted either. My only argument was that if
564:
518:
476:
85:
Articles for deletion/List of traps in the Saw film series (3rd nomination)
80:
Articles for deletion/List of traps in the Saw film series (2nd nomination)
1498:
Newman, Kim (November 2007). "How to main friends and eviscerate people".
274:
but relisting here due to concerns raised at DRV. My recommendation is to
1740:
1461:
398:
It is time now either to bring the article into compliance or delete it.
353:
was grounds for deletion Knowledge (XXG) would be trimmed considerably.--
877:
Pagrashtak, I hope I am not stepping on your toes, but I decided to be
795:
that is substantively about the traps in general or a particular trap.
319:
Drastically improve the article before the close of this AFD or delete
584:
deleted, which it probably will given how things are turning out.--
1820:
Knowledge (XXG) is not an indiscriminate collection of information
882:
to scan the page and mistake that bold print for a !vote. Thanks.
2478:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
1605:
the saw films are gory crap. we dont need articles about them.--
278:
as indiscriminate trivia about fiction and original research.
152:
2132:
represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints, and they
1206:
Alright, I told them to stay away from the AFD. Happy now?--
961:
represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints, and they
183:(agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments,
1122:
and look at "arguments to avoid". I also asked for help in
1081:. Plus, CyberGhostface canvassed someone else to vote here
75:
Articles for deletion/List of traps in the Saw film series
996:). These are 'references'???? This article is absurd. --
173:
among Knowledge (XXG) contributors. Knowledge (XXG) has
1563:. Trivia/cruft like this belongs on Wikia, not here. —
1354:
1088:
1085:
1082:
1079:
1075:
140:
129:
125:
121:
1084:
which resulted in the person responding affirmatively
329:. It is time, to coin a cliché, to put up or shut up.
1347:
List of traps in the Saw film series (1st nomination)
927:for reasons why your argument is considered weak.
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
2488:). No further edits should be made to this page.
2096:knowledge. There's a large difference. See also
1647:, but that's not the point of this discussion.
817:
1291:I guess I don't. I mean, if an article about
731:I'm neutral at the moment. There are serious
203:Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected
8:
701:the topic as conveyed by secondary sources,
439:The article does need a lot of work, but as
789:Knowledge (XXG):What Knowledge (XXG) is not
664:disrupting Knowledge (XXG) to prove a point
662:As I stated earlier, I have no interest in
177:regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
1706:Hmm, how about my comment mentioning the
1641:Admittedly, no one will mistake them for
644:is no excuse for keeping either article.
616:list of Film-related deletion discussions
1087:and then voted here to keep the article
901:: This is a great article. It's already
614:: This debate has been included in the
197:on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
1144:, the second to last bullet point, and
72:
1142:Knowledge (XXG):AFD#AfD_Wikietiquette
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
1960:User:Stifle/Delete unless cleaned up
96:List of traps in the Saw film series
64:List of traps in the Saw film series
48:, please see talk page for analysis
1111:edit the article in the first place
517:as a component of all the movies? —
70:
2120:Ah, but at the same time, neither
24:
2408:It's been over a year already. --
1118:ask for help, but I told them to
642:This other article is just as bad
709:traps throughout the film series
697:. Plot detail is acceptable to
156:
1710:article covering the methods? —
1109:. Why shouldn't the people who
833:suggest that the closing admin
846:) 19:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
1:
1867:Now let me offer a challenge:
193:on the part of others and to
2467:00:06, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
2446:16:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
2418:16:03, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
2400:07:32, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
2361:01:17, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
2347:23:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
2330:23:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
2315:23:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
2295:21:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
2276:21:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
2250:19:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
2232:18:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
2204:16:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
2180:16:19, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
2165:16:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
2146:15:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
2114:14:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
2083:07:51, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
2060:05:18, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
2039:22:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
2025:13:05, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
2006:10:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
1972:19:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
1950:12:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
1929:06:40, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
1910:01:19, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
1895:22:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
1880:12:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
1853:10:26, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
1836:09:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
1822:. Also seems to be full of
1812:04:50, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
1791:02:57, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
1767:00:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
1749:23:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
1726:23:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
1700:22:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
1682:20:03, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
1657:18:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
1615:17:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
1597:12:58, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
1584:Comment to the closing admin
1577:08:49, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
1552:00:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
1534:01:24, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
1488:00:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
1471:23:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
1435:22:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
1416:22:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
1397:22:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
1370:19:24, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
1349:. In that AfD, you cited to
1331:00:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
1306:00:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
1285:00:20, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
1254:00:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
1235:23:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
1216:23:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
1196:23:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
1177:23:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
1158:23:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
1136:23:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
1100:23:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
1049:23:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
1023:22:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
1006:22:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
975:15:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
937:08:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
915:22:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
892:00:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
866:21:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
805:21:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
783:21:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
750:21:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
727:21:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
693:as an enormous violation of
680:21:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
654:21:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
631:20:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
594:00:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
579:00:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
551:21:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
533:21:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
508:21:09, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
491:21:02, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
466:20:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
424:21:13, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
408:21:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
381:20:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
363:20:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
339:20:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
314:20:25, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
288:20:18, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
151:
58:01:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
2505:
1403:Knowledge (XXG):Canvassing
1351:Knowledge (XXG):Canvassing
1146:Knowledge (XXG):Canvassing
1124:improving the main article
1900:saving at-risk articles.
2481:Please do not modify it.
1120:make their own arguments
32:Please do not modify it.
903:come back from the dead
515:Saw (film series)#Traps
235:; accounts blocked for
205:single-purpose accounts
175:policies and guidelines
2376:if can be improved or
1644:Les enfants du paradis
1456:Weak delete/Merge some
848:
69:AfDs for this article:
1632:few or no other edits
1504:(221): 106–108, 110.
1310:CyberGhostface, if a
2187:Campbell's Soup Cans
2134:may be heeded or not
1634:outside this topic.
963:may be heeded or not
2216:WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS
1958:That's why I wrote
835:look at the article
187:by counting votes.
166:not a majority vote
449:WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS
44:The result was
2382:Saw (film series)
1824:original research
1635:
633:
619:
351:imperfect article
304:an encyclopedia.
268:
267:
264:
191:assume good faith
2496:
2483:
2434:
2390:
2228:
2223:
2161:
2156:
2056:
2050:
2002:
1996:
1788:
1783:
1778:
1714:
1617:
1522:
1512:
1365:
1319:
1281:
1276:
1015:Darkwarriorblake
862:
857:
746:
741:
715:
628:
620:
610:
567:
521:
479:
262:
250:
234:
218:
199:
169:, but instead a
160:
153:
143:
137:
119:
34:
2504:
2503:
2499:
2498:
2497:
2495:
2494:
2493:
2492:
2486:deletion review
2479:
2432:
2388:
2226:
2221:
2159:
2154:
2054:
2046:
2000:
1992:
1786:
1781:
1776:
1712:
1674:X MarX the Spot
1520:
1497:
1366:
1363:
1317:
1279:
1274:
860:
855:
793:reliable source
744:
739:
713:
626:
565:
519:
477:
441:User:Ecoleetage
252:
240:
224:
208:
195:sign your posts
139:
110:
94:
91:
89:
67:
50:Yamamoto Ichiro
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
2502:
2500:
2491:
2490:
2474:
2473:
2472:
2471:
2470:
2469:
2423:
2422:
2421:
2420:
2403:
2402:
2370:
2369:
2368:
2367:
2366:
2365:
2364:
2363:
2333:
2332:
2298:
2297:
2279:
2278:
2255:
2254:
2253:
2252:
2238:
2237:
2236:
2235:
2234:
2207:
2206:
2118:
2117:
2116:
2086:
2085:
2067:
2066:
2065:
2064:
2063:
2062:
2027:
2009:
2008:
1983:
1982:
1981:
1980:
1979:
1978:
1977:
1976:
1975:
1974:
1937:
1936:
1935:
1934:
1933:
1932:
1931:
1856:
1855:
1838:
1814:
1793:
1769:
1751:
1729:
1728:
1703:
1702:
1684:
1662:
1661:
1660:
1659:
1620:Billthevampire
1607:Billthevampire
1600:
1599:
1589:CyberGhostface
1580:
1579:
1557:
1556:
1555:
1554:
1537:
1536:
1490:
1473:
1452:
1451:
1450:
1449:
1448:
1447:
1446:
1445:
1444:
1443:
1442:
1441:
1440:
1439:
1438:
1437:
1427:CyberGhostface
1419:
1418:
1399:
1389:CyberGhostface
1373:
1372:
1362:
1342:
1341:
1340:
1339:
1338:
1337:
1336:
1335:
1334:
1333:
1298:CyberGhostface
1288:
1287:
1257:
1256:
1246:CyberGhostface
1238:
1237:
1219:
1218:
1208:CyberGhostface
1199:
1198:
1188:CyberGhostface
1180:
1179:
1169:CyberGhostface
1161:
1160:
1128:CyberGhostface
1062:CyberGhostface
1055:
1054:
1053:
1052:
1051:
1026:
1025:
1008:
982:
981:
980:
979:
978:
977:
942:
941:
940:
939:
896:
895:
894:
869:
868:
816:
815:
814:
813:
786:
785:
752:
729:
687:
686:
685:
684:
683:
682:
672:CyberGhostface
657:
656:
635:
634:
607:
606:
605:
604:
603:
602:
601:
600:
599:
598:
597:
596:
586:CyberGhostface
543:CyberGhostface
500:CyberGhostface
494:
493:
469:
468:
458:CyberGhostface
433:
432:
431:
430:
429:
428:
427:
426:
411:
410:
388:
387:
386:
385:
384:
383:
355:CyberGhostface
316:
298:subsequent DRV
272:a previous AFD
266:
265:
161:
150:
149:
90:
88:
87:
82:
77:
71:
68:
66:
61:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2501:
2489:
2487:
2482:
2476:
2475:
2468:
2464:
2460:
2455:
2451:
2450:
2449:
2448:
2447:
2443:
2439:
2435:
2428:
2425:
2424:
2419:
2415:
2411:
2407:
2406:
2405:
2404:
2401:
2398:
2397:
2396:
2392:
2391:
2383:
2379:
2375:
2372:
2371:
2362:
2358:
2354:
2350:
2349:
2348:
2344:
2340:
2335:
2334:
2331:
2327:
2323:
2318:
2317:
2316:
2312:
2308:
2304:
2300:
2299:
2296:
2292:
2288:
2283:
2282:
2281:
2280:
2277:
2273:
2269:
2265:
2260:
2257:
2256:
2251:
2247:
2243:
2239:
2233:
2230:
2229:
2224:
2217:
2213:
2209:
2208:
2205:
2201:
2197:
2192:
2188:
2183:
2182:
2181:
2177:
2173:
2168:
2167:
2166:
2163:
2162:
2157:
2149:
2148:
2147:
2143:
2139:
2135:
2131:
2127:
2126:WP:OTHERSTUFF
2123:
2122:WP:EVERYTHING
2119:
2115:
2111:
2107:
2103:
2102:WP:OTHERSTUFF
2099:
2098:WP:EVERYTHING
2095:
2090:
2089:
2088:
2087:
2084:
2080:
2076:
2072:
2069:
2068:
2061:
2058:
2057:
2051:
2049:
2048:Corn.u.co.pia
2042:
2041:
2040:
2036:
2032:
2028:
2026:
2022:
2018:
2013:
2012:
2011:
2010:
2007:
2004:
2003:
1997:
1995:
1994:Corn.u.co.pia
1988:
1985:
1984:
1973:
1969:
1965:
1961:
1957:
1956:
1955:
1954:
1953:
1952:
1951:
1947:
1943:
1938:
1930:
1926:
1922:
1917:
1913:
1912:
1911:
1907:
1903:
1898:
1897:
1896:
1892:
1888:
1883:
1882:
1881:
1877:
1873:
1868:
1863:
1860:
1859:
1858:
1857:
1854:
1850:
1846:
1842:
1839:
1837:
1833:
1829:
1828:Themfromspace
1825:
1821:
1818:
1815:
1813:
1809:
1805:
1801:
1797:
1794:
1792:
1789:
1784:
1779:
1773:
1770:
1768:
1764:
1760:
1755:
1752:
1750:
1746:
1742:
1738:
1735:- This fails
1734:
1731:
1730:
1727:
1723:
1719:
1715:
1709:
1705:
1704:
1701:
1697:
1693:
1688:
1685:
1683:
1679:
1675:
1671:
1667:
1664:
1663:
1658:
1654:
1650:
1646:
1645:
1640:
1639:
1638:
1637:
1636:
1633:
1629:
1625:
1621:
1616:
1612:
1608:
1604:
1598:
1594:
1590:
1585:
1582:
1581:
1578:
1574:
1570:
1566:
1562:
1559:
1558:
1553:
1549:
1545:
1541:
1540:
1539:
1538:
1535:
1531:
1527:
1523:
1517:
1513:
1511:
1509:
1503:
1502:
1494:
1491:
1489:
1485:
1481:
1477:
1474:
1472:
1468:
1464:
1463:
1457:
1454:
1453:
1436:
1432:
1428:
1423:
1422:
1421:
1420:
1417:
1413:
1409:
1404:
1400:
1398:
1394:
1390:
1386:
1381:
1377:
1376:
1375:
1374:
1371:
1368:
1367:
1359:
1355:
1352:
1348:
1344:
1343:
1332:
1328:
1324:
1320:
1313:
1309:
1308:
1307:
1303:
1299:
1294:
1290:
1289:
1286:
1283:
1282:
1277:
1270:
1267:message to a
1266:
1261:
1260:
1259:
1258:
1255:
1251:
1247:
1242:
1241:
1240:
1239:
1236:
1232:
1228:
1223:
1222:
1221:
1220:
1217:
1213:
1209:
1205:
1204:
1203:
1202:
1201:
1200:
1197:
1193:
1189:
1184:
1183:
1182:
1181:
1178:
1174:
1170:
1165:
1164:
1163:
1162:
1159:
1155:
1151:
1147:
1143:
1139:
1138:
1137:
1133:
1129:
1125:
1121:
1117:
1112:
1108:
1104:
1103:
1102:
1101:
1097:
1093:
1089:
1086:
1083:
1080:
1077:
1073:
1070:
1067:
1063:
1059:
1050:
1046:
1042:
1038:
1034:
1030:
1029:
1028:
1027:
1024:
1020:
1016:
1012:
1009:
1007:
1003:
999:
995:
991:
987:
984:
983:
976:
972:
968:
964:
960:
956:
952:
948:
947:
946:
945:
944:
943:
938:
934:
930:
926:
922:
918:
917:
916:
912:
908:
904:
900:
897:
893:
889:
885:
880:
876:
873:
872:
871:
870:
867:
864:
863:
858:
850:
849:
847:
845:
841:
836:
832:
831:
826:
822:
811:
810:
809:
808:
807:
806:
802:
798:
794:
790:
784:
780:
776:
772:
768:
764:
760:
756:
753:
751:
748:
747:
742:
734:
730:
728:
724:
720:
716:
710:
706:
705:
700:
696:
692:
689:
688:
681:
677:
673:
669:
665:
661:
660:
659:
658:
655:
651:
647:
643:
639:
638:
637:
636:
632:
629:
624:
617:
613:
609:
608:
595:
591:
587:
582:
581:
580:
576:
572:
568:
562:
558:
554:
553:
552:
548:
544:
540:
539:Jigsaw Killer
536:
535:
534:
530:
526:
522:
516:
511:
510:
509:
505:
501:
496:
495:
492:
488:
484:
480:
473:
472:
471:
470:
467:
463:
459:
454:
450:
446:
442:
438:
435:
434:
425:
421:
417:
413:
412:
409:
405:
401:
396:
395:
394:
393:
392:
391:
390:
389:
382:
378:
374:
369:
366:
365:
364:
360:
356:
352:
348:
345:
342:
341:
340:
336:
332:
328:
324:
320:
317:
315:
311:
307:
303:
299:
295:
292:
291:
290:
289:
285:
281:
277:
273:
260:
256:
248:
244:
238:
232:
228:
222:
216:
212:
206:
202:
198:
196:
192:
186:
182:
181:
176:
172:
168:
167:
162:
159:
155:
154:
147:
142:
135:
131:
127:
123:
118:
114:
109:
105:
101:
97:
93:
92:
86:
83:
81:
78:
76:
73:
65:
62:
60:
59:
55:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
2480:
2477:
2453:
2426:
2395:
2393:
2386:
2377:
2373:
2263:
2258:
2219:
2190:
2152:
2133:
2129:
2094:encyclopedic
2093:
2070:
2055:Disc.us.sion
2047:
2044:
2001:Disc.us.sion
1993:
1990:
1986:
1915:
1866:
1862:Comment back
1861:
1840:
1816:
1795:
1771:
1759:Magioladitis
1753:
1732:
1707:
1686:
1665:
1642:
1602:
1601:
1583:
1560:
1515:
1507:
1505:
1499:
1496:
1492:
1475:
1460:
1455:
1384:
1379:
1361:
1311:
1292:
1272:
1268:
1264:
1123:
1119:
1115:
1110:
1106:
1068:
1057:
1056:
1032:
1031:The article
1010:
985:
962:
958:
898:
874:
853:
834:
829:
828:
818:
787:
766:
762:
754:
737:
708:
703:
702:
698:
690:
667:
611:
560:
556:
452:
444:
436:
367:
343:
318:
301:
293:
275:
269:
258:
246:
237:sockpuppetry
230:
219:; suspected
214:
200:
188:
184:
178:
170:
164:
45:
43:
31:
28:
1800:WP:NOT#PLOT
1737:WP:NOT#PLOT
1668:as it fail
1630:) has made
994:for example
919:Please see
899:Strong Keep
437:Strong Keep
294:Strong Keep
270:Deleted at
2459:Ecoleetage
2410:Hammersoft
2353:Hammersoft
2339:Ecoleetage
2322:Hammersoft
2307:Ecoleetage
2287:Hammersoft
2242:Ecoleetage
2196:Hammersoft
2172:Ecoleetage
2138:Ecoleetage
2106:Hammersoft
2017:Ecoleetage
1942:Ecoleetage
1902:Ecoleetage
1872:Ecoleetage
1649:Ecoleetage
1408:Hammersoft
1271:audience.
1227:Hammersoft
1150:Hammersoft
1092:Hammersoft
998:Hammersoft
967:Ecoleetage
955:WP:ILIKEIT
925:WP:ILIKEIT
884:Ecoleetage
771:second AFD
699:complement
416:Ecoleetage
373:Ecoleetage
306:Ecoleetage
171:discussion
2212:WP:USEFUL
1387:stupid.--
951:WP:USEFUL
921:WP:USEFUL
775:Pixelface
447:aware of
227:canvassed
221:canvassed
180:consensus
2427:Comment:
2389:Schmidt,
2268:Alansohn
2031:Otto4711
1921:Otto4711
1887:Otto4711
1804:Eusebeus
1628:contribs
1573:contribs
1565:RHaworth
1493:Comment:
1269:partisan
1072:contribs
1041:Otto4711
830:strongly
797:Otto4711
646:Otto4711
400:Otto4711
331:Otto4711
259:username
253:{{subst:
247:username
241:{{subst:
231:username
225:{{subst:
215:username
209:{{subst:
146:View log
2442:contrib
1987:Comment
1916:perfect
1841:Comment
1722:contrib
1692:Protonk
1687:Comment
1670:WP:PLOT
1544:Protonk
1530:contrib
1327:contrib
1076:example
990:example
907:Deon555
875:Comment
840:Protonk
825:WP:PLOT
759:WP:PLOT
733:WP:PLOT
723:contrib
695:WP:PLOT
623:the wub
575:contrib
529:contrib
487:contrib
368:Comment
344:Comment
323:WP:PLOT
223:users:
113:protect
108:history
1964:Stifle
1845:Stifle
1817:Delete
1796:Delete
1772:Delete
1754:Delete
1733:Delete
1708:Empire
1666:Delete
1603:DELETE
1561:Delete
1516:Empire
1510:films.
1501:Empire
1480:Drmies
1476:Delete
1358:Suntag
1265:biased
1244:now.--
1186:was.--
986:Delete
929:Stifle
691:Delete
561:sounds
347:WP:AFD
280:Stifle
276:delete
141:delete
117:delete
46:delete
2378:Merge
2303:WP:RS
2227:shtak
2222:Pagra
2160:shtak
2155:Pagra
1280:shtak
1275:Pagra
1058:NOTE:
1037:WP:RS
949:Both
861:shtak
856:Pagra
821:WP:OR
745:shtak
740:Pagra
327:WP:RS
302:build
201:Note:
144:) – (
134:views
126:watch
122:links
16:<
2463:talk
2444:) -
2438:talk
2433:Erik
2414:talk
2374:Keep
2357:talk
2343:talk
2326:talk
2311:talk
2291:talk
2272:talk
2259:Keep
2246:talk
2214:and
2200:talk
2176:talk
2142:talk
2124:and
2110:talk
2104:. --
2079:talk
2071:Keep
2035:talk
2021:talk
1968:talk
1946:talk
1925:talk
1906:talk
1891:talk
1876:talk
1849:talk
1832:talk
1808:talk
1798:per
1787:Mate
1763:talk
1745:talk
1724:) -
1718:talk
1713:Erik
1696:talk
1678:talk
1653:talk
1624:talk
1611:talk
1593:talk
1569:Talk
1548:talk
1532:) -
1526:talk
1521:Erik
1484:talk
1467:talk
1431:talk
1412:talk
1393:talk
1385:that
1329:) -
1323:talk
1318:Erik
1302:talk
1250:talk
1231:talk
1212:talk
1192:talk
1173:talk
1154:talk
1132:talk
1096:talk
1066:talk
1045:talk
1019:talk
1011:Keep
1002:talk
971:talk
953:and
933:talk
923:and
911:talk
888:talk
879:bold
844:talk
823:and
801:talk
779:talk
755:Keep
725:) -
719:talk
714:Erik
676:talk
668:they
650:talk
627:"?!"
612:Note
590:talk
577:) -
571:talk
566:Erik
547:talk
531:) -
525:talk
520:Erik
504:talk
489:) -
483:talk
478:Erik
462:talk
420:talk
404:talk
377:talk
359:talk
335:talk
325:and
310:talk
284:talk
130:logs
104:talk
100:edit
54:talk
2380:to
2264:Saw
2191:can
2130:may
2075:Bud
1741:TTN
1508:Saw
1462:DGG
1312:Saw
1293:Saw
1116:did
1074:) (
1033:did
959:may
767:Saw
763:Saw
704:not
621:--
618:.
557:Saw
453:Saw
255:csp
251:or
243:csm
211:spa
185:not
2465:)
2454:no
2440:•
2416:)
2359:)
2345:)
2328:)
2320:--
2313:)
2293:)
2274:)
2248:)
2202:)
2178:)
2144:)
2112:)
2081:)
2052:/
2037:)
2023:)
1998:/
1970:)
1962:.
1948:)
1927:)
1908:)
1893:)
1878:)
1851:)
1834:)
1826:.
1810:)
1802:.
1782:ni
1765:)
1747:)
1720:•
1698:)
1680:)
1655:)
1626:•
1618:—
1613:)
1595:)
1575:)
1571:|
1550:)
1528:•
1486:)
1469:)
1433:)
1414:)
1395:)
1380:re
1353:.
1325:•
1304:)
1252:)
1233:)
1214:)
1194:)
1175:)
1156:)
1134:)
1098:)
1047:)
1039:.
1021:)
1004:)
973:)
935:)
913:)
890:)
803:)
781:)
721:•
678:)
652:)
592:)
573:•
549:)
527:•
506:)
485:•
464:)
445:am
422:)
406:)
379:)
361:)
337:)
312:)
286:)
261:}}
249:}}
239::
233:}}
217:}}
207::
132:|
128:|
124:|
120:|
115:|
111:|
106:|
102:|
56:)
2461:(
2436:(
2430:—
2412:(
2355:(
2341:(
2324:(
2309:(
2289:(
2270:(
2244:(
2198:(
2174:(
2140:(
2108:(
2077:(
2033:(
2019:(
1966:(
1944:(
1923:(
1904:(
1889:(
1874:(
1847:(
1830:(
1806:(
1777:A
1761:(
1743:(
1716:(
1694:(
1676:(
1651:(
1622:(
1609:(
1591:(
1567:(
1546:(
1524:(
1482:(
1465:(
1429:(
1410:(
1391:(
1364:☼
1321:(
1300:(
1248:(
1229:(
1210:(
1190:(
1171:(
1152:(
1130:(
1094:(
1069:·
1064:(
1043:(
1017:(
1000:(
969:(
931:(
909:(
886:(
842:(
799:(
777:(
717:(
674:(
648:(
588:(
569:(
545:(
523:(
502:(
481:(
475:—
460:(
418:(
402:(
375:(
357:(
333:(
308:(
282:(
263:.
257:|
245:|
229:|
213:|
148:)
138:(
136:)
98:(
52:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
