1276:. With a category, I could simply click on the category link at the bottom to see a list of articles within the category. For the list option, I would fist have to know that a list exists (which most people who randomly browse Knowledge don't), then find it, then find the person I was looking for, if I didn't already know the name. That seems like a much more involved and unintuitive process compared to just having a category. The point is that we don't have two articles on Isaac Newton so we shouldn't have two articles documenting the same thing (in this case, J-pop artists), especially since one of them seems to do it better.
1124:
someone wanted to find other visual kei artists, they could simply click on the sub-cat "Visual kei artists" and be linked to all the other artists in that group. However, unless you want to spam the link to this article on every single J-pop artist's page, it would be difficult to locate this page in the first place and even then, it would be difficult to find the artist you're looking for. If there's something else you'd like to add, please do.
143:
1635:
this list continues. It's easy to argue to delete a list you yourself have put 0 hours of work into but it's extremely difficult for those of us who have dedicated solid hours into building this page to see it all go completely to waste for what appears to be totally selfish reasons. This list holds extreme potential and that potential will be displayed as soon as this hostage crisis is resolved.
541:- I always use this list over the wiki generated category list because the wiki category generated list sucks. Delete that one how am I suppose to know what Jap related artists I need to be working on if there isn't a list like this to fucking tell me. Let's get back to writing articles instead of nit picking the hell out of wikipedia.
1634:
Agreed. This whole situation is totally counter productive we're all volunteering our time to build wikipedia, a large number of hours have already been put into this page. An example of a well compiled list was given and can be replicated with the J-pop artists but for some reason the push to delete
1428:
A lot of
Japanese artists may not be notable enough to have their own articles, but they’re worth being mentioned anyway, in case someone wants to do research about them or look up a name. Categories only list artists that have their own articles – that is, only the “notable” ones – while omitting a
1123:
Categories can have organization too. It's not too difficult to simply have sub-cats for a
Category:J-pop artists which would include things like Category:J-rock artists, or the like. In that way, the categories could organize the articles in the same way you mentioned, if not better. For example, if
1041:
First of all, I like how the reasoning has changed since the AFD was opened. "not notable enough to have their own article" has morphed to "well, list them someplace else". So, are all red links in articles a bad idea? Red links should just be added to a project which may or may not be accessed by
1438:
I would disagree. If they're not notable enough for their own article, why should their name be mentioned at all in a professional encyclopedia? There are enough fansites that can do that. Also, what kind of research would you be able to do here if all that's mentioned is a name? If we were to go by
1357:
Are you saying that if this article does not exist that they will be any less than J-pop artists? Do you have any specific reasons why a list is preferable to a category? The presence of another list does not justify this one's. It simply means that someone with a critical eye has not yet questioned
1624:
If I had to hazard a guess, I think that the number of J-Pop artists is significantly LOWER than the number of HIV infected people. I don't like making that comparison, but, since that list has been pointed to above, seems to be a good example of a list, and also seems to be managed well, claiming
1209:
I never said that it was too broad, just improperly titled. I find that lists are generally tend to be, when well-maintained, much more user-friendly, which is the basis of why I feel it should be kept. It needs clean-up, but lists have value in that it make it more accessable for the average user.
1150:
artists as well. Second, loose the sublists. All the information contained in them can be found in the main article, really the only reason for a sublist in this case would be if the page over the size limit, which it is not. If there are any sublists to be in there, I would say that this should
1113:
Lists can be more informative than categories, by adding more information than a simple article title, and by arranging the subjects in a more informative way than a category can. However, beyond the red links, this list does not yet take advantage of the advantages a list can have over a category.
290:
Well, I wasn't going to use T. Anthony's argument... but... In a category you will see a link to Hitomi Yaida. On a list page you can see "Hitomi Yaida (矢井田瞳)" You may not think that's a big deal... but, it can be useful I believe. Lists are more versatile and I just don't see a reason to delete
1607:
I don't think that's a good summary of the arguments. The list in unmanageable in scope. There are lots of J-pop artists and even if the article were cleaned up or expanded beyond a mere list of artists, it would be unmanageable, out of date, or a red link farm inviting people to submit articles
1339:
It's not about how long it is, it's about the J-Pop artists! I'm sorry if i sound stupid, but I believe we need to keep this list, because i've used it before, and it is very helpful, sometimes I try to find new and exciting bands using this very list. What would be the main point of destoying it?
305:
I find that being split up into 26 articles is less convenient than pressing a button a few times. I also don't see how catering to lazy users is a reason for keeping such articles. Also, if an artist is notable enough, an article will be created for him/her/them. If not, then including a red link
1644:
You can't do the same thing with a category. The reason for this is simple: a category is not a list; aside from the intro text and cat tags, a category is simply the result of a live database query. Thus, a category cannot be reliable monitored, because it is impossible to track when articles
1457:
as completely unmanageable. There are literally tens of thousands of J-pop artists, and more are coming out daily. A category is much better suited for keeping track of them. For any that need articles, they can be listed (along with the kanji/kana for their names and any supporting links) on the
1085:
for a time, but then went back to working on lists. Why? Because frankly lists are usually better done. Requested articles is often just a dumping ground that mixes notable people with some local musician someone like. Lists actually tend to have more legitimately notable people because lists are
280:
In categories you may have to go "next 200" several times before finding what you want. On a list you just have to scroll down. Also lists allow for annotation and red-links. The red-links on the list could include significant J-Pop artists. Japanese people are, surprisingly, underrepresented at
1551:
Then how about instead of senselessly arguing for 4 more days about how little relevant information is contained in this list you go through ever artist and put in a table a brief summary on each artist. You know just because it isn't relevant to you doesn't mean it's not relevant to the other
1067:
explained that some notable artists may not have articles simply because of
Knowledge's systemic bias against non-English speaking subjects. The notability of a person is independent of the state of having an article and I changed my argument to say that this list is not the proper place where
470:
Indiscriminate list that's better served by a category. The kana argument is invalid. There are two or three entries on the list which use kana. It's not a big loss. The red link argument is invalid as these titles can be added to the Japan requested articles red link farm where they can be
1580:
That is roughly the point I tried to make above. A list doesn't magically begin in the best format. It has been established that lists can be done well, and just because this list is not done well, it is not suitable grounds for deletion either. Grounds for improvement, yes. I'd prefer to
359:
no kanji/kana names in the list right now, we have no way to argue for or against such an addition because we don't know what it will look like. Also, the threshold of "J-POP" is not defined well in the list. Remember, J-POP covers rock, soul, R&B, and other genres, so it's a very wide
1400:
There's a lot of good that can be derived from an exhaustive list of J-Pop artists. I think it can really help promote modern popular
Japanese music and give people a better look at all the various artists. So that people know there's more to the modern music than Gackt and Malice Mizer.
783:
point, however, in a list like this the red links already have information by way of being in the list. It invites any J-Pop fan to go ahead and fill them in. Over at the requested articles thing, you've got some nipponophiles who might do it, but this draws a more specific crowd.
526:
is a much better place to store red links and since this list has zero information on any artist besides the name, this article is a terrible place to start research on them. A sub-category for J-pop musicians is entirely feasible too. In conclusion, this list does nothing unique.
1324:
amount of useful information that can't be achieved with a category and is also well-referenced. In its current state, this and all the other list articles that have been mentioned fail to justify their existence by including such information that a list would be required at all.
1042:
the users who read the article (list) and would otherwise have an incentive to create new information for
Knowledge? And the premise that there is no room for both categories and lists for a topic has been debated many times in the past, and judging from the 110 lists in
501:- I think both gren's kana/kanji argument and the red link argument are valid. It does serve good as a good starting point when I find wikipedia has zero information on a particular artist. Also converting this to a category is uncessary since it is largely covered by
1138:(Edit conflict) This list has the potential to be useful, but needs some serious work first. First and foremost, the list needs to be renamed, to something along the lines of Japanese musical artists. It includes not only J-pop artists, but it also claims to include
1517:. Lists serve purposes that categories don't. Most importantly, they can be checked and monitored for thoroughness, which is critical to Knowledge's mission of building a truly comprehensive encyclopedia. Splitting might be a good idea, but I'm really not sure
1718:
to prevent a bazillion articles about random nobodies from being created. There are 5 billion people on this planet. Not every one of them deserves an article. If you want to have an article about you on
Knowledge, go do something special and earn it.
1027:
The title of the article is what appears in the listing, regardless of what you type in the catsort section of the category on the article page. The text entered in the catsort section is used only for sorting within the category, and nothing else.
1167:
has plenty of red links, and its more well-done than this list. Finally the list should definantly note that it is incomplete; I'm sure that some of the
Japanese musical artists we have on Knowledge who fall into the genres covered by this list.
1046:
alone, I would have to assume that there must be a good reason to keep both the lists and categories. Adding kanji to the name in the categorization is an interesting idea (a rarity for AFD lately, it seems), and I think I'll bring that up at
819:(who may or may not be Japanophiles) to start stubs on notable people instead of letting over-zealous fans do the work and end up having their favorite artist on AfD. Anonymous editors are also not allowed to start articles anymore, just FYI.
1267:
For the sake of argument, is there anything those lists provides that the categories don't? Personally, I find it easier to navigate between articles within a category. For example, let's say that hypothetically, I wanted to from
1051:
where
Japanese naming conventions are discussed. It still wouldn't change the fact that the list is useful. The 26 sub-lists are less useful, and I agree that they can be deleted, because they duplicate info on the main list.
1008:
is a much better place to have red links than this page. Also, you are assuming that the majority of users will be able to derive some use out of seeing the kanji. This argument happens to be faulty as well, since, let's take
323:
useful in starting articles. I saw a name I wasn't familiar with and then checked if it was notable at music sites I know. Then on creating it the article is now available for those who know more. That's how the article on
128:
as unmanageable listcruft and being completely redundant. Additional reasoning: at least 60% of the mentioned people are not notable enough to have their own article and there is no use in having their names on
Knowledge.
906:
A category would work just fine here. There are almost no annotations, and redirects can be used to cover alternate spellings in the few cases where there are. Redundant categories (like having the same person in
1297:. Now if I'm thinking "who is that jazz pianist whose obituary I saw in 2001?", how is a category going to help me? I mean assuming I don't want to go through the entire category to find out when each one died.--
1612:
style arguments here with people expressing a desire to keep because they find it easier to edit or keep track of a list. Those are not reasons to keep as you can easily do the same thing with a category.
259:, I think there is precedent that we can have both. Lists can do things that categories can't--such as have both romanji and kanji/kana. It's easier and nicer to browse than a category in many ways.
717:
HAY LOOK! Another single purpose account! Anyway, is there any reason you'd like to impart upon us as to why it's easier besides, of course, that "it just is"? Having both is completely redundant.
401:
List also seems like it could end up being very very long; Japan is a populous country, I'm sure there have been a LOT of bands and singers there over the years that could be called "j-pop". --
1151:
be made into a hierachical list, because the list says it includes 4 distinct genres. Third, the article needs to have some serious clean-up work done. Mainly, it directly conflicts with
672:
I personally like using this list I find it much easier to use than the categorical method. I don't see why we can't just keep both and let the user decide which they would rather use.
1238:, etc. There doesn't seem to be any reason why there cannot both be a list and a category. Each serve their own purpose, and there really isn't any reason why you can't have both. --
1189:
You go on about how it is too broad and doesn't follow certain style guidelines but do you have any specific reasons as to why a category would not be suitable for the same purpose?
1285:
Umm no. When I first started here lists were easier for me. I'd heard of listing things well before I came here and
Encyclopedias themselves have index. In addition to that type
1159:
by going in Japanese, rather than Western order. If people have a problem with all the red links, there probably wouldn't be any problem with them being summarily moved over to
150:
1210:
If you take note, most musical genres have both lists of aritsts within them and categories relating to them; this seems to be standard in almost every single case. To give a
1569:
a useful resource for development, and could readily be made even more valuable in that regard (for example, by adding entries from other (reliable) online J-pop lists). --
427:
343:
as the source for most of the names. If nothing else, that link can be saved while the rest can be deleted and each musician judged on a case-by-case basis.
1482:, if this page had anything more to it than just names I'd be in favor of keeping it, but without any context for the names it really isn't very useful.
306:
does nothing but spam up Knowledge when some random obsessed fan decides to clog up the AfD process by writing an article about a non-notable musician.
315:
Red-links can help when you're interested in improving coverage of a style of music even if you don't know every individual in it. For example I found
271:
How so? I find it difficult to search through so many different individual articles when I could just have all the notable musicians in one category.
83:
78:
1598:
so let's delete it. I won't be working on the list, but my vote remains "keep," and those editors who are interested in the list should work on it.
87:
1538:
is a good example of a list of people which provides enough relevant information about each person to warrant separation from its parent category:
1691:
815:
Is that a bad thing? Notability is difficult to judge when one is a rabid otaku-fan so perhaps it would be better to let the so-called experts at
675:
1013:
as an example. When listing her name for the category, one can simply type "]" in order to add her kana/kanji to what shows up in the category.
518:
Hey, guess what? This is EN Knowledge, not a place to cater to Japanophile interests. Most people will not know the Japanese kana or kanji. Per
706:
687:
70:
1688:
KEEP the list. Also, what is wrong with people creating articles for artists that "aren't notable"? Who decides who is notable and who isn't?
1534:. Lists should provide a substantial amount of relevant information about each entry on it in order to separate it from its related category.
1163:; somebody wanted them, might as well see if someone can make a decent article on them. I personally don't have a problem with them, though,
1043:
932:
1227:
1459:
1160:
1082:
1069:
1005:
889:
816:
759:
647:
559:
523:
472:
484:
Not invalid... just hasn't been done yet. There is a big difference. Someday this will be the best of featured lists... no doubt...
1703:
1219:
159:
1660:
Actually, I think this list is worth keeping as it stands now. It could be done better, but that applies to everything on WP. --
1590:
It seems to me that the pro-deletion and pro-keeping people are basically making the same argument: This list is not worth keeping
1320:
exists and is useful, this list goes beyond simply listing the name for the sake of having that person's name there. It provides a
1414:. We are not here to "promote" anything, only document existing notable things. This "keep" is based entirely on false premises.
1235:
854:
710:
651:
609:
506:
189:
1358:
its value. I can say right now that I can see myself nominating that article for deletion in preference to a category as well.
912:
605:
17:
958:
911:
and the new category) can be avoided by making the new category a sub-category of the pre-existing ones (sort of like how
850:
1675:
this article is redundant when their reason for keeping doesn't even hold a candle up to the official deletion policy.
1345:
1732:
1535:
1313:
919:. Don't ask, it was just the first example that popped into my head...) and putting the people in the sub-category. --
908:
502:
320:
175:
1581:
encourage the development of the article, not removing it because it is not up to the standards of some other lists.
973:- Red links to nonexisting articles are useful. Seeing the performer's name in romaji and kanji together is useful.
113:
1739:
1723:
1707:
1679:
1664:
1653:
1639:
1629:
1617:
1602:
1585:
1573:
1556:
1546:
1525:
1507:
1498:
1486:
1474:
1447:
1433:
1418:
1405:
1392:
1362:
1352:
1329:
1301:
1280:
1254:
1193:
1184:
1128:
1118:
1101:
1081:
Thank you. However there are reasons some of us prefer working on lists rather than requested articles. I worked on
1076:
1056:
1034:
1017:
991:
977:
965:
923:
896:
879:
865:
837:
823:
802:
766:
749:
721:
691:
662:
634:
620:
592:
580:
566:
545:
531:
513:
491:
479:
462:
450:
437:
417:
405:
393:
373:
364:
347:
332:
310:
298:
285:
275:
266:
133:
52:
1269:
74:
1539:
1317:
148:
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
1756:
1294:
1223:
36:
1372:
For whatever its worth, after far too much work I took the red links out of the article, and made it conform to
702:
683:
1755:
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
936:
1380:
1242:
1215:
1172:
121:
1231:
916:
643:
221:
601:
1699:
1290:
861:
Oh darn. I guess I got my hopes up that someone could come up with a reasonable argument for inclusion.
698:
679:
316:
66:
58:
1731:. This isn't a vote, BTW. Saying "Keep" or "Delete" without providing some rationale to back it up.
1340:
Would it be to long? There are plenty of other categories where the list is far more longer than this
509:. This list should be preserved for the unique value it presents not available in these categories. -
488:
414:
295:
263:
205:
179:
1565:, particularly item 3: "Development." I'm not saying this list couldn't be done better, but it is
1483:
164:
1720:
1676:
1543:
1504:
1444:
1415:
1359:
1326:
1277:
1190:
1164:
1125:
1073:
1014:
1010:
893:
862:
820:
792:
763:
739:
718:
659:
617:
576:, better served by a category, IMO. My reasons aren't much different from those discussed above.
563:
528:
344:
307:
272:
211:
142:
130:
876:
434:
1609:
1430:
952:
846:
639:
631:
402:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1695:
1373:
1156:
1152:
1147:
1048:
361:
1715:
1646:
1562:
1402:
1298:
1273:
1098:
1064:
962:
551:
485:
370:
329:
292:
282:
260:
49:
1671:
Thanks for pointing this out. And all this time, I've been trying to convince them as to
1728:
1636:
1599:
1553:
1531:
1495:
1349:
1309:
1115:
597:
589:
542:
459:
1594:
The "keepers" say, let's keep it and improve it. The "deleters" say, it's not useful
1469:
1411:
1286:
1029:
785:
732:
386:
325:
1733:"Votes" without rationales may be discounted at the discretion of the closing admin.
1736:
1661:
1650:
1614:
1570:
1522:
1389:
1377:
1251:
1239:
1181:
1169:
1001:
948:
920:
885:
842:
834:
755:
555:
519:
476:
447:
239:
227:
195:
104:
943:
They are trying to delete the lists we've work so hard on help put a stop to it.
174:
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to
577:
1439:
your criteria, then the list would be nearly endless since there are literally
1626:
1582:
1308:
I think all those lists fail to grasp what it means to actually be a list, by
1293:. Or if you prefer type in "heavy metal bands" and you will get redirected to
1143:
1053:
988:
974:
731:
as the list can hold red links to be filled later, while a category cannot. —
510:
390:
1089:
1-Easier to access for most people, particularly those interested in a topic.
1312:. Now, let's take a look at a list that isn't redundant with its category:
947:
Vote to keep our precious list!!!" Furthermore, they are impersonating
961:). Please take this into consideration when closing the discussion. --
281:
Knowledge when you consider that Japan is a large and modern nation.--
1139:
1503:
Uhhhh... what? I'm not sure how that could be done. Please explain.
1645:
have been removed from a category, and for what reasons. See also
340:
1749:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
1097:
That said I'm not happy with some lobbying I've seen on this.--
137:
1561:
Actually, I don't think I'm misunderstanding anything. See
168:(agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments,
120:
There is no reason why this article cannot be covered by a
1625:
that the J-Pop list is unmanageable is a flawed argument.
1608:
for artists who really aren't notable. There are a lot of
939:) was just previously solicited many votes with the text "
892:
is a much better place to have red links than this page.
1530:
I think you're misunderstanding the purpose of lists by
630:
How can they be deleting list. Please DONT DELETE LIST.
369:
This is valid, the topic may be too broad for a list.--
100:
96:
92:
1714:
Ummm... I think we do. Seriously, we have stuff like
762:
is a much better place for red links than this page.
1552:
whatever million people that use this encyclopedia.
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
754:Finally! Not a single purpose account! Anyway, as
1092:2-Often made by people interested in the subject.
1759:). No further edits should be made to this page.
875:. I agree with everything that Coelacan said. --
562:is a much better place for red links like this.
188:Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected
158:among Knowledge contributors. Knowledge has
8:
588:Don't delete this way better than category.
162:regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
339:I'll concede that, but the article gives
426:: This debate has been included in the
182:on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
1083:Knowledge:Requested_articles/music#Jazz
616:No reasoning behind this? I guess not.
1068:articles should be requested and that
1114:Keep, but make the list more useful.
413:Article - appears to be just a list?
7:
1729:They're called notability guidelines
1044:Category:Lists of musicians by genre
1228:Category:Death metal musical groups
1460:Knowledge:Requested articles/Japan
1161:Knowledge:Requested articles/Japan
1070:Knowledge:Requested articles/Japan
1006:Knowledge:Requested articles/Japan
890:Knowledge:Requested articles/Japan
817:Knowledge:Requested articles/Japan
760:Knowledge:Requested articles/Japan
560:Knowledge:Requested articles/Japan
524:Knowledge:Requested articles/Japan
473:Knowledge:Requested_articles/Japan
24:
1346:List of famous left-handed people
1220:Category:Metalcore musical groups
1647:Knowledge:Lists#Purpose of lists
1563:Knowledge:Lists#Purpose of lists
1236:Category:Lists of jazz musicians
1072:is the proper place to do that.
507:Category:Japanese musical groups
141:
913:Category:Wives of Brigham Young
471:properly fed and looked after:
428:list of Japan-related deletions
389:, no threshhold for inclusion.
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1521:this list would be split. --
1443:of non-notable J-pop artists.
1155:, specifically the section on
1063:I added that addendum because
1:
1740:04:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
1724:04:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
1708:04:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
1680:04:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
1665:10:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
1654:10:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
1640:05:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
1630:11:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
1618:03:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
1603:17:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
1586:09:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
1574:10:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
1557:08:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
1547:02:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
1526:04:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
1508:02:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
1499:21:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
1487:01:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
1475:22:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
1448:20:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
1434:16:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
1419:20:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
1406:12:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
1393:07:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
1363:02:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
1353:02:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
1330:20:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
1302:14:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
1281:03:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
1255:03:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
1194:02:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
1185:02:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
1129:01:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
1119:23:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
1102:06:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
1077:01:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
1057:23:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
1035:22:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
1018:23:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
992:23:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
978:23:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
966:22:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
924:21:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
897:23:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
880:23:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
866:22:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
838:21:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
824:03:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
803:02:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
767:22:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
750:21:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
722:22:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
692:19:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
663:22:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
635:19:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
621:22:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
593:19:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
581:18:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
567:22:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
546:18:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
532:22:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
514:14:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
492:14:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
480:13:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
463:12:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
451:11:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
438:08:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
418:04:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
406:03:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
394:02:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
374:03:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
365:03:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
348:03:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
333:03:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
311:02:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
299:13:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
286:02:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
276:01:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
267:01:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
178:on the part of others and to
134:01:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
53:23:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
1540:Category:HIV-positive people
1318:Category:HIV-positive people
1000:I'm going to refer again to
884:I'm going to refer again to
1536:List of HIV-positive people
1314:List of HIV-positive people
909:Category:Japanese musicians
503:Category:Japanese musicians
321:List of Brazilian musicians
111:Also, all related articles
1776:
1289:and you get redirected to
1468:a sub-genre of J-pop. ···
1295:List of heavy metal bands
1224:List of death metal bands
987:the 26 sub lists though.
1752:Please do not modify it.
387:indiscriminate listcruft
32:Please do not modify it.
1462:pages. Also, J-rock is
1410:Remember, Knowledge is
1216:List of metalcore bands
1136:Keep, with stipulations
220:; accounts blocked for
190:single-purpose accounts
160:policies and guidelines
1376:naming conventions. --
1232:List of jazz musicians
1214:abbreviated list, see
122:Category:J-pop artists
1694:comment was added by
1532:Knowledge's standards
1310:Knowledge's standards
1291:List of jazz pianists
945:List of J-pop Artists
915:is a sub-category of
855:few or no other edits
711:few or no other edits
678:comment was added by
652:few or no other edits
610:few or no other edits
317:List of jazz pianists
67:List of J-pop artists
59:List of J-pop artists
1412:not an advertisement
1348:is one such example.
917:Category:Polygamists
857:outside this topic.
713:outside this topic.
654:outside this topic.
612:outside this topic.
1270:Most Precious Blood
172:by counting votes.
151:not a majority vote
1165:List of violinists
1011:Megumi Hayashibara
1711:
1592:as it stands now.
1004:'s argument that
957:
888:'s argument that
858:
714:
695:
655:
613:
440:
431:
253:
252:
249:
176:assume good faith
1767:
1754:
1689:
1472:
1429:lot of names. ～
1387:
1249:
1179:
1148:Japanese hip hop
1032:
955:
840:
799:
795:
789:
746:
742:
736:
699:CanadianJohn1972
696:
680:CanadianJohn1972
673:
658:Same here, huh?
637:
595:
432:
422:
247:
235:
219:
203:
184:
154:, but instead a
145:
138:
108:
90:
34:
1775:
1774:
1770:
1769:
1768:
1766:
1765:
1764:
1763:
1757:deletion review
1750:
1690:—The preceding
1470:
1381:
1274:Death by Stereo
1243:
1173:
1065:User:T. Anthony
1030:
797:
793:
787:
744:
740:
734:
674:—The preceding
415:Bec-Thorn-Berry
237:
225:
209:
193:
180:sign your posts
81:
65:
62:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1773:
1771:
1762:
1761:
1745:
1744:
1743:
1742:
1726:
1686:
1685:
1684:
1683:
1682:
1669:
1668:
1667:
1658:
1657:
1656:
1622:
1621:
1620:
1578:
1577:
1576:
1559:
1512:
1511:
1510:
1489:
1484:YankeeDoodle14
1477:
1452:
1451:
1450:
1423:
1422:
1421:
1395:
1367:
1366:
1365:
1344:list, eg. The
1334:
1333:
1332:
1306:
1305:
1304:
1262:
1261:
1260:
1259:
1258:
1257:
1199:
1198:
1197:
1196:
1133:
1132:
1131:
1108:
1107:
1106:
1105:
1104:
1095:
1094:
1093:
1090:
1061:
1060:
1059:
1039:
1038:
1037:
995:
994:
981:
980:
968:
941:Save the List!
933:74.101.255.108
926:
901:
900:
899:
870:
869:
868:
828:
827:
826:
810:
809:
808:
807:
806:
805:
772:
771:
770:
769:
726:
725:
724:
667:
666:
665:
625:
624:
623:
583:
571:
570:
569:
536:
535:
534:
496:
495:
494:
465:
453:
441:
420:
408:
396:
380:
379:
378:
377:
376:
350:
337:
336:
335:
328:got started.--
303:
302:
301:
288:
251:
250:
146:
118:
117:
109:
61:
56:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1772:
1760:
1758:
1753:
1747:
1746:
1741:
1738:
1734:
1730:
1727:
1725:
1722:
1721:Axem Titanium
1717:
1713:
1712:
1709:
1705:
1701:
1697:
1693:
1687:
1681:
1678:
1677:Axem Titanium
1674:
1670:
1666:
1663:
1659:
1655:
1652:
1648:
1643:
1642:
1641:
1638:
1633:
1632:
1631:
1628:
1623:
1619:
1616:
1611:
1606:
1605:
1604:
1601:
1597:
1593:
1589:
1588:
1587:
1584:
1579:
1575:
1572:
1568:
1564:
1560:
1558:
1555:
1550:
1549:
1548:
1545:
1544:Axem Titanium
1541:
1537:
1533:
1529:
1528:
1527:
1524:
1520:
1516:
1513:
1509:
1506:
1505:Axem Titanium
1502:
1501:
1500:
1497:
1494:and cleanup.
1493:
1490:
1488:
1485:
1481:
1478:
1476:
1473:
1467:
1466:
1461:
1456:
1455:Strong Delete
1453:
1449:
1446:
1445:Axem Titanium
1442:
1437:
1436:
1435:
1432:
1427:
1424:
1420:
1417:
1416:Axem Titanium
1413:
1409:
1408:
1407:
1404:
1399:
1396:
1394:
1391:
1388:
1386:
1385:
1379:
1375:
1371:
1368:
1364:
1361:
1360:Axem Titanium
1356:
1355:
1354:
1351:
1347:
1343:
1338:
1335:
1331:
1328:
1327:Axem Titanium
1323:
1319:
1315:
1311:
1307:
1303:
1300:
1296:
1292:
1288:
1287:Jazz pianists
1284:
1283:
1282:
1279:
1278:Axem Titanium
1275:
1271:
1266:
1265:
1264:
1263:
1256:
1253:
1250:
1248:
1247:
1241:
1237:
1233:
1229:
1225:
1221:
1217:
1213:
1208:
1205:
1204:
1203:
1202:
1201:
1200:
1195:
1192:
1191:Axem Titanium
1188:
1187:
1186:
1183:
1180:
1178:
1177:
1171:
1166:
1162:
1158:
1154:
1149:
1145:
1141:
1137:
1134:
1130:
1127:
1126:Axem Titanium
1122:
1121:
1120:
1117:
1112:
1109:
1103:
1100:
1096:
1091:
1088:
1087:
1084:
1080:
1079:
1078:
1075:
1074:Axem Titanium
1071:
1066:
1062:
1058:
1055:
1050:
1045:
1040:
1036:
1033:
1026:
1023:
1022:
1021:
1020:
1019:
1016:
1015:Axem Titanium
1012:
1007:
1003:
999:
998:
997:
996:
993:
990:
986:
983:
982:
979:
976:
972:
969:
967:
964:
960:
954:
950:
946:
942:
938:
934:
930:
927:
925:
922:
918:
914:
910:
905:
902:
898:
895:
894:Axem Titanium
891:
887:
883:
882:
881:
878:
874:
871:
867:
864:
863:Axem Titanium
860:
859:
856:
852:
848:
844:
839:
836:
832:
829:
825:
822:
821:Axem Titanium
818:
814:
813:
812:
811:
804:
800:
791:
782:
779:That's not a
778:
777:
776:
775:
774:
773:
768:
765:
764:Axem Titanium
761:
757:
753:
752:
751:
747:
738:
730:
727:
723:
720:
719:Axem Titanium
716:
715:
712:
708:
704:
700:
693:
689:
685:
681:
677:
671:
668:
664:
661:
660:Axem Titanium
657:
656:
653:
649:
645:
641:
636:
633:
629:
626:
622:
619:
618:Axem Titanium
615:
614:
611:
607:
603:
599:
594:
591:
587:
584:
582:
579:
575:
572:
568:
565:
564:Axem Titanium
561:
557:
553:
549:
548:
547:
544:
540:
537:
533:
530:
529:Axem Titanium
525:
521:
517:
516:
515:
512:
508:
504:
500:
497:
493:
490:
487:
483:
482:
481:
478:
474:
469:
466:
464:
461:
457:
454:
452:
449:
445:
442:
439:
436:
429:
425:
421:
419:
416:
412:
409:
407:
404:
400:
397:
395:
392:
388:
384:
381:
375:
372:
368:
367:
366:
363:
358:
354:
351:
349:
346:
345:Axem Titanium
342:
338:
334:
331:
327:
326:George Cables
322:
318:
314:
313:
312:
309:
308:Axem Titanium
304:
300:
297:
294:
289:
287:
284:
279:
278:
277:
274:
273:Axem Titanium
270:
269:
268:
265:
262:
258:
255:
254:
245:
241:
233:
229:
223:
217:
213:
207:
201:
197:
191:
187:
183:
181:
177:
171:
167:
166:
161:
157:
153:
152:
147:
144:
140:
139:
136:
135:
132:
131:Axem Titanium
127:
123:
116:
115:
110:
106:
102:
98:
94:
89:
85:
80:
76:
72:
68:
64:
63:
60:
57:
55:
54:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1751:
1748:
1672:
1595:
1591:
1566:
1518:
1514:
1491:
1479:
1464:
1463:
1454:
1440:
1425:
1398:I'd say keep
1397:
1383:
1382:
1369:
1341:
1336:
1321:
1245:
1244:
1211:
1206:
1175:
1174:
1157:modern names
1135:
1110:
1024:
1002:User:Kunzite
984:
970:
944:
940:
928:
903:
886:User:Kunzite
872:
830:
780:
756:User:Kunzite
728:
669:
640:Azininvasive
632:Azininvasive
627:
585:
573:
556:User:Kunzite
538:
520:User:Kunzite
498:
467:
455:
443:
423:
410:
403:Brianyoumans
398:
382:
356:
352:
341:this website
256:
243:
231:
222:sockpuppetry
215:
204:; suspected
199:
185:
173:
169:
163:
155:
149:
125:
119:
112:
46:No consensus
45:
43:
31:
28:
1696:Tuxedo Mark
1610:"I like it"
1322:substantial
853:) has made
709:) has made
650:) has made
608:) has made
362:ColourBurst
360:category.
1403:Maikeru Go
1299:T. Anthony
1144:Visual Kei
1099:T. Anthony
963:Iamunknown
550:Way to be
458:per nomm.
371:T. Anthony
330:T. Anthony
283:T. Anthony
156:discussion
50:Cbrown1023
1637:ColenFace
1600:Dekkappai
1554:ColenFace
1441:thousands
1374:WP:MOS-JA
1350:Blkeddie!
1153:WP:MOS-JA
1116:Dekkappai
1049:WP:MOS-JA
598:WaynGravy
590:WaynGravy
543:ColenFace
460:Saganaki-
446:per nom.
355:As there
212:canvassed
206:canvassed
165:consensus
1716:WP:MUSIC
1704:contribs
1692:unsigned
1431:Michelle
1316:. While
1025:Comment:
959:contribs
851:contribs
833:Agreed.
707:contribs
688:contribs
676:unsigned
648:contribs
606:contribs
244:username
238:{{subst:
232:username
226:{{subst:
216:username
210:{{subst:
200:username
194:{{subst:
1737:Kunzite
1662:Visviva
1651:Visviva
1615:Kunzite
1571:Visviva
1567:already
1523:Visviva
1370:Comment
1207:Comment
949:Bilaber
843:Bilaber
835:Bilaber
477:Kunzite
448:Valrith
353:Comment
208:users:
84:protect
79:history
1480:Delete
1146:, and
1140:J-Rock
985:Delete
921:Icarus
904:Delete
758:said,
578:Recury
574:Delete
558:said,
468:Delete
456:Delete
444:Delete
411:Delete
399:Delete
383:Delete
126:Delete
88:delete
1649:. --
1627:Neier
1583:Neier
1496:Monni
1492:split
1054:Neier
989:Neier
975:Neier
877:Stzr3
554:. As
552:civil
511:rydia
391:MER-C
186:Note:
105:views
97:watch
93:links
16:<
1700:talk
1596:now,
1515:Keep
1426:Keep
1342:mere
1337:Keep
1234:and
1226:and
1218:and
1212:very
1111:Keep
971:Keep
953:talk
937:talk
929:Note
873:Keep
847:talk
831:Keep
790:acan
737:acan
729:Keep
703:talk
684:talk
670:Keep
644:talk
628:Keep
602:talk
586:Keep
539:Keep
505:and
499:Keep
486:gren
475:. --
435:Ugxq
424:Note
319:and
293:gren
291:it.
261:gren
257:Keep
114:here
101:logs
75:talk
71:edit
1673:why
1519:how
1471:日本穣
1465:not
1390:tom
1378:Lim
1272:to
1252:tom
1240:Lim
1182:tom
1170:Lim
1031:日本穣
1028:···
786:coe
781:bad
733:coe
489:グレン
433:--
430:.
296:グレン
264:グレン
240:csp
236:or
228:csm
196:spa
170:not
1735:--
1706:)
1702:•
1613:--
1542:.
1230:,
1222:,
1168:--
1142:,
931::
849:•
841:—
801:—
798:lk
784:—
748:—
745:lk
705:•
697:—
690:)
686:•
646:•
638:—
604:•
596:—
522:,
385:-
357:is
246:}}
234:}}
224::
218:}}
202:}}
192::
124:.
103:|
99:|
95:|
91:|
86:|
82:|
77:|
73:|
48:.
1710:.
1698:(
1384:e
1246:e
1176:e
956:•
951:(
935:(
845:(
796:a
794:t
788:l
743:a
741:t
735:l
701:(
694:.
682:(
642:(
600:(
248:.
242:|
230:|
214:|
198:|
107:)
69:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
