546:
versus when was the last time somebody wondered what is the highest fatality crash? Just based on the scope, the location list should be deleted, since it is clear that it is encompassed by this list, while the commercial aircraft crashes should link here and discuss in addition notable crashes with less than 50 fatalities. This is a COMPLETE list from many perspectives. If you guys don't like having lists with over 50 fatalities, perhaps you should not have templates for each year emphasizing the 50 threshold.
514:. Quite why the aviation project is set on "delete as default" I have no idea. We don't use categories for a coherent list of disasters. We stopped using "... by location" or whatever several years ago. In fact, defending a "... by location" list and then criticising a "... at least 50 fatalities" list is crazy. Each define the content, and the presentation. This list is intended to be useful to our readers, not the
991:
At
Knowledge (XXG), we follow the sources, and I'm sure you are aware that there are top 100 lists of things in the world. "Editors are still urged to demonstrate list notability via the grouping itself before creating stand-alone lists." I did a Google search on and the first item on the list was
1175:
14:09, 9 July 2013 (UTC) And of course, it has ample references from reliable sources proving it obviously meets the general notability guidelines. That isn't really in question here, just where this article should exist when other similar ones do also. You don't delete a far superior article for
1048:
We are in agreement on the technical points. What we disagree about is the cost benefit of deleting material to prevent the list from growing and to keep it interesting; and the beneficence of following the sources, or perhaps patterns used by the sources. And I take your point about the sorts, I
545:
This nomination is kind of a joke to be honest as it is hard to assume good faith on the behalf of the nominator. When was the last time somebody asked/thought about when did a commercial aircraft crashed last (list of commercial aircraft crashes), or where do aircrafts crash (crashes by location),
382:
I have no desire to put down or diminish the accomplishments of the comparison lists, that is not my style. However, this AfD has put me in a position where I must explain why I created a newer, expanded, more comprehensive, highly sortable and referenced list. Stylistically and given its scope and
1029:
reference? The bottom section (1-50) will wind up being much longer than the existing list, and disproportionately longer than 50+ if split up. Also, a top 100 or top 200 list would mean that information we are publishing for viewers would be periodically removed as its ranking diminishes. If they
319:
All of this is organized in a comprehensive and highly sortable table (absent from the two comparisons offered) which further allows for differentiation of accidents/incidents versus attack on the aircraft (further broken out to sort by commercial versus military and types of attack perpetrated on
1117:
has just 11 notes and no references. This article has two dozen notes and over 600 references. 600 references -- that represents over one hundred hours of work. If the article was not policy compliant that would be irrelevant. But since no one has suggested any problems with policy compliance
954:
in WP:N states, "Editors are still urged to demonstrate list notability via the grouping itself before creating stand-alone lists." But as other parts of WP:LISTN say, notability is not clearly defined for these lists. In this case, I think the problem is that the arbitrary cutoff of 50 doesn't
1258:. A well-organised compilation of data. The cut-off point is arbitrary, but I'd say it is placed about right to keep the list within reasonable bounds. Any problems with WP:OR etc should be easy enough to sort out, I'd think. It could probably do with less jargon, but again that can be fixed.
324:
can be sorted by total deaths, crew deaths, passenger deaths, ground fatalities, fatality ratio, incident (airline), aircraft, location, phase of flight, relevant airport codes, distance from impact. None of these features exist in the comparison lists. There are 21 references between the two
955:
create an independently interesting list, and has in turn led to an unmanageable file. I suggest that the answer is that this should be a top 100 list. I'm not opposed to a longer list possibly using multiple pages...this is a matter for the editors doing the work to decide.
96:
91:
401:- apart from arbitary cut-off point which has no satisfactory explanation, the phrase descriptive statistics, the extensive notes to explain the tables and the description of the methodology to derive the data all point to an attempt at a research paper - something WP is not.
100:
170:
1235:, "Also, while citing essays that summarize a position can be useful shorthand, citing an essay (like this one) just by one of its many shortcuts (e.g. WP:ILIKEIT or WP:IDONTLIKEIT), without further explanation, is similarly ill-advised, for the reasons explained above."
1049:
missed that when I mentioned "multiple pages". But why does
Knowledge (XXG) need so much information, isn't that what IINFO is about? How about a top 250? But I don't need an answer, one of the bottom lines in a volunteer organization is who is willing to do the work.
83:
1118:
that couldn't be solved with simple editing that one hundred hours or more of work is relevant, and deserves a hats off and a job well done from the rest of us. Well done! And to the nominator? Could you please refrain from nominating any more articles for deletion?
995:. A list of 50 or 75 is not currently a consideration since we already have data for more. As I have stated previously, I'm not personally opposed to a list of 200 as you suggest...I think that this is a matter for the editors doing the work to decide.
481:
The
Fatality rate % is very simply #fatalities/#total manifest. This is not original research, simply a way to provide a number that can be compared across occurrences so the reader is not required to sit with calculator. This type of statistic is wholly
509:
we have a number of lists with cut-off points, it helps manageability of the length of lists. The title of the list explains exactly what the list comprises. I've seen that
MilbourneOne has a list of personal issues about this, to which I've responded
87:
526:'s comment about duplication, hardly! The two lists to which JetBlast refers have a handful of references between them. Both lists are woefully inadequate and rely on linked articles for references etc, which is entirely unsatisfactory.
640:
useful, and this appears to be standard procedure for modern lists. GraemeLeggett's delete statement appears to make little sense to me either. And JetBlast seems to forget that the presence of a category doesn't mean a list is redundant.
833:. Nothing substantially wrong with this list; I agree that the cutoff is needed for size reasons. I've looked through it and seen nothing that appears problematic from WP:OR grounds; the biggest problem I've seen with this article is a
424:
How does this steer close? In some cases investigation reports provided specific coordinates for a crashsite. In others maps are provided with locations. How is entering this in Google Earth and determining the closest inhabited place
1024:
informational and navigational purposes. While discussion of splitting the list is premature, if the table functions properly (i.e., sorts) why would we not want to have as much information as possible in a single list? Isn't that an
579:
does not overlap as this list's scope allows it to include military aircraft, whereas the other is limited to commercial aircraft; also, the other article does not necessarily have a clear scope: what determines notability in such a
336:
321:
312:
79:
71:
164:
315:
provides the following unique contributions: Fatality rate, specific locations with appropriate links, phase of flight, departing or receiving airport links, distance from crash site (for early and late phases of flight).
334:
requires that all entries have a dedicated
Knowledge (XXG) article. This provision alone will never allow the list to be considered comprehensive. Without checking specific cases side by side, there are 111 occurrences in
933:, poor faith by nominator. I abhor duplications, and this is not one, it is a substantial improvement, and the other article could be merged into this. 50 deaths may be arbitrary, but in no way is that against any rules.
130:
993:
567:. Lists by location are outdated and should be merged into lists like this (we can easily make tables sortable now), except where they are divided into national categories to avoid getting the lists too long.
355:
of the cited data. It is for this express reason that figures for standard deviation, correlation, and significance levels were not used. Most importantly, there are no inferences of causal relationships.
908:
That would be possible, but splitting would mean we'd have a longer time before we had to fix the list again (keeping in mind that aircraft accidents and incidents do not become fewer as time passes). —
1114:
278:
894:
etc to permit sorting of the various columns and 2) the long names of the references. 3) some substantial notes to the table. Some terseness in these elements without losing content might be possible.
1110:
576:
331:
282:
202:
311:
Regarding duplication: Based on the two comparisons you offer, the list proposed for deletion provides significant advances, new information, and sorting abilities not present in the comparisons.
1092:, that section should be fixed, or possibly excised. Our nominator has doubts about why some information is included? Again, this is a question for the talk page, it not grounds for deletion.
1293:
1267:
1244:
1218:
1199:
1127:
1101:
1058:
1039:
1004:
978:
964:
943:
917:
903:
877:
863:
846:
823:
809:
769:
735:
710:
692:
658:
626:
606:
589:
555:
535:
491:
476:
467:
Then make suggestions to improve the article, not wholesale delete it. And try to fix the article rather than make it worse which you seem to have done with your most recent clumsy edits.
450:
434:
410:
392:
298:
267:
247:
232:
65:
185:
152:
255:
937:
has an arbitrary cut-off at 700 feet tall, but there's no problem with that either. A question in the determination of a single data point sure as heck is not grounds for deletion.
421:
I'd missed the statement in the article "Each accident or incident has been reviewed using Google Earth to find the location closest to the crash site" which steers close to OR.
146:
351:. All individual records of incidents are individually cited (which does not exist in either of the abovementioned lists). Figures appearing in tables are nothing more than
1030:
are then to be added to a second list, does something get bumped from that list? It seems like it would only create more work each time something hit the "Top xxx" list.--
568:
286:
1018:
often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. Editors are still urged to demonstrate list notability via the grouping itself before creating stand-alone lists
225:
123:
142:
727:
determines why certain accidents are included and why certain accidents are excluded. The section isn't sourced, and there is no discussion about it on the talk page.
752:
That section is surely very easy to state: any accident that involved 50 or more fatalities, inclusive of ground fatalities. And it shouldn't need sourcing, surely?
192:
789:
240:
934:
854:
This article is too long, it is 400,000 bytes on
Knowledge (XXG). The size of the HTML source file (view page source) sent to my computer was 1.162 Megabytes.
341:
698:
158:
814:
Such a split would mean this gets moved to List of aircraft accidents and incidents (resulting in 50–99 fatalities). Although that's in the future. —
684:
section; who even determines that? And anyway, that kind of section is usually found within notability guideline pages, not on actual article pages.
672:
go to waste, it seems like the number 50 in this case was chosen arbitrarily. Yes, there are other list-based articles on here, but take a look at
518:
of the
Aviation project. I have raised concerns with Godot13 that there are some elements that could be removed (as they seem unnecessarily
668:
First off, Nergaal, I don't think this article was nominated in bad faith. But more importantly, although I would hate to see so many users'
339:
without dedicated articles, and therefore missing from accidents/incidents involving commercial aircraft. The list can search by year only.
788:
well sourced list. I could use some more explication and less tables, but seems to be a sound article. Should also be an article titled
575:
and only includes those events with an article (the scope of this list would not prevent it from including incidents without articles).
219:
crashed after hitting objects soon after takeoff but are said to have happened in different phases of flight. How was this determined?
17:
1231:
The edit comment says, "please argue using policy!", but the post itself cites an essay. Looking at more of the essay, it says at
360:
212:
677:
673:
1312:
40:
1084:. Our deletion policies explain that articles should not be nominated for deletion when someone has a concern over a
1282:
1141:
974:
706:
531:
472:
1240:
1054:
1000:
960:
859:
1212:
620:
1287:
899:
446:
406:
368:
326:
344:. For the specified scope and criteria, this list is missing 188 occurrences, and has no sorting ability.
1263:
1204:
612:
1308:
1277:
1137:
970:
913:
873:
819:
764:
702:
653:
585:
527:
468:
36:
1015:
669:
1236:
1050:
996:
956:
855:
602:
1208:
753:
642:
616:
178:
834:
676:; do you see any other quantitative article titles? I don't. There aren't even any such titles in
1123:
1097:
895:
442:
402:
294:
951:
564:
519:
376:
372:
1259:
1035:
842:
551:
487:
430:
388:
60:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1307:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
636:
per all above. No real policy-based reason for deletion is presented, the list seems notable
522:) so I'm not just waving a banner for this list. But it shouldn't be deleted. Finally, per
441:
and also "fatality rate" applied to % of occupants killed comes across as an invented phrase.
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1177:
1153:
909:
869:
815:
581:
364:
216:
1232:
1109:
The articles the nomination asserts this article duplicates are inferior to this article.
515:
801:
598:
1081:
352:
348:
208:
1088:
of that article. Rather, this concern should be raised on the article's talk page, and
1133:
969:
Top 100 is no less arbitrary than 50+ fatalities. Why not Top 75? Top 50? Top 200?
264:
259:
244:
229:
1119:
1093:
938:
523:
290:
1031:
1026:
838:
547:
483:
426:
384:
54:
117:
701:? Inclusion criteria is stated in the article title. Seems pretty clear to me.
794:
790:
List of aircraft accidents and incidents resulting in at least 100 fatalities
325:
comparison lists versus 600 references covering each incident with a link to
1152:
This article is superior to the others. The dynamic chart is most helpful.
337:
List of aircraft accidents and incidents resulting in at least 50 fatalities
322:
List of aircraft accidents and incidents resulting in at least 50 fatalities
313:
List of aircraft accidents and incidents resulting in at least 50 fatalities
80:
List of aircraft accidents and incidents resulting in at least 50 fatalities
72:
List of aircraft accidents and incidents resulting in at least 50 fatalities
367:(TOF and ICL respectively), these phases of flight are recorded from the
1275:
This is actually framed in such a way as to keep the list under control
837:"violation", ==See Also==. Definitely onthing deserving deletion.
383:
criteria, it is not a duplicate of any existing aviation list. --
329:
database and in many cases to the original investigation reports.
1301:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
1115:
List of accidents and incidents involving airliners by location
279:
List of accidents and incidents involving airliners by location
1111:
List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft
1016:
recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes
577:
List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft
283:
List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft
359:
Regarding your concern about different phases of flight for
890:
The page is character/code-heavy due to 1) lot of use of
207:] 50 is an arbitray total. List's infobox also violates
511:
113:
109:
105:
177:
868:
Which is a reason for splitting and not deletion. —
256:
191:
569:Category:Lists of aviation accidents and incidents
287:Category:Lists of aviation accidents and incidents
1136:has long since left this nomination well alone.
332:Accidents/incidents involving commercial aircraft
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1315:). No further edits should be made to this page.
935:List of tallest buildings in the United States
1233:WP:ATA#Just pointing at a policy or guideline
226:list of Aviation-related deletion discussions
8:
699:List of tornadoes causing 100 or more deaths
254:Note: This debate has been included in the
239:Note: This debate has been included in the
224:Note: This debate has been included in the
253:
241:list of Lists-related deletion discussions
238:
223:
571:is not quite a duplicate, as it is a
342:accidents and disasters by death toll
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
697:You mean a death-related list like
24:
723:section, it still doesn't state
715:Oops, I missed that one. It's a
1:
361:Northwest Airlines Flight 255
213:Northwest Airlines Flight 255
792:but that's for the future.--
678:Category:Lists by death toll
674:Category:Death-related lists
1113:has just four references.
1080:of the article lapses from
1332:
1176:the sake of a lesser one.
347:There is no violation of
66:02:17, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
1304:Please do not modify it.
1294:23:19, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
1268:21:27, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
1245:22:03, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
1219:21:19, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
1200:22:20, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
1128:17:37, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
1102:17:37, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
1076:Our nominator asserts a
1059:22:03, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
1040:04:45, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
1005:21:25, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
979:14:24, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
965:13:53, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
944:13:32, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
918:02:37, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
904:22:01, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
878:00:15, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
864:23:05, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
847:13:27, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
824:12:21, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
810:12:04, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
770:16:04, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
736:15:22, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
719:then, but as far as the
711:09:43, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
693:09:37, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
659:07:52, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
627:21:19, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
607:06:37, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
590:03:01, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
563:, per TRM, Nergaal, and
556:00:13, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
536:19:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
492:22:02, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
477:21:26, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
451:21:25, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
435:22:02, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
411:19:39, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
393:19:28, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
299:17:55, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
268:17:50, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
262:17:50, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
248:17:50, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
233:17:50, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
201:Duplicates much of this
32:Please do not modify it.
680:. Another issue is the
369:Aviation Safety Network
327:Aviation Safety Network
289:. Has no real value. --
211:in its phase section.
766:(tell Luke off here)
655:(tell Luke off here)
353:routine calculations
1020:. This list serves
1014:Lists that fulfill
721:inclusion criteria
682:inclusion criteria
597:as a useful list.
349:Knowledge (XXG):OR
48:The result was
734:
691:
307:(Article creator)
263:
250:
235:
1323:
1306:
1292:
1290:
1285:
1280:
1215:
1196:
1193:
1190:
1187:
1184:
1181:
1172:
1169:
1166:
1163:
1160:
1157:
1138:The Rambling Man
971:The Rambling Man
941:
893:
808:
806:
799:
762:
759:
756:
733:
731:
703:The Rambling Man
690:
688:
651:
648:
645:
623:
528:The Rambling Man
469:The Rambling Man
365:Viasa Flight 742
217:Viasa Flight 742
196:
195:
181:
133:
121:
103:
34:
1331:
1330:
1326:
1325:
1324:
1322:
1321:
1320:
1319:
1313:deletion review
1302:
1288:
1283:
1278:
1276:
1237:Unscintillating
1217:
1213:
1194:
1191:
1188:
1185:
1182:
1179:
1170:
1167:
1164:
1161:
1158:
1155:
1090:if others agree
1051:Unscintillating
997:Unscintillating
957:Unscintillating
939:
891:
856:Unscintillating
802:
795:
793:
760:
757:
754:
729:
686:
649:
646:
643:
625:
621:
320:the aircraft).
138:
129:
94:
78:
75:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1329:
1327:
1318:
1317:
1297:
1296:
1270:
1252:
1251:
1250:
1249:
1248:
1247:
1224:
1223:
1222:
1221:
1211:
1209:The Bushranger
1147:
1146:
1145:
1104:
1070:
1069:
1068:
1067:
1066:
1065:
1064:
1063:
1062:
1061:
1043:
1042:
1008:
1007:
984:
983:
982:
981:
946:
927:
926:
925:
924:
923:
922:
921:
920:
883:
882:
881:
880:
849:
828:
827:
826:
779:
778:
777:
776:
775:
774:
773:
772:
743:
742:
741:
740:
739:
738:
661:
631:
630:
629:
619:
617:The Bushranger
592:
558:
539:
538:
503:
502:
501:
500:
499:
498:
497:
496:
495:
494:
458:
457:
456:
455:
454:
453:
439:
438:
437:
414:
413:
340:
330:
309:
308:
273:
271:
270:
251:
236:
199:
198:
135:
74:
69:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1328:
1316:
1314:
1310:
1305:
1299:
1298:
1295:
1291:
1286:
1281:
1274:
1271:
1269:
1265:
1261:
1257:
1254:
1253:
1246:
1242:
1238:
1234:
1230:
1229:
1228:
1227:
1226:
1225:
1220:
1216:
1214:One ping only
1210:
1206:
1203:
1202:
1201:
1198:
1197:
1174:
1173:
1151:
1148:
1143:
1139:
1135:
1131:
1130:
1129:
1125:
1121:
1116:
1112:
1108:
1105:
1103:
1099:
1095:
1091:
1087:
1083:
1079:
1075:
1072:
1071:
1060:
1056:
1052:
1047:
1046:
1045:
1044:
1041:
1037:
1033:
1028:
1023:
1019:
1017:
1012:
1011:
1010:
1009:
1006:
1002:
998:
994:
990:
989:
988:
987:
986:
985:
980:
976:
972:
968:
967:
966:
962:
958:
953:
950:
947:
945:
942:
936:
932:
929:
928:
919:
915:
911:
907:
906:
905:
901:
897:
896:GraemeLeggett
892:<span: -->
889:
888:
887:
886:
885:
884:
879:
875:
871:
867:
866:
865:
861:
857:
853:
850:
848:
844:
840:
836:
832:
829:
825:
821:
817:
813:
812:
811:
807:
805:
800:
798:
791:
787:
784:
781:
780:
771:
768:
767:
763:
751:
750:
749:
748:
747:
746:
745:
744:
737:
732:
726:
722:
718:
714:
713:
712:
708:
704:
700:
696:
695:
694:
689:
683:
679:
675:
671:
667:
666:
662:
660:
657:
656:
652:
639:
635:
632:
628:
624:
622:One ping only
618:
614:
611:
610:
608:
604:
600:
596:
593:
591:
587:
583:
578:
574:
570:
566:
562:
559:
557:
553:
549:
544:
541:
540:
537:
533:
529:
525:
524:User:JetBlast
521:
517:
513:
508:
505:
504:
493:
489:
485:
480:
479:
478:
474:
470:
466:
465:
464:
463:
462:
461:
460:
459:
452:
448:
444:
443:GraemeLeggett
440:
436:
432:
428:
423:
422:
420:
419:
418:
417:
416:
415:
412:
408:
404:
403:GraemeLeggett
400:
397:
396:
395:
394:
390:
386:
380:
378:
374:
370:
366:
362:
357:
354:
350:
345:
343:
338:
333:
328:
323:
317:
314:
306:
303:
302:
301:
300:
296:
292:
288:
284:
280:
277:Duplicate of
276:
269:
266:
261:
257:
252:
249:
246:
242:
237:
234:
231:
227:
222:
221:
220:
218:
214:
210:
206:
204:
194:
190:
187:
184:
180:
176:
172:
169:
166:
163:
160:
157:
154:
151:
148:
144:
141:
140:Find sources:
136:
132:
128:
125:
119:
115:
111:
107:
102:
98:
93:
89:
85:
81:
77:
76:
73:
70:
68:
67:
63:
62:
57:
56:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1303:
1300:
1272:
1260:AndyTheGrump
1255:
1205:WP:ITSUSEFUL
1178:
1154:
1149:
1132:I think the
1106:
1089:
1085:
1077:
1073:
1027:Encyclopedic
1021:
1013:
948:
931:Obvious keep
930:
851:
830:
803:
796:
785:
782:
765:
728:
724:
720:
716:
685:
681:
665:Weak delete.
664:
663:
654:
637:
633:
613:WP:ITSUSEFUL
594:
572:
560:
542:
506:
482:permitted.--
398:
381:
358:
346:
318:
310:
304:
274:
272:
200:
188:
182:
174:
167:
161:
155:
149:
139:
126:
59:
53:
49:
47:
31:
28:
910:Crisco 1492
870:Crisco 1492
816:Crisco 1492
582:Crisco 1492
543:Strong keep
165:free images
599:Xxanthippe
265:...William
260:...William
245:...William
230:...William
1309:talk page
1134:nominator
835:WP:HEADER
786:Extremely
670:hard work
520:synthetic
371:database
205:and this
37:talk page
1311:or in a
1120:Geo Swan
1094:Geo Swan
952:WP:LISTN
940:Reywas92
580:list? —
573:category
565:WP:NLIST
291:JetBlast
124:View log
39:or in a
1086:section
1078:section
1074:Comment
1032:Godot13
949:Comment
852:Comment
839:Nyttend
548:Nergaal
484:Godot13
427:Godot13
385:Godot13
171:WP refs
159:scholar
97:protect
92:history
55:postdlf
730:Erpert
687:Erpert
516:owners
399:Delete
285:&
275:Delete
143:Google
101:delete
1273:Keep:
1195:Focus
1171:Focus
1082:WP:OR
797:Auric
425:OR?--
209:WP:OR
186:JSTOR
147:books
131:Stats
118:views
110:watch
106:links
16:<
1264:talk
1256:Keep
1241:talk
1150:Keep
1142:talk
1124:talk
1107:Keep
1098:talk
1055:talk
1036:talk
1022:both
1001:talk
975:talk
961:talk
914:talk
900:talk
874:talk
860:talk
843:talk
831:Keep
820:talk
804:talk
783:Keep
755:Luke
717:keep
707:talk
644:Luke
634:Keep
603:talk
595:Keep
586:talk
561:Keep
552:talk
532:talk
512:here
507:Keep
488:talk
473:talk
447:talk
431:talk
407:talk
389:talk
377:here
375:and
373:here
363:and
305:Keep
295:talk
215:and
203:list
179:FENS
153:news
114:logs
88:talk
84:edit
61:talk
50:keep
725:who
638:and
379:.
193:TWL
122:– (
1266:)
1243:)
1207:-
1126:)
1100:)
1057:)
1038:)
1003:)
977:)
963:)
916:)
902:)
876:)
862:)
845:)
822:)
761:94
758:no
709:)
650:94
647:no
615:-
609:.
605:)
588:)
554:)
534:)
490:)
475:)
449:)
433:)
409:)
391:)
297:)
281:,
258:.
243:.
228:.
173:)
116:|
112:|
108:|
104:|
99:|
95:|
90:|
86:|
64:)
52:.
1289:p
1284:b
1279:p
1262:(
1239:(
1192:m
1189:a
1186:e
1183:r
1180:D
1168:m
1165:a
1162:e
1159:r
1156:D
1144:)
1140:(
1122:(
1096:(
1053:(
1034:(
999:(
973:(
959:(
912:(
898:(
872:(
858:(
841:(
818:(
705:(
601:(
584:(
550:(
530:(
486:(
471:(
445:(
429:(
405:(
387:(
293:(
197:)
189:·
183:·
175:·
168:·
162:·
156:·
150:·
145:(
137:(
134:)
127:·
120:)
82:(
58:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.