2099:. I have to join KF in requesting the projectification of this article on the condition that that's actually a word. It's accepted practice that a willing party can rewrite a deleted article into a better version. In this case, a party of several people. This article is too large for a single editor, particularily if films must be sourced to something else than primary sources; a workable definition of "gory" - which CAN be done - or a name change needs wider attention about consensus anyway. If it doesn't work, if it can't be done, then the attempt will dry up and no harm done. This discussion doesn't say much about the outcome of that process, a greatly different matter, especially since we cannot gauge the effects on the noncommitted - those who do not participate in the discussion because haven't formed an opinion one way or the other, or think they don't have the expertise, etc. Not that I can speak for anyone else but I do that all the time.
1206:- That's exactly my point. The top of the article defines "gory" from the point of view of the author. The author of this article clearly has established criteria for himself/herself as to what constitutes "sadistic" or "brutal" or "gory" and is now injecting that point of view into the article. However, Knowledge (XXG) policies dictate that we cannot inject our points of view as criteria for lists; we must follow a neutral point of view. The criteria for inclusion must be objective. "Gory" is an emotionally loaded word. It carries a connotation of brutality, sadism, and essentially is supposed to describe something generally considered revolting. What is revolting, however, differs from person to person. There is no way that the word "gory" can ever be objective and so there is no way that this list can ever have objective criteria and therefore it's got to go. --
1260:
less harmful than viewing sexually oriented material, viewing heterosexually oriented material is less harmful than viewing homosexually oriented material, viewing material of any sort is harmful at all; just for starters). There is no purely objective standard for rating films. Even one that relies on the mechanical counting of specific words or events (number of times the word "fuck" is said; number of people who get shot; whatever) is at its root subjective because of the presumption that the words or events it's tabulating are such that basing a rating on that tabulation is warranted or reasonable. And yes, if the category is one not based on an objective verifiable factual standard (
1594:- Everyone is talking about the usefulness of this list. I personally found it very useful. It helped me discover lots of films that I hadn't heard of before. Everyone is also saying how the list trivial. One person may view the list as completely pointless, but another person may find the list extremely useful. The fact if it's trivial or not (which is what most people are arguing on this page) is also the reader's point of view. I find the list pretty comprehensive and have personally read through it multiple times, removing and adding things that followed the beginning paragraph's guidelines. I hope maybe this will give everyone on here a different point of view. -Moviemaniacx
630:, a low budget exploitation shocker about a woman taking revenge on the men who violently raped her, because one includes the sacrificial removal of hearts and the other features a man's balls being ripped off (I leave it as an exercise for the reader to determine which film had which scene). These films are lumped alongside other films from every conceivable genre, style and subject matter which feature "gory" deaths by other means. There is no possible objective definition of what constitutes a "gory" death scene, thus the inclusion of any film on this list is reliant on the opinion of an editor as to whether it should be on the list.
152:. There is no objective standard to determine what a "gory death" is. There are two sources, one a book published in 1965 which can't source any film published after that date which is therefore most of the article. The second source is a website that is user-submitted, therefore unacceptable. Other than films which can be sourced to the book, the rest are included based on the opinions of editors on what constitutes a "gory death", thus failing policy. Despite it being nominated twice before, there has been seemingly no effort to ensure this article complies with Knowledge (XXG) policies of
572:. No, it won't. It's far more restrictive than a list of all movies where people are shot to death, which indeed would be unacceptable. When "death by gunfire" began to get ungainly large, it was changed in discussion to the more appropriate "death by excessive/graphic gunfire", which is of manageable size and has worked well. Along with special cases, like snipers shot through their own scope being covered in "death by ocular trauma" instead, it will easily last for the foreseeable future. As far as I can see, the same can be done with blades. Why couldn't it? --
1115:(!) all under the category of "excessive and/or graphic gunfire." Um, the first one is a psychological drama that has no violence whatsoever until the last scene, the second is a slasher film filled with violent deaths (but doesn't have much artistic value), the third is a graphic but critically acclaimed World War II drama with lots of violent battle scenes, and the fourth is a sci-fi adventure where there are no firearms and no blood! This list is a clear-cut violation of the policy that
2062:. What purpose does this page serve? It is a seemingly pointless and indiscriminate (and inevitably incomplete) collection of films linked by no criteria other than that someone dies in them, and this death has been judged by someone to be 'gory', which is arguably POV/original research itself. Arguably, any film that includes a death scene could be included on this list somehow, which means it would probably encompass over half of all films ever made! There
2110:
lose formatting, which at more than 100 KB is a non-trivial issue, as well as the discussion pages, which feature considerations and precedents that are valuable in adapting to local conventions. Access to article history is paramount is the process will have considerations of reorganization or of the lines drawn between sections, which it will have. Userfication is for as little as possible for as little time as possible, deviation
Considered Harmful. --
1150:
ridiculous that it is, quite frankly, kind of funny (although it's probably disturbing for young kids). Now, this gangster clearly kills the other guy by "excessive gunfire." One shot would've done it and this guy unloads the entire clip. In fact, he keeps shooting at the guy while he's down on the ground. So, should that go on this list? If you say "no" and your reasoning is that the film-within-a-film is not a real movie, let me give you this. In
845:", but again this is not taken into consideration. Rather, a single contributor realises that they "can't think of any possible reason that categorizing movies by their "gory death scene" would be useful to a reader" although it must be clear to anyone that the vast majority of articles here at Knowledge (XXG) are useless to any randomly chosen individual and that that's no reason to want to see them deleted. The "clear consensus" is looming again.
743:. I do not understand how that applies. The section specifically prohibits only certain kinds of collections: FAQs, travel guides, memorials, instruction manuals, Internet guides, textbooks, sole plot summaries, lyrics databases, statistics and news reports. This is none of thse. If you think that the criteria are too lax, by all means bring up your grievances, they have been strictened before to make the page more discriminate. --
2180:
number of uses of the word. This list is no different. It says in the lead that it does not have an absolute definition of gory, it has a working standard. This standard has - again by consensus - been decided to be a workable cut-off point, that makes classifying a work as gory require no more than a smidgen of personal interpretation. This smidgen is one that's vital for "Category:Fiction by genre" to function - or for
1131:- I would like to say this to anybody who thinks this list is "useful." I, for one, would never want to look at this list. You know why? Because in order to read information about one movie, I'd have to read spoilers for 50 or more others, many of which I haven't seen but intend to see. So, I just wouldn't look at this list. Many others wouldn't either. Keep that in mind before arguing that this list is "useful." --
2233:. No amount of tightening of the definition of "gory" changes the fact that the films in each section are unrelated to each other except in happening to have a death scene of a certain type and that films from different sections don't even have that in common. Any number of examples from the list have been offered to show that the films are unrelated to each other in terms of plot, style, genre or theme.
1929:(see above). (Now of course someone will point out that this is not the right place to ask questions.) Before anyone can come up with any more three-letter abbreviations, I realised quite some time ago—what with the sheer abundance of ready-made and neatly capsuled ]s—that this list wouldn't have any chance of survival, at least the way it looks now. That's why I think that it should be
2185:
this list. It's hard to imagine harder evidence that it's acceptable to cover a subject using a working definition that requires an acceptable amount of interpretation, instead of an exact one, than this: A pillar of the project, vital to
Knowledge (XXG)'s existence. And there's been no debate here over whether or not the list uses an acceptable amount, only a rejection of the concept.
1470:
dilemma will have far-reaching consequences for all sorts of lists here at
Knowledge (XXG): You'd have to find dozens, if not hundreds of books citing scenes from films mentioned here as "gory", which, I guess, is not feasible. If you found just one or two books citing many, or most, of the scenes, it would be a copyvio to list the scenes here. By analogy, a list such as the
1658:. Please don't be so quick to assume that the other side's arguments are founded on ignorance of policy. It can really get rather irritating. This is, as I expressly said, a fragment of an argument. It's (finally) being continued below. Above is a specific counterargument to the claim several people have made -
365:(and, by implication, that any such list can never aim at being exhaustive). I know the following is not a "keep" argument (no need to refer me to WP:OTHERSHITEXISTS or whatever it's called), but deleting this list on grounds of "original research" would open a Pandora's box of similar requests for deletion.
1168:. "This is going to be an insanely long list" (Hnsampat)—well, only if we erroneously believe we have to finish it; not if we just give examples. As far as spoilers are concerned, the newly formed anti-spoiler group will argue along the lines of "This is an encyclopaedia. Information is revealed" (see
1429:
Hey. Chill. Please take a break and a breather or something. You know that that the statement about experts (apparently meaning people who have seen the film in question) was badly phrased - by sticking to ridiculing the word choice of a non-native
English speaker instead of addressing the issue, you
1019:
Sorry, you've misunderstood. There's no need for me to argue that point, because your "argument" is pro-deletion. If you don't understand the significance of what you've said already, no amount of patient explanation from me will help. To be honest I don't take anything you say seriously, so I'd quit
48:
I'm not sure if I fully agree with those who opined delete, but the numerical consensus is clear and the policy-based arguments are at least reasonable. If someone wants this moved to userspace or project-space in an attempt to come up with a version that satisfies the delete arguments as to sourcing
2204:
After the last AfD gave reason for a tighter policy, criteria were established and the list was made to fit them. Entire sections, such as drowning, were removed altogether for not measuring up. The list was considered to be sufficiently sourced because every single item on it was considered to have
2228:
that the steps taken regarding tightening the list are sufficient to address the OR issue (by the way, if kept or projectified you might want to run the filter again as the last I heard neither freezing nor asphyxiation were particularly gory), it does not address the concern that the list violates
2179:
Another of
Knowledge (XXG)'s unconventional strengths, the list of films by use of the word "fuck", lists the films that use it the most, with a cutoff point of 100. Why 100? It's an admitted arbitrary number, but one that was agreed - by consensus - to be a point where there's indisputably a great
2171:
Though-sorting in progress, for reals this time around... Here I'm trying to vocalize (electrolize? Whatever.) what I've been bursting to say since the 12th. Unfortunately my wiki editing is currently a three-front war, which is an improvement over last week's four fronts, and I've been pegged down
2109:
translating into a non-english
Knowledge (XXG).) This is NOT a single person's or a momentary effort - I don't even want to think about how much time it'll take to look up the translation of every movie name on the list alone - it needs the list on hand. Knowledge (XXG) forks would be outdated and
1631:
balances right above a lava flow, where the air would be heated by hundreds of degrees.) For researching that, one minute on the section "burning or other extreme heat exposure" of this article is well more productive than twenty minutes of browsing articles on disaster movies without knowing where
1345:
I believe he means that every single list item has content details that are "verifiable without specialist knowledge", as policies say. More literary sources would be neat (and should be obtainable - a mistake on the editors' part. Partially mine.), but on the level of primary sources, it's sourced
1259:
then yes, they most likely do inject their viewpoint when rating films. Deciding that material of a certain type is or isn't suitable for viewing across the board by all people under a particular arbitrary age is very much the result of the injection of any number of viewpoints (viewing violence is
2184:
itself to function at all. A quote from the beginning of the definition of "reliable sources" on OR: "There is no firm definition of "reliable," although most of us have a good intuition about the meaning of the word." It then goes on to state criteria to help in defining what counts, exactly like
1469:
The information does not exist "out there somewhere". Rather, the source—a particular film itself—is clearly cited. True, you would probably have to add whereabouts in the movie you'd find the particularly "gory scene"—beginning, middle, or end. However, if you think that's not enough, the ensuing
1412:
verifiable without specialist knowledge, it's just time-consuming: All you have to do is watch hundreds of films. I'm sure you'll recognise someone being, say, drowned in liquid iron. Apart from that, there's something called division of labour (and has been ever since the neolithic I suppose), so
1975:
unencyclopaedic". As to your question, I'm not interested in gory death scenes, so I wouldn't know. People working on film articles might want to use the list as a point of reference ("A similar scene exists in ..." or whatever). Generally, once a useful (yes, WP:USEFUL) list has been compiled, I
1953:
The way I see it, the overwhelming consensus of this deletion discussion here is not only that this article ought to be deleted, but that the topic itself is irredeemably unencyclopedic, meaning it has no hope of ever being suitable for inclusion in
Knowledge (XXG). How, then, do you suppose that
2273:
for when discribed event occurs?) As for decisions of what to include/not include, I think editors do that on every article that isn't original research. Is the concept here notable? I'm sure we can find some reliable sources that discuss these types of scenes. Such sources really should be
1606:
and of action movies in general, those who'd like to learn about the prevalence of a particular dramatic technique, or look for parallels to an instance that they've seen (delayed dismemberment, for instance, is beloved among action movie watchers), or to learn about the cinematic treatment of
1149:
features a film-within-a-film where one gangster shows up at another gangster's office and, after a brief conversation, the other gangster pulls out a tommy gun and unloads the entire clip on him while laughing maniacly. The scene features no blood whatsoever, is in black-and-white, and is so
805:
What people say here over and over again is delete it because it is an indiscriminate collection of items of information. They even quote the relevant
Knowledge (XXG) policy. Now the List is even a "textbook example". However, the List of people by name is not any of the things mentioned in
507:
From what little I know of the issue, such conceptualization might be highly difficult in my native language (we have no equivalent to 'un-American', either) making me unused in thinking that way. If my language is too self-centered, I blame the difference for that too. But now we're way
1452:. The burden of proof lies is not on the reader, which means that the reader shouldn't have to go out and watch every single movie. Rather, there must be a direct citation of some reliable source calling a given scene in a given movie "gory" if you want to keep that scene on this list.
2011:
I did so the moment it was nominated. That's not the point. People who want to use the page will have difficulty finding the list there, and anyway I don't want people to mess around with my user pages. Is it so difficult to understand that I'm not arguing here on my own behalf?
256:- I should note that the two previous AfD's were both "no consensus" and therefore should not be seen as a "survival" or any kind of affirmation for this article. Also, Jamyskis, I'm afraid that the only argument you're putting in for keeping it is that "it's useful." Please see
2246:
I assumed that they were sufficient because of the whole "agreement and no objections" thing. Running the filter will likely be a good idea - heck, it's casual maintenance for
Knowledge (XXG) lists - but there are ways of making both of those things gory. Face (and not
1086:
was considered extremely graphic in its day, but is not so bad by today's standards (although, in my opinion, it is still quite brutal). Who is to say what constitutes "gory"? Regardless of how one defines it, there is no way to define "gory" without injecting one's
1156:, there's a climactic shootout between the police and the bad guys and our hero unloads on one of the principal villains. Here's a kids' movie that is rated PG with a hero who kills a villain in self-defense via "excessive gunfire." Should that go on this list? --
2209:. Though he was not under obligation to do so, it's a pity that the nominator did not use PROD or start discussion to call attention to the matter and see in detail if the article could be made to meet his standards before attempting to remove it altogether. --
1474:—a random choice—would almost have to be speedy-deleted as it seems to violate practically all Knowledge (XXG) policies (no sources, POV, original research). As I said above, it would open a Pandora's box, there'd be new deletion sprees. Personally, I'd prefer
763:- the list there is not exhaustive. Those items are the things about which consensus has been determined to have been achieved. It does not mean that nothing else can be an indiscriminate collection or that NOT#IINFO doesn't apply to other sorts of articles.
1091:, which violates Knowledge (XXG) policy. Even if we change it to "violent" or something else, we can't change the fact that this is going to be an insanely long list with films on it that often have little or nothing to do with each other. Already, we see
930:
By watching a film, how does an editor determine whether the death is suitably gory for inclusion on this list? As for relying on the "expert knowledge of those
Wikipedians who compiled the list", you do realise you've just argued in favour of deletion?
1223:" is, in several dictionaries, defined to mean "involving much bloodshed and violence", "Full of or characterized by bloodshed and violence," or variants. There's a clear, dispassionate, clinical definition, it therefore is not dependent on feelings. --
86:
81:
210:. Someone apparently has a grudge against this article, already surviving two AfDs. That said, I see what the nominator is digging at, so criteria must be established. That said, this is a useful list for people researching violence in films.
622:. The films on this list with death scenes by similar method have nothing in common with each other in terms of theme, style or genre. They don't even necessarily share much in common by way of the supposed commonality, the death scene.
410:
1693:- I hope I'm not mischaracterizing anybody's argument when I say this, but it seems like the general consensus favors deletion and the few dissenters who argue for keeping the article do so because "It's useful." However,
642:. Here's a question I don't think anyone has asked yet: What possible purpose does this list serve? I can't think of any possible reason that categorizing movies by their "gory death scene" would be useful to a reader.
2205:
acceptable primary sources, which I've discussed above. There was consensus, and the only raised objection also criticized us for covering the deaths of Jews along with the deaths of humans. In short, more wasn't done
1837:, why? Quote: "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics". The only thing the items of this list have in common is a gory scene, that's pretty loose, especially since most are not noted as being a list (e.g.
76:
2122:
Holy WP:NOT batman! Where are we going to get sources for this? We cannot just watch movies and classify them ourselves, that is original research. This is not even an encyclopedic topic, not even close.
1662:
at some length - that the article should be deleted because it's useless. When saying that it's not useful is valid grounds for deletion but saying that it is useful is to be ignored, something's wrong.
1264:
for instance) then inclusion in a category is (or can be) the injection of an editor's viewpoint. Which is why categories that are subjective or have arbitrary standards for inclusion are considered
1192:
I've always disagreed with "examples", but "not conclusive" is another thing. There's even an accepted practice for marking that. More importantly: Hnsampat, what does the top of the article say? --
1875:? And that page violates all kinds of other policies as well (original research, unsourced, POV). Who can explain those double standards to me? By the way, could we move our gory list here to
469:
it's a bad idea to list films based on one aspect of them particularly an aspect such as "gory death scene" when most films tend to either have none of them or lots of different ones. Next is
1003:
That's the easy way out, and I can't quite take it seriously. If you've run out of arguments, say so. If you haven't, please explain to me in what way I have argued in favour of deletion.
2251:) dipped in liquid nitrogen, shattered against a table, sort of thing. But this is a matter for cleanup more than AfD. And I've been getting to WP:NOT#DIR, thanks for bringing it up. --
446:. The unifying thread in all of them is a specific, well-defined breed of insanity, as opposed to a random collection of films based on one relatively minor feature within that film.
911:
is concerned, I don't believe that a mere list can ever be "original research". And what does that phrase about my commenting on "clear consensus" mean? Is that some kind of threat?
810:(List of Frequently Asked Questions, Memorial, Travel guide, Instruction manual, Internet guide, Textbook or annotated text, Lyrics database, Plot summary, Statistics). Referring to
114:
109:
693:
1456:
is the idea behind verifiability. The idea is not that the information exists "out there somewhere" and people are free to look it up and so there's no need to cite it here. --
118:
1219:" is well established: Explicit graphic violence "visually depicted, especially the realistic depiction of serious physical injuries involving blood, flesh and bone matter." "
1912:
violates Knowledge (XXG) policy or guidelines you are free to nominate it for deletion or otherwise work on it. Its existence does not justify the existence of this article.
1607:
something (such as how lasers are presented in fiction) ...quite a lot of people, really... this is not just idle theorizing, let me present a real-life example. I frequent
141:
190:
as a gory death is stretching it (It was hypothermia where the cold water gradually weakened him until he passes out, there was no blood, guts or anything "gory" in it) .
101:
2274:
consulted and listed within the article as this would help address the the WP:NOT#DIR issue, but the criteria in the intro suggests that this collection is not random. -
1382:
But it's not "verifiable without specialist knowledge" as stated above, because we have to "rely on the expert knowledge of those Wikipedians who compiled the list".
663:
1239:"inject its point of view" when it rates films? Does a contributor to Knowledge (XXG) "inject their point of view" when they add categories to articles? (See
786:
2278:
2255:
2237:
2213:
2160:
2142:
2128:
2114:
2091:
2078:
2038:
2023:
2002:
1987:
1958:
1944:
1916:
1890:
1845:
1823:
1811:
1787:
1764:
1752:
1724:
1701:
1681:
1667:
1649:
1636:
1584:
1564:
1531:
1491:
1471:
1460:
1434:
1424:
1399:
1362:
1350:
1337:
1321:
1292:
1272:
1250:
1227:
1210:
1196:
1187:
1160:
1135:
1123:
1046:
1037:
1014:
998:
976:
964:
948:
918:
891:
852:
767:
747:
731:
712:
682:
653:
634:
596:
576:
560:
548:
514:
489:
455:
433:
393:
372:
343:
316:
305:
264:
248:
223:
199:
177:
59:
907:) All you have to do is watch all those movies. Alternatively, you can rely on the expert knowledge of those Wikipedians who compiled the list. As far as
1930:
1876:
1773:
1710:
1570:
1180:
go on this list—it's up to the individual user to compare those killings and draw their own conclusions (and, by doing so, do some "original research").
1551:
examples, if such an article does not already exist. Here, the subjective and indiscriminate nature of the article makes this list unencyclopedic. —
1539:
because this list is completely trivial. The term of "gory death scene" is subject to an editor's interpretation, a violation of Knowledge (XXG)'s
626:, a lavish, big budget film about one man's experiences at the fall of the Mayan civilization, is in the "violent organ removal" section alongside
556:
Death by sword/knife will be an infinitely long list; also OR (e.g., I disagreed with some of the placements--where are the third-party refs.?).
1600:. OR and standards will be addressed in detail when I get home from work, I've been lucky to get away with even this part of my reply. (*cough*)
2189:
2034:"Irredeemably" is an awfully strong word at the best of times, not to mention when the subject in question has already survived AfD twice. --
482:
2066:
places for this material - but they are websites specifically intended to inform viewers of a film's violent content, not an encyclopedia.
1547:
list also lacks real-world context. Gory deaths in films should be explored in a prose article using outside references with specifically
1236:
1621:
laugh. One recent entry was about the unrealistic way lava and other molten substances are consistently presented unrealistically on TV -
1879:
so it remains accessible to those who want to use it or work on it? Maybe someone could even come up with a generally accepted version.
1573:
so it remains accessible to those who want to use it or work on it? Maybe someone could even come up with a generally accepted version.
1289:
380:
This is the most ridiculous list I've ever seen on Knowledge (XXG), and that's saying something. "List of films by gory death scene"?
361:. What the article needs though is a sentence or two added to the introductory paragraph clearly stating that the films mentioned are
17:
1326:
This article is the antithesis of "well sourced". There is only one source listed, and it is not referenced anywhere in the list.
814:
is probably the weakest delete argument of all, as no one is willing, or able, to explain why it applies here in the first place.
429:; half of them are featured articles. Gory death scenes are a real thing, so are we to abhor real things because they're silly? --
2269:
I don't find the concers regarding WP:V and WP:NOR to be valid, the film is the source for each claim made. (What do you want a
231:
You are welcome to check the history of the article and both previous AfDs, I have not contributed in any manner prior to today.
1480:
to any gory death scene, and I hardly ever watch such films. Maybe that's why I found reading that list very very interesting.
186:. Original research concerns, lack of a proper definition of "gory" for the list. For instance, putting Jack Dawson's death in
1740:. Many of the "keepers" are not aiming at presenting a strong argument for actually retaining the list but rather pushing for
1391:
1313:
1029:
990:
940:
883:
384:??? If that's not original research, I don't know what is. But hey, it's a funny list, and can be filed away in the attic.
335:
297:
240:
219:
169:
1737:
841:
that "the article needs a sentence or two added to the introductory paragraph clearly stating that the films mentioned are
505:? I've seen it waved around repeatedly, having spent a few weeks in policy discussion, and it's starting to get irritating.
105:
1413:
why not have others do some of the job? Are you able to verify all other articles here at Knowledge (XXG) all by yourself?
470:
206:
2152:. In the why-on-Earth-didn't-I-think-of-this-before department, how about considering renaming this to "List of films by
443:
478:
474:
2293:
97:
65:
36:
1933:
so that people interested in it can still work on it. It seems to me that such a solution would cater for all needs.
1560:
1261:
1384:
1306:
1022:
983:
933:
876:
328:
290:
233:
162:
1430:
give an impression of yourself that you might not want to give. That's how I'm reading the situation, anyway. --
1169:
1080:- First of all, there is no way to objectively define the word "gory." For instance, the shootout at the end of
781:. This is exactly where it starts getting a bit weird. I've raised the very same question before concerning the
2292:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
2198:
1445:
If I may, I would like to refer you to one of the fundamental principles of Knowledge (XXG), which is that you
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1173:
782:
414:
1143:- Since I mentioned the list of films containing "death by excessive and/or graphic gunfire," ponder this.
1998:
Feel free to copy it to your user page if you want to keep it. Just remove the categories from your copy.
1240:
1111:
2195:
1838:
406:
546:
1697:
describes quite nicely why "usefulness" is not in and of itself a valid reason to keep an article. --
1476:
627:
450:
447:
388:
385:
2075:
2071:
1105:
486:
194:
1694:
1655:
1642:
257:
1332:
648:
591:
326:
Well it would be even more indiscriminate is what I meant, as violent is much broader than gory.
215:
57:
1544:
1255:
I am not terribly familiar with the workings of the BBFC but if they operate anything like the
585:
Out of the frying pan, into the fire. "Excessive gunfire" is an entirely subjective criterion.
312:
Well, it's pretty indiscriminate as it stands, which is why it probably ought to be deleted. --
2192:
1527:
1152:
1145:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
2176:
to see this closed before what I believe to be considerably important points are considered.
1674:
1265:
619:
2105:
Here's another factor. I have initiated transwiki procedures (always wanted to say that; it
418:
2230:
2201:, use the works themselves to tell what happens in the plot. Primary sources are accepted.
2067:
1905:
1834:
1540:
1116:
1088:
811:
807:
722:
615:
611:
531:
527:
50:
1862:
1802:
1749:
426:
2181:
1602:
As for what purpose the list could serve: The list is useful for film theorists, fans of
908:
871:
862:
Before making any more comments of "clear consensus", you should be aware that consensus
157:
149:
1627:
1556:
706:
676:
191:
1608:
904:
867:
153:
2234:
2088:
1999:
1955:
1913:
1867:
1698:
1646:
1645:
to see why "usefulness" is not in and of itself a valid reason to keep an article. --
1603:
1457:
1327:
1269:
1207:
1157:
1132:
1120:
1099:
764:
643:
631:
586:
313:
261:
211:
54:
2275:
2018:
1982:
1939:
1885:
1854:
1842:
1782:
1719:
1579:
1518:
1486:
1419:
1359:
1247:
1184:
1009:
973:
961:
915:
849:
818:
369:
534:, grouping films by "gory death scenes" is trivial and indiscriminate in my book.
135:
1908:
is not a particularly compelling argument for keeping this article. If you think
903:. "The threshold for inclusion in Knowledge (XXG) is verifiability, not truth." (
2124:
1612:
1093:
1082:
535:
2252:
2210:
2157:
2111:
2035:
1954:
this topic will somehow be made suitable for Knowledge (XXG) in the future? --
1820:
1761:
1678:
1664:
1633:
1622:
1431:
1347:
1224:
1220:
1193:
1117:
Knowledge (XXG) articles are not supposed to be about loosely-connected topics
1043:
1042:
Dude, it was a honest question. There's no need to lapse from being polite. --
744:
623:
573:
511:
430:
422:
2270:
1552:
727:
700:
670:
2139:
557:
501:. Can someone please direct me to a good working definition of the word
87:
Articles for deletion/List of films by gory death scene (3rd nomination)
82:
Articles for deletion/List of films by gory death scene (2nd nomination)
2013:
1977:
1934:
1880:
1777:
1714:
1611:, which collects and catalogues conventions in visual media. The place
1574:
1481:
1414:
1356:
1244:
1181:
1004:
970:
958:
912:
846:
815:
366:
1858:
1709:
Deletion of this list is a foregone conclusion, so can we move it to
2074:
00:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC) (Comments edited by myself for civility -
1925:
Mine was no argument, whether compelling or otherwise, but a simple
1625:, the far greater danger, is ignored. (Think the way a character in
1877:
Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject_Films/List of films by gory death scene
1711:
Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject_Films/List of films by gory death scene
1641:
Your bottom line here is that "It's useful." Please take a look at
1571:
Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject_Films/List of films by gory death scene
411:
Society for the Prevention of Calling Sleeping Car Porters "George"
1841:), but as scenes from a film (most aren't notable scenes at all).
1673:
Further, it also helps the claim that the article is in line with
612:
Knowledge (XXG) is not an indiscriminate collection of information
2267:
Keep (although I'm amazed that people spend time on such a thing)
2286:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
2087:
Yet another pointless death-list. (E.g., Sopranos deaths AfD.)--
1909:
1872:
1617:
1256:
1216:
616:
Knowledge (XXG) is not a directory of loosely associated topics
2207:
because sufficient measures were considered to have been taken
1819:. Why nonsense? It's real. Film genres are dedicated to it. --
1172:). And who would believe there are people out there who find
1119:. Sorry guys, but this one's a no-brainer. It's got to go. --
789:) but didn't get any answer, and the list was deleted anyway:
610:- for all the same reasons why I nominated it the last time.
405:. We have plenty of articles on ridiculous topics. Take the
1517:
all the obsession with trivial lists of deaths in films.
260:
for why that is not a valid reason to keep an article. --
1853:. "Pretty loose"? What about the following: What does a
981:
Wait away, I'll just let your comment speak for itself.
131:
127:
123:
77:
Articles for deletion/List of films by gory death scene
49:
and OR, drop me a note and we can discuss it, or go to
483:
List of films by the name of the protagonist's pet dog
2138:
Completely unencyclopedic and worthless otherwise. --
1078:
Kill this article by "gory death scene" (i.e. Delete)
866:
overrule the fact that at present this article fails
1355:
Each of the films in the list is a separate source.
1176:"useful"? And yes, all those films mentioned above
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1772:Yes, delete it a million times, but can we first
2296:). No further edits should be made to this page.
2172:by both a full-time job and a summer exam. I'd
787:Knowledge (XXG):Deletion review/Log/2007 May 23
288:wouldn't that be particularly indiscriminate?
160:so in my opinion it's time this was deleted.
8:
1615:is fond of and which makes the producers of
620:Knowledge (XXG) articles require neutral POV
1713:(see above)? I'd do it so it doesn't hurt.
1472:List of illnesses related to poor nutrition
280:Also on further reflection, if it was just
485:, etc. Nice trivia but not encyclopedic.
692:: This debate has been included in the
662:: This debate has been included in the
1288:Well sourced and not indiscriminate. --
74:
1748:. Sourced does not mean encyclopedic.
694:list of Film and TV-related deletions
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
1746:why does it matter if it is sourced?
1670:, updated 21:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
471:List of films by sappy make-up scene
207:List of films by violent death scene
72:
1873:both mentioned in the same article
1020:while you're behind if I was you.
479:List of films by graphic sex scene
475:List of films by continuity errors
24:
2188:Articles on fiction, including a
98:List of films by gory death scene
66:List of films by gory death scene
1304:Exactly how is it well sourced?
444:Knowledge (XXG):Unusual articles
664:list of Lists-related deletions
1971:consensus that this topic is "
1290:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )
1:
1976:think it's sad to see it go.
1707:Another note to closing admin
1736:Precisely what I would call
1268:and are frequently deleted.
1170:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Spoiler
205:Keep, but perhaps change to
1861:desert have in common with
2313:
1262:Category:Chemical elements
957:No. Enlighten me, please.
2279:18:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
2256:15:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
2238:15:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
2214:15:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
2161:18:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
2143:17:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
2129:15:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
2115:22:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
2092:05:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
2079:19:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
2039:21:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
2024:15:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
2003:15:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
1988:17:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
1959:00:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
1945:23:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
1917:22:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
1891:22:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
1846:22:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
1824:21:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
1812:21:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
1788:20:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
1765:17:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
1753:16:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
1725:11:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
1702:10:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
1682:21:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
1668:12:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
1654:Thanks, but I'm aware of
1650:10:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
1637:08:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
1585:21:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
1565:14:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
1532:13:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
1492:21:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
1461:19:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
1435:10:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
1425:10:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
1400:10:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
1363:07:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
1351:07:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
1338:07:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
1322:03:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
1293:03:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
1273:10:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
1251:07:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
1228:04:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
1211:02:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
1197:00:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
1188:00:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
1161:23:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
1136:23:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
1124:23:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
1047:10:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
1038:10:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
1015:10:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
999:10:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
977:07:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
965:00:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
949:00:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
919:23:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
892:22:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
853:22:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
768:07:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
748:21:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
732:21:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
713:21:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
683:21:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
654:21:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
635:18:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
597:21:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
577:18:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
561:17:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
549:16:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
515:16:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
490:16:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
456:16:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
434:15:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
394:14:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
373:14:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
344:11:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
317:11:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
306:11:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
265:11:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
249:09:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
224:09:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
200:09:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
178:08:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
60:18:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
2289:Please do not modify it.
2097:Comment to closing admin
1174:Finnish exonyms (Sweden)
821:22:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
32:Please do not modify it.
1865:'s murder-mystery play
415:Infinite monkey theorem
2068:Knowledge (XXG) is NOT
1241:Talk:Talk Talk (novel)
1215:But it's not loaded. "
1112:Star Wars: Episode III
830:
783:List of people by name
71:AfDs for this article:
1691:Note to closing admin
812:WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE
808:WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE
796:
407:Tree That Owns Itself
1839:Nixon's Enemies List
1541:no original research
1477:When Harry Met Sally
1386:One Night In Hackney
1308:One Night In Hackney
1024:One Night In Hackney
985:One Night In Hackney
935:One Night In Hackney
878:One Night In Hackney
628:I Spit on Your Grave
330:One Night In Hackney
292:One Night In Hackney
235:One Night In Hackney
164:One Night In Hackney
158:no original research
1760:. WORKING ON IT! --
1569:Why not move it to
1346:completely. Heh. --
1106:Saving Private Ryan
1660:including yourself
1266:overcategorization
1129:Additional comment
2126:
2104:
2103:
2102:Give us the body.
1871:so that they are
1809:
1738:Overlistification
1543:policy. Such an
1450:cite your sources
1344:
837:I've pointed out
715:
697:
685:
667:
509:
197:
150:original research
2304:
2291:
2224:- even assuming
2156:death scene"? --
2125:
2101:
2100:
2021:
2016:
1985:
1980:
1942:
1937:
1888:
1883:
1835:WP:NOT#DIRECTORY
1810:
1807:
1801:
1785:
1780:
1747:
1722:
1717:
1582:
1577:
1525:
1489:
1484:
1422:
1417:
1398:
1394:
1387:
1342:
1320:
1316:
1309:
1243:as an example.)
1036:
1032:
1025:
1012:
1007:
997:
993:
986:
947:
943:
936:
890:
886:
879:
709:
703:
698:
688:
679:
673:
668:
658:
542:
539:
506:
453:
419:Toilets in Japan
391:
342:
338:
331:
304:
300:
293:
247:
243:
236:
222:
195:
176:
172:
165:
139:
121:
44:The result was
34:
2312:
2311:
2307:
2306:
2305:
2303:
2302:
2301:
2300:
2294:deletion review
2287:
2169:
2019:
2014:
1983:
1978:
1940:
1935:
1886:
1881:
1863:Agatha Christie
1806:
1803:
1800:
1783:
1778:
1745:
1720:
1715:
1580:
1575:
1519:
1487:
1482:
1420:
1415:
1397:
1392:
1385:
1383:
1336:
1319:
1314:
1307:
1305:
1035:
1030:
1023:
1021:
1010:
1005:
996:
991:
984:
982:
946:
941:
934:
932:
889:
884:
877:
875:
707:
701:
677:
671:
652:
595:
540:
537:
451:
442:Yes, I've seen
427:Exploding whale
389:
341:
336:
329:
327:
303:
298:
291:
289:
246:
241:
234:
232:
214:
175:
170:
163:
161:
112:
96:
93:
91:
69:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
2310:
2308:
2299:
2298:
2282:
2281:
2263:
2262:
2261:
2260:
2259:
2258:
2241:
2240:
2168:
2165:
2164:
2163:
2146:
2145:
2132:
2131:
2117:
2094:
2082:
2056:
2055:
2054:
2053:
2052:
2051:
2050:
2049:
2048:
2047:
2046:
2045:
2044:
2043:
2042:
2041:
2031:
2030:
2029:
2028:
2027:
2026:
2006:
2005:
1991:
1990:
1962:
1961:
1948:
1947:
1920:
1919:
1896:
1895:
1894:
1893:
1828:
1827:
1826:
1804:
1794:
1793:
1792:
1791:
1790:
1731:
1730:
1729:
1728:
1727:
1688:
1687:
1686:
1685:
1684:
1609:TV Tropes Wiki
1604:splatter films
1601:
1595:
1589:
1588:
1587:
1545:indiscriminate
1534:
1511:
1510:
1509:
1508:
1507:
1506:
1505:
1504:
1503:
1502:
1501:
1500:
1499:
1498:
1497:
1496:
1495:
1494:
1464:
1463:
1438:
1437:
1427:
1403:
1402:
1389:
1370:
1369:
1368:
1367:
1366:
1365:
1353:
1343:(editconflict)
1330:
1311:
1296:
1295:
1283:
1282:
1281:
1280:
1279:
1278:
1277:
1276:
1275:
1230:
1201:
1200:
1199:
1141:One more thing
1138:
1074:
1073:
1072:
1071:
1070:
1069:
1068:
1067:
1066:
1065:
1064:
1063:
1062:
1061:
1060:
1059:
1058:
1057:
1056:
1055:
1054:
1053:
1052:
1051:
1050:
1049:
1027:
988:
952:
951:
938:
922:
921:
895:
894:
881:
829:
828:
827:
826:
825:
824:
823:
822:
795:
794:
793:
792:
791:
790:
775:
774:
773:
772:
771:
770:
751:
750:
735:
734:
716:
686:
656:
646:
637:
604:
603:
602:
601:
600:
599:
589:
580:
579:
564:
563:
551:
520:
519:
518:
517:
493:
492:
487:Carlossuarez46
463:
462:
461:
460:
459:
458:
437:
436:
397:
396:
375:
355:
354:
353:
352:
351:
350:
349:
348:
347:
346:
333:
309:
308:
295:
284:as opposed to
270:
269:
268:
267:
251:
238:
202:
167:
146:
145:
92:
90:
89:
84:
79:
73:
70:
68:
63:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2309:
2297:
2295:
2290:
2284:
2283:
2280:
2277:
2272:
2268:
2265:
2264:
2257:
2254:
2250:
2245:
2244:
2243:
2242:
2239:
2236:
2232:
2227:
2223:
2220:
2219:
2218:
2217:
2216:
2215:
2212:
2208:
2202:
2200:
2197:
2194:
2191:
2186:
2183:
2177:
2175:
2166:
2162:
2159:
2155:
2151:
2148:
2147:
2144:
2141:
2137:
2134:
2133:
2130:
2127:
2121:
2118:
2116:
2113:
2108:
2098:
2095:
2093:
2090:
2086:
2083:
2080:
2077:
2073:
2069:
2065:
2061:
2058:
2057:
2040:
2037:
2033:
2032:
2025:
2022:
2017:
2010:
2009:
2008:
2007:
2004:
2001:
1997:
1996:
1995:
1994:
1993:
1992:
1989:
1986:
1981:
1974:
1970:
1966:
1965:
1964:
1963:
1960:
1957:
1952:
1951:
1950:
1949:
1946:
1943:
1938:
1932:
1928:
1924:
1923:
1922:
1921:
1918:
1915:
1911:
1907:
1904:
1903:
1902:
1901:
1900:
1899:
1898:
1897:
1892:
1889:
1884:
1878:
1874:
1870:
1869:
1868:The Mousetrap
1864:
1860:
1856:
1852:
1849:
1848:
1847:
1844:
1840:
1836:
1832:
1829:
1825:
1822:
1818:
1815:
1814:
1813:
1808:
1799:. Nonsense. —
1798:
1795:
1789:
1786:
1781:
1775:
1774:projectify it
1771:
1768:
1767:
1766:
1763:
1759:
1756:
1755:
1754:
1751:
1743:
1742:no consensus.
1739:
1735:
1732:
1726:
1723:
1718:
1712:
1708:
1705:
1704:
1703:
1700:
1696:
1692:
1689:
1683:
1680:
1676:
1672:
1671:
1669:
1666:
1661:
1657:
1653:
1652:
1651:
1648:
1644:
1640:
1639:
1638:
1635:
1630:
1629:
1624:
1620:
1619:
1614:
1610:
1605:
1599:
1596:
1593:
1590:
1586:
1583:
1578:
1572:
1568:
1567:
1566:
1562:
1558:
1554:
1550:
1546:
1542:
1538:
1535:
1533:
1530:
1529:
1526:
1523:
1516:
1513:
1512:
1493:
1490:
1485:
1479:
1478:
1473:
1468:
1467:
1466:
1465:
1462:
1459:
1455:
1451:
1449:
1444:
1443:
1442:
1441:
1440:
1439:
1436:
1433:
1428:
1426:
1423:
1418:
1411:
1407:
1406:
1405:
1404:
1401:
1396:
1395:
1388:
1381:
1378:
1377:
1376:
1375:
1374:
1373:
1372:
1371:
1364:
1361:
1358:
1354:
1352:
1349:
1341:
1340:
1339:
1334:
1329:
1325:
1324:
1323:
1318:
1317:
1310:
1303:
1300:
1299:
1298:
1297:
1294:
1291:
1287:
1284:
1274:
1271:
1267:
1263:
1258:
1254:
1253:
1252:
1249:
1246:
1242:
1238:
1234:
1231:
1229:
1226:
1222:
1218:
1214:
1213:
1212:
1209:
1205:
1202:
1198:
1195:
1191:
1190:
1189:
1186:
1183:
1179:
1175:
1171:
1167:
1164:
1163:
1162:
1159:
1155:
1154:
1148:
1147:
1142:
1139:
1137:
1134:
1130:
1127:
1126:
1125:
1122:
1118:
1114:
1113:
1108:
1107:
1102:
1101:
1096:
1095:
1090:
1089:point of view
1085:
1084:
1079:
1076:
1075:
1048:
1045:
1041:
1040:
1039:
1034:
1033:
1026:
1018:
1017:
1016:
1013:
1008:
1002:
1001:
1000:
995:
994:
987:
980:
979:
978:
975:
972:
968:
967:
966:
963:
960:
956:
955:
954:
953:
950:
945:
944:
937:
929:
926:
925:
924:
923:
920:
917:
914:
910:
906:
902:
899:
898:
897:
896:
893:
888:
887:
880:
873:
869:
865:
861:
858:
857:
856:
855:
854:
851:
848:
844:
840:
836:
835:
834:
833:
832:
831:
820:
817:
813:
809:
804:
803:
802:
801:
800:
799:
798:
797:
788:
784:
780:
777:
776:
769:
766:
762:
759:
758:
757:
756:
755:
754:
753:
752:
749:
746:
742:
739:
738:
737:
736:
733:
730:
729:
724:
720:
717:
714:
710:
704:
695:
691:
687:
684:
680:
674:
665:
661:
657:
655:
650:
645:
641:
638:
636:
633:
629:
625:
621:
617:
613:
609:
608:Strong delete
606:
605:
598:
593:
588:
584:
583:
582:
581:
578:
575:
571:
568:
567:
566:
565:
562:
559:
555:
552:
550:
547:
544:
543:
533:
529:
525:
522:
521:
516:
513:
504:
500:
497:
496:
495:
494:
491:
488:
484:
480:
476:
472:
468:
465:
464:
457:
454:
449:
445:
441:
440:
439:
438:
435:
432:
428:
424:
420:
416:
412:
408:
404:
401:
400:
399:
398:
395:
392:
387:
383:
379:
376:
374:
371:
368:
364:
360:
357:
356:
345:
340:
339:
332:
325:
322:
321:
320:
319:
318:
315:
311:
310:
307:
302:
301:
294:
287:
283:
279:
276:
275:
274:
273:
272:
271:
266:
263:
259:
255:
252:
250:
245:
244:
237:
230:
227:
226:
225:
221:
217:
213:
209:
208:
203:
201:
198:
193:
189:
185:
182:
181:
180:
179:
174:
173:
166:
159:
155:
154:verifiability
151:
143:
137:
133:
129:
125:
120:
116:
111:
107:
103:
99:
95:
94:
88:
85:
83:
80:
78:
75:
67:
64:
62:
61:
58:
56:
52:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
2288:
2285:
2266:
2248:
2225:
2221:
2206:
2203:
2187:
2178:
2173:
2170:
2153:
2149:
2135:
2119:
2106:
2096:
2084:
2063:
2059:
1973:irredeemably
1972:
1968:
1967:I don't see
1931:projectified
1926:
1866:
1855:nuclear test
1850:
1830:
1816:
1796:
1769:
1757:
1741:
1733:
1706:
1690:
1659:
1626:
1616:
1597:
1591:
1548:
1536:
1528:
1521:
1514:
1475:
1453:
1447:
1446:
1409:
1390:
1379:
1312:
1301:
1285:
1232:
1203:
1177:
1165:
1151:
1144:
1140:
1128:
1110:
1104:
1098:
1092:
1081:
1077:
1028:
989:
939:
927:
900:
882:
863:
859:
842:
838:
778:
760:
740:
726:
723:WP:NOT#IINFO
718:
689:
659:
639:
607:
569:
553:
536:
523:
503:encyclopedic
502:
498:
466:
402:
381:
377:
362:
358:
334:
323:
296:
285:
281:
277:
253:
239:
228:
204:
187:
183:
168:
147:
45:
43:
31:
28:
2070:the MPAA.
1734:Mega-Delete
1632:to look. --
1613:Joss Whedon
1235:. Does the
1094:Taxi Driver
1083:Taxi Driver
545:•
148:Completely
2231:WP:NOT#DIR
1833:- Easiest
1750:Bulldog123
1623:convection
1153:Dick Tracy
1146:Home Alone
624:Apocalypto
508:off-topic.
423:Pimpmobile
2271:timestamp
1744:And also
1695:WP:USEFUL
1656:WP:USEFUL
1643:WP:USEFUL
969:Waiting.
258:WP:USEFUL
192:Sjakkalle
2235:Otto4711
2226:arguendo
2199:articles
2196:featured
2089:Mike18xx
2076:Terraxos
2072:Terraxos
2000:Otto4711
1956:Hnsampat
1927:question
1914:Otto4711
1851:Question
1699:Hnsampat
1647:Hnsampat
1458:Hnsampat
1328:Zetawoof
1270:Otto4711
1233:Question
1208:Hnsampat
1158:Hnsampat
1133:Hnsampat
1121:Hnsampat
843:examples
765:Otto4711
644:Zetawoof
632:Otto4711
587:Zetawoof
363:examples
314:Hnsampat
262:Hnsampat
220:Contribs
212:Jamyskis
196:(Check!)
142:View log
2276:MrFizyx
2222:Comment
2154:graphic
2150:Comment
1857:in the
1843:Bignole
1817:Comment
1770:Comment
1758:Comment
1675:WP:LIST
1628:Volcano
1561:contrib
1380:Comment
1302:Comment
1166:Comment
928:Comment
901:Comment
860:Comment
779:Comment
761:Comment
741:Comment
570:Comment
499:Comment
448:Yechiel
403:Comment
386:Yechiel
324:Comment
282:violent
254:Comment
229:Comment
216:Whisper
188:Titanic
115:protect
110:history
2190:number
2136:Delete
2120:Delete
2085:Delete
2060:Delete
2020:F: -->
1984:F: -->
1941:F: -->
1906:WP:WAX
1887:F: -->
1859:Nevada
1831:Delete
1805:Lumber
1797:Delete
1784:F: -->
1721:F: -->
1581:F: -->
1537:Delete
1515:Delete
1488:F: -->
1421:F: -->
1360:F: -->
1248:F: -->
1185:F: -->
1109:, and
1100:Scream
1011:F: -->
974:F: -->
962:F: -->
916:F: -->
864:cannot
850:F: -->
819:F: -->
719:Delete
699:-- --
669:-- --
640:Delete
554:Delete
532:WP:NOT
528:WP:NOR
524:Delete
467:Delete
413:, the
409:, the
378:BJAODN
370:F: -->
278:Coment
184:Delete
119:delete
51:WP:DRV
46:Delete
2253:Kizor
2211:Kizor
2182:WP:OR
2167:Alamo
2158:Kizor
2112:Kizor
2107:means
2036:Kizor
2015:<K
1979:<K
1936:<K
1882:<K
1821:Kizor
1779:<K
1762:Kizor
1716:<K
1679:Kizor
1665:Kizor
1634:Kizor
1576:<K
1549:cited
1483:<K
1432:Kizor
1416:<K
1357:<K
1348:Kizor
1245:<K
1225:Kizor
1204:Reply
1194:Kizor
1182:<K
1178:could
1044:Kizor
1006:<K
971:<K
959:<K
913:<K
909:WP:OR
872:WP:OR
847:<K
816:<K
745:Kizor
711:: -->
681:: -->
574:Kizor
512:Kizor
431:Kizor
382:Hello
367:<K
136:views
128:watch
124:links
16:<
2249:head
2174:hate
1910:1952
1677:. --
1618:Lost
1598:Keep
1592:Keep
1563:) -
1557:talk
1553:Erik
1520:The
1454:That
1448:must
1286:Keep
1257:MPAA
1237:BBFC
1221:Gory
1217:Gore
905:WP:V
870:and
868:WP:V
839:here
728:Tone
708:talk
705:<
702:pb30
690:Note
678:talk
675:<
672:pb30
660:Note
618:and
614:and
530:and
526:per
425:and
359:Keep
286:gory
156:and
132:logs
106:talk
102:edit
2140:Arm
2064:are
1969:any
1408:It
1393:303
1315:303
1031:303
992:303
942:303
885:303
725:.--
696:.
666:.
558:JJL
541:yan
538:Ark
452:Man
390:Man
337:303
299:303
242:303
171:303
140:– (
55:DES
2193:of
1776:?
1663:--
1559:•
1522:JP
1410:is
1103:,
1097:,
874:.
721:,
510:--
481:,
477:,
473:,
421:,
417:,
218:,
134:|
130:|
126:|
122:|
117:|
113:|
108:|
104:|
53:.
2081:)
1555:(
1524:S
1335:)
1333:ζ
1331:(
785:(
651:)
649:ζ
647:(
594:)
592:ζ
590:(
144:)
138:)
100:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.