548:(note my emphasis) be applicable. Note that all of your examples are of the type "no commonality ... other than". Other than suggests that there is a commonality. Whether that commonality is sufficient is a different matter. You believe it's not; I believe it is. Obviously those editors who created and edited this article believe it is. You or I may not find the association interesting enough so that it isn't "loose", but that does not imply that it is an inherently loose association. Rather it is a reflection of our personal preferences. --
762:. They are associated only by the "death by violent organe removal" scene. But what does knowing that both of these films have "violent organ removal" tell us about either film or about the films in relation to each other? The former is a high-budget prestige project about the final days of the Mayan civilization. The other is a low-budget exploitation-style film about a woman avenging her rape. What kind of quality association do these films have with each other?
1115:- The article is useful for categorising and/or listing films notable for gory and cruel death scenes. This, coupled with the manner of death in question, speeds research into various modes of violence used the splatter/horror/ultra violent genre. However I agree the article needs some guidelines in the nature of what to include and where -- it is too easy to degenerate into a "cool list of splatter scenes". --
779:, in which young women are burned to death by hot wax or oil during the Victorian era, is what exactly? None. None of these films has any association with each other, from either a quantitative or a qualitative standpoint, beyond a death by a similar method, and even that one similarity in many or most cases don't even match up. No similarities, no commonalities, loose association, bad list.
881:
Categories and lists serve different purposes and are subject to different rules and guidelines. Things that would not survive as lists routinely exist as categories because of the differences in the two organizationsl systems. Citing a category tree as support for a list article, especially when the
866:
commonality. As regards your first point about the necessity of the list, I will give three replies. First, the online directors of gory deaths are indexes of deaths by movie or deaths by actress (not deaths by type, which is the case here). Second, in addition to indexes of gory deaths, there are
703:. As for my argument, they blend together, do they? I have a hard time seeing how one object can blend "together" with itself. My argument from the start has been that the association is not "loose", thus rejecting the basis of your nomination. The number of associations is not as relevant as the
574:
qualifies under the policy then it certainly does as a losse association of fictional characters who have nothing in common but mode of death. And the strength of the association has nothing to do with whether the associated items are "interesting." I have not said one word about whether this list is
891:
OK, granted, the analogy may not have been a particularly good one (I thought it applicable because the basic purpose of categories and lists is essentially the same--to organize information/entries), especially if what you say about issues of legality is true (I'm not doubting your honesty, it just
610:
I have offered a number of examples of how this is a loose association. I have offered multiple combinations of films included on the list and asked what they have in common other than a character dying a certain way. No one has offered up anything to refute the notion that the examples are anything
715:
even though the former has 5 associations versus the latter's 1. You think this association is loose? Fine, that's your personal preference. I don't consider it loose. Yes, the article needs significant improvement (specific criteria, additional information on the films, better sourcing, etc.),
483:
I think you answered your own question. The fashion of death they portray is something they have in common. Now granted, you or I may not think this association is particularly interesting, but then again, I don't find the subject of Oriel
College (FA on the main page today) particularly riveting
914:
The information for the list should be kept, but perhaps split the sections up into separate lists to get a better focus on the type of death scene. A separate intro could be included for each type of death to explain their significance in films. This list should obviously be expanded, and if it's
138:
with a result of no consensus. The article is an indscriminate collection of information along with being a repository of loosely-associated topics. The fact that a film has one or more "gory death scenes" is not sufficient to relate it to another such film. Many of the "keep"s from the last round
840:
Well, if there are so many other indexes of gory deaths on the web, this one is hardly necessary, is it? And a cursory look at a few of the things your google searches turned up doesn't seem to indicate that they are analyses of the cultural significance of gory death scenes in films. But since I
871:
which address the subject. Third, ... almost everything on
Knowledge (XXG) is taken from online sources. If we follow the principle of "why write on it if it's already on the web?", we'd need to eliminate all but a few hundred or few thousand WP articles which exclusively use book sources. --
681:
would be deleted as a loose association. Films that share no elements of plot, theme, setting, time period or style, but have in common a particular method of killing a character (but even that's not really a common feature since even within the subsets of death types there is a wide variety of
378:
Loosely-associated topics are ones which are connected through incidental similarities. Apples, fire trucks and red giant suns are all red, but beyond the coincidence of color they share no similarities which would warrant including them together on an encyclopedic list. A film about the French
600:
can only apply if it is indeed proven that this is a loose association. How can you prove it? My point is that the fact that you think it is "loose" is only your interpretation resulting, in my opinion, from your lack of interest in the association. "Interesting" is not a valid reason for
620:
You have offered multiple combinations of films that are associated only by a character dying a certain way. You asked what they have in common other than this? The simple answer is: nothing (at least that I know of)! However, this is not proof of "loose association". You are assuming
379:
Revolution has nothing in common with Friday the 13th just because both involve scenes of decapitation, but this list would lump such films together based solely on that one commonality. That is simply insufficient association between the subjects to warrant a list.
314:
the idea seems like one that could be executed within
Knowledge (XXG) standards (why not "List of films featuring death by asphyxiation"?), but when thought about further, limitless expansion becomes a problem, and it's better to just cut that off at the bud.
1062:
per all the reasons already given, plus this is a highly-detailed, information-packed, well-organized list that could not easily be replaced with a category. Gore-hounds are extremely interested in just this information, making it of cultural significance.
770:
is a science fiction/action film about
Vietnam soldiers who are cryonically frozen, mindwiped and unleashed as super-cyborgs. Where is the high-quality association between those films, despite each having a scene where a man gets fed through a woodchipper?
682:
implements and manners of death), are similarly lossely associated. I don't think it's the slightest bit unreasonable to expect that a listing of films have something more in common than a few feet of footage depicting a similar thing. We would not have
505:
other than they both have a death scene involving dismemberment (which, by the way, I question that MMPR has any "gory" death scenes at all) and this one trivial intersection makes the list an improper loose association. There is no commonality between
601:
inclusion, but "Uninteresting" is not a valid reason for deletion. If the consensus view is that the association is indeed "loose", then alright. But as long as it is the opinion of just a few editors, I think it ought to be kept and improved. --
611:
other than loosely associated. And I have not suggested either that this list is uninterested or that the level of interest in the list is a reason for deleting it. Now. Can you explain how the films listed here are not a loose association or not?
676:
before but your arguments all tend to blend together after a while. Anyway, yes, things on a list should generally have more than one thing in common to be retained here. Bananas, canaries, some diamonds and the Sun are all yellow, but
235:
Comment: To explain what I mean by "useful" I mean as an aid to navigating
Knowledge (XXG) as well as "useful" as a general directory. But holy damn what a list! If this winds up getting deleted, I hope it can be moved to Wikisource.
841:
never suggested that there wasn't interest in the topic, your point isn't really that relevant. As far as the "by birth" categories, my understanding is that they are maintined in some measure for legal reasons because of
135:
659:. There is an association/commonality between the films, which you (for whatever reason) don't like and don't seem to think is sufficient. My argument is mostly a counter to your insistence on the presence of
522:
beyond that each has a character who burns to death, making listing them together an improper loose association. Items on a list need to have more in common with each other than the items on this list do, under
807:. Does this mean that the "by birth" categories are based on a "loose association"? Of course not. You ask for sources that demonstrate the cultural significance of "gory deaths". There are plenty
457:: aids navigation and is informative in a morbid way (but who's to say there's anything wrong with that?). I don't see how categorization by form of death qualifies as "loosely-associated topics". --
754:
Fine, even if you reject the idea of the number of associations in favor of the quality, which is a mistake, the quality ofg the associations here is also poor, as I've pointed out several times.
708:
474:, set in the United States in the 1970s, other than they contain "death by violent organ removal"? The only thing that the items have in common is that a character dies in a similar fashion.
514:
other than a "death by blendering" (which, U.S. was a "wood chippering" so that's even less commonality) which makes the list an improper loose association. There is no commonality between
367:
Besides I don't share your understanding what "loosely-associated topics" are. Oddly, you seem to use this exclusively to create many requests on AfD for longstanding lists. -- User:Docu
124:
803:
is a writer and software developer based in the United
Kingdom. These people seem to share nothing in common other than that they were both born in 1979 and are both classified in
831:, and plenty of blogs and online polls about the "best" or "worst" death scenes (which usually don't count as RS's, but are an indication of cultural interest in the subject). --
97:
92:
152:
101:
819:, and you could get a lot more by using various different search terms. There is cultural interest in and plenty of publishes sources about death scenes in film. There are
84:
222:. I'm feeling torn about this one. It potentially could be useful, and it isn't an indiscriminate list in the sense that a list of pizza parlors in St. Louis would be.
173:
1139:- Possibly split, criteria would be useful too. Provides an opportunity to expand the horizons of the film viewer who looks specifically for this sort of thing.
570:
of loosely-associated topics, not an exhaustive list of them. This is a list of loosely-associated topics, and if you don't think that the association of the
1174:
1151:
1131:
1119:
1107:
1095:
1079:
1067:
1029:
1009:
991:
973:
956:
919:
896:
886:
876:
857:
835:
783:
720:
694:
667:
646:
633:
615:
605:
583:
552:
531:
488:
478:
461:
445:
429:
417:
403:
383:
357:
319:
306:
294:
267:
240:
226:
214:
183:
162:
66:
1143:
has a prominent death by explosion in it, but that's not what it's about...(how do you format a link to an article that hasn't been written yet, anyway?)
281:
gory scenes! But this is just too damn vague and overarching, potentially covering thousands of films. Per nom, an indiscriminate collection of info. --
255:
502:
947:
makes a gory scene film. With this logic every film where someone gets shot or executed is a gory scene film too, so imagine what we would get here.
399:
as an indiscriminate and subjective list unlike say pizza parlours in St. Louis which would be a non-notable list of discriminating information.
1038:
699:
My comments that attributed your arguments to a lack of "interest" on your part in the topic was my (perhaps too) subtle way of suggesting
259:
207:
625:
that "a character dying a certain way" is a loose association. That is only an assumption. Only once that assumption is accepted, is
17:
1051:
766:
is a critically-acclaimed
Academy Award-winning black comedy about a heavily pregnant sheriff investigating murder and blackmail.
544:
is for lists of loosely-associated "quotations, aphorisms, or persons", phonebooks, and business directories. Only the first one
1064:
988:
795:
relevant or significant (I disagree, however, with the idea that it is irrelevant or insiginificant). However, consider this.
789:
I hope you don't mind--I'm capitalizing the "Resetting indent" part of your comment so that it's easier to find and distinguish.
862:
I brought in the analogy to illustrate the point that two entries can be categorized/listed together even if they share only
331:. Nominator should take his other concerns to the article's talk page, unless he is only interested in deletion. -- User:Docu
88:
775:
has a scene of unnamed extras burning to death in a nuclear explosion in Kansas in the 1980s. The quality association with
687:
936:
767:
1042:
302:
To generalised. The list is already filled extremely loosly associated groups. Could be categorised per group listing.--
1189:
80:
72:
36:
683:
969:
problems this article has, since there is no possible objective standard for whether a death scene is "gory" or not.
816:
791:
I understand your points and will readily admit that the association that exists between the movies is not among the
812:
808:
1128:
932:
1188:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
202:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
700:
673:
656:
576:
263:
1171:
1103:- and couldn't there have been a better way to address what is and isn't an appropriate list about films? --
712:
678:
940:
709:
List of yellow things that are round, weigh less than 1kg, edible, and can be penetrated by a butter knife
425:
yet another "List of films with/featuring/involving/by whatever" that amounts to an indiscriminate list.
1092:
776:
290:
1026:
252:
I know it's subjective, but I like referencing; especially if I'm looking for a new horror/gore flick
1076:
804:
759:
566:
quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional)." (italics added, bold in original). These are
471:
639:
140:
952:
237:
223:
197:
1168:
338:
328:
893:
873:
832:
717:
664:
630:
602:
549:
511:
485:
458:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1088:
984:
966:
454:
1075:
I like horror movies as much as anyone, I find this list to be crufty and non-encyclopedic.
916:
282:
1164:
1160:
842:
626:
597:
541:
537:
524:
438:
1148:
1144:
796:
690:
or any other of a wide variety of unrelated loose associations and this one is no better.
442:
143:. There are also POV issues in deciding whether a film death is "gory" enough to qualify.
49:
1037:, maybe split, definitely rename to something more accurate and more encyclopedic (like
948:
915:
split up, it will be easier to focus on adding films on each individual death scene. --
412:
629:
applicable. However, I dispute that assumption, and thus think it should be kept. --
1104:
1006:
970:
883:
854:
780:
772:
691:
643:
612:
580:
528:
515:
498:
475:
380:
354:
180:
159:
1116:
763:
828:
118:
983:
using some logic in including entries does not automatically make for incurable
426:
316:
303:
1127:- The information is useful, e.g., for someone researching violence in movies.
1001:- Why do you keep trying to drag other articles and lists into this when it is
882:
category tree may be maintained for specific legal reasons, is a poor analogy.
892:
is obvious from your comment that you yourself are not entirely certain). --
800:
755:
507:
467:
493:
Yes, the manner of death of a character is what they have in common. That is
944:
987:
problems, as the same could be said for pretty much ANY list or category.
400:
663:
commonalities between films to establish a "non-loose" association. --
824:
519:
716:
but I disagree that the concept itself is fundamentally flawed. --
327:
list content correspond to definition of scope. List in line with
1182:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
470:, a film set in the closing days of the Mayan civilization, and
845:. But of course you know that the existence of that series of
1163:
and the subjective nature of the criterion (gory? that'll be
820:
362:
I respect your opinion on this even if I disagree with you.
353:, then conformity with the list guidelines is irrelevant.
849:
has absolutely nothing to do with the existence of this
1039:
List of films categorized by unnatural methods of death
114:
110:
106:
411:
There is no set criteria. "Gory" may be subjective. --
497:
they have in common. There is no commonality between
1091:. Gory death scenes are sufficient commonality. -
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
561:Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics
1192:). No further edits should be made to this page.
484:(no offense to the editors of that article). --
672:Actually I don't think you said anything about
466:What is the relationship between, for example,
853:so I'm not sure why you even brought them up.
536:You are taking a very broad interpretation of
8:
638:Which frankly strikes me as a variation of
592:notice the wording and that's why I wrote "
503:Mighty Morphin' Power Rangers: The Movie
172:: This debate has been included in the
151:: This debate has been included in the
1025:With a cleanup and proper guidelines.--
829:articles about disturbing deaths scenes
579:is not a valid argument for inclusion.
688:List of films that show bunny rabbits
153:list of Film and TV-related deletions
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
1005:article that is under discussion?
799:is a Gabonese football attacker.
24:
965:Which demonstrates the incurable
931:. I don't see how crucifixion in
443:Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens
81:List of films by gory death scene
73:List of films by gory death scene
684:List of films with shoes in them
596:" above instead of "doesn't".
174:list of Lists-related deletions
821:directories of deaths in films
1:
1132:21:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
1120:05:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
1108:21:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
1096:01:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
1080:18:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
1068:18:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
1056:12:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
1030:08:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
1010:22:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
992:04:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
974:23:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
957:08:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
937:The Last Temptation of Christ
920:05:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
897:04:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
887:03:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
877:02:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
858:01:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
836:00:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
784:23:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
721:19:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
695:19:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
668:19:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
655:strikes me as a variation of
647:15:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
634:02:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
616:00:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
606:00:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
584:23:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
553:23:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
532:21:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
489:20:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
479:22:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
462:21:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
446:21:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
430:18:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
418:18:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
404:11:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
384:17:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
358:07:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
320:07:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
307:06:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
295:06:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
268:06:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
227:06:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
215:05:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
184:22:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
163:22:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
1147:18:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)--
1065:Mermaid from the Baltic Sea
989:Mermaid from the Baltic Sea
711:is not an improvement over
651:As I have commented above,
1209:
349:of a list violates actual
134:the article was nominated
1175:19:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
1152:18:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
933:The Passion of the Christ
241:03:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
67:02:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
1185:Please do not modify it.
707:of the association(s).
575:"interesting" or not as
32:Please do not modify it.
941:Jesus Christ Superstar
559:The exact wording is "
777:Young Sherlock Holmes
713:List of yellow things
679:List of yellow things
258:comment was added by
912:Keep, possibly split
805:Category:1979 births
760:I Spit on Your Grave
472:I Spit on Your Grave
453:. This list meets
139:were variations on
955:
790:
768:Universal Soldier
752:Resetting indent.
512:Universal Soldier
345:of lists. If the
271:
186:
177:
165:
156:
1200:
1187:
1093:Peregrine Fisher
1049:
951:
788:
415:
286:
253:
210:
205:
200:
178:
168:
157:
147:
122:
104:
64:
58:
54:
34:
1208:
1207:
1203:
1202:
1201:
1199:
1198:
1197:
1196:
1190:deletion review
1183:
1167:right enough).
1165:WP:ATTributable
1077:Liberal Classic
1043:
797:Henry Antchouet
413:
341:deals with the
293:
284:
254:—The preceding
208:
203:
198:
136:once previously
95:
79:
76:
60:
56:
50:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1206:
1204:
1195:
1194:
1178:
1177:
1169:Angus McLellan
1154:
1134:
1122:
1110:
1098:
1082:
1070:
1057:
1032:
1019:
1018:
1017:
1016:
1015:
1014:
1013:
1012:
977:
976:
960:
959:
929:strong cleanup
922:
909:
908:
907:
906:
905:
904:
903:
902:
901:
900:
899:
749:
748:
747:
746:
745:
744:
743:
742:
741:
740:
739:
738:
737:
736:
735:
734:
733:
732:
731:
730:
729:
728:
727:
726:
725:
724:
723:
701:WP:IDONTLIKEIT
674:WP:IDONTLIKEIT
657:WP:IDONTLIKEIT
653:your arguments
577:WP:INTERESTING
448:
432:
420:
406:
393:
392:
391:
390:
389:
388:
387:
386:
371:
370:
369:
368:
364:
363:
333:
332:
322:
309:
297:
289:
272:
260:66.253.171.226
246:
245:
244:
243:
238:Crypticfirefly
230:
229:
224:Crypticfirefly
217:
188:
187:
166:
129:
128:
75:
70:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1205:
1193:
1191:
1186:
1180:
1179:
1176:
1173:
1170:
1166:
1162:
1158:
1155:
1153:
1150:
1146:
1142:
1138:
1135:
1133:
1130:
1126:
1123:
1121:
1118:
1114:
1111:
1109:
1106:
1102:
1099:
1097:
1094:
1090:
1086:
1083:
1081:
1078:
1074:
1071:
1069:
1066:
1061:
1058:
1055:
1054:
1050:
1048:
1047:
1040:
1036:
1033:
1031:
1028:
1024:
1021:
1020:
1011:
1008:
1004:
1000:
997:
996:
995:
994:
993:
990:
986:
982:
979:
978:
975:
972:
968:
964:
963:
962:
961:
958:
954:
950:
946:
942:
938:
934:
930:
926:
923:
921:
918:
913:
910:
898:
895:
890:
889:
888:
885:
880:
879:
878:
875:
870:
865:
861:
860:
859:
856:
852:
848:
844:
839:
838:
837:
834:
830:
826:
825:more than one
822:
818:
814:
810:
806:
802:
798:
794:
787:
786:
785:
782:
778:
774:
773:The Day After
769:
765:
761:
757:
753:
750:
722:
719:
714:
710:
706:
702:
698:
697:
696:
693:
689:
685:
680:
675:
671:
670:
669:
666:
662:
658:
654:
650:
649:
648:
645:
641:
637:
636:
635:
632:
628:
624:
619:
618:
617:
614:
609:
608:
607:
604:
599:
595:
591:
587:
586:
585:
582:
578:
573:
569:
565:
562:
558:
557:
556:
555:
554:
551:
547:
543:
539:
535:
534:
533:
530:
526:
521:
517:
516:The Day After
513:
509:
504:
500:
499:The Evil Dead
496:
492:
491:
490:
487:
482:
481:
480:
477:
473:
469:
465:
464:
463:
460:
456:
452:
449:
447:
444:
440:
436:
433:
431:
428:
424:
421:
419:
416:
414:† Ðy§ep§ion †
410:
407:
405:
402:
398:
395:
394:
385:
382:
377:
376:
375:
374:
373:
372:
366:
365:
361:
360:
359:
356:
352:
348:
344:
340:
337:
336:
335:
334:
330:
326:
323:
321:
318:
313:
310:
308:
305:
301:
298:
296:
292:
288:
287:
280:
276:
273:
269:
265:
261:
257:
251:
248:
247:
242:
239:
234:
233:
232:
231:
228:
225:
221:
218:
216:
213:
212:
211:
206:
201:
193:
190:
189:
185:
182:
175:
171:
167:
164:
161:
154:
150:
146:
145:
144:
142:
137:
133:
126:
120:
116:
112:
108:
103:
99:
94:
90:
86:
82:
78:
77:
74:
71:
69:
68:
65:
63:
59:
53:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1184:
1181:
1161:WP:NOT#IINFO
1156:
1141:Executioners
1140:
1136:
1124:
1112:
1100:
1084:
1072:
1059:
1052:
1045:
1044:
1034:
1027:Tenka Muteki
1022:
1002:
998:
980:
928:
924:
911:
894:Black Falcon
874:Black Falcon
868:
863:
850:
846:
833:Black Falcon
792:
751:
718:Black Falcon
704:
665:Black Falcon
661:at least two
660:
652:
631:Black Falcon
622:
603:Black Falcon
593:
589:
571:
567:
563:
560:
550:Black Falcon
545:
494:
486:Black Falcon
459:Black Falcon
450:
437:per nom and
434:
422:
408:
396:
350:
346:
342:
324:
311:
299:
283:
278:
274:
249:
219:
199:bibliomaniac
196:
195:
191:
169:
148:
131:
130:
61:
55:
51:
46:no consensus
45:
43:
31:
28:
1060:Strong Keep
1023:Strong Keep
917:Nehrams2020
1149:Cmdr Spock
1145:Cmdr Spock
847:categories
801:Jono Bacon
756:Apocalypto
640:WP:ILIKEIT
627:WP:NOT#DIR
598:WP:NOT#DIR
542:WP:NOT#DIR
538:WP:NOT#DIR
525:WP:NOT#DIR
508:Gremlins 2
468:Apocalypto
291:Talk to me
141:WP:ILIKEIT
949:Hoverfish
945:Spartacus
220:Weak keep
194:per nom.
1129:Argyrios
1105:JayHenry
1007:Otto4711
971:Otto4711
884:Otto4711
869:articles
855:Otto4711
781:Otto4711
692:Otto4711
644:Otto4711
623:a priori
613:Otto4711
581:Otto4711
568:examples
529:Otto4711
476:Otto4711
381:Otto4711
355:Otto4711
339:WP:LISTS
329:WP:LISTS
256:unsigned
181:SkierRMH
160:SkierRMH
125:View log
1117:Jquarry
1089:WP:LIST
999:Comment
985:WP:NPOV
981:Comment
967:WP:NPOV
851:article
564:such as
455:WP:LIST
347:content
98:protect
93:history
1172:(Talk)
1157:Delete
1087:- per
1073:Delete
1046:bd2412
843:WP:BLP
815:, and
705:nature
520:Jaws 2
439:WP:NOT
435:delete
427:Arkyan
423:Delete
409:Delete
397:Delete
351:policy
317:JuJube
312:Delete
304:Dacium
300:Delete
277:And I
275:Delete
192:Delete
132:Delete
102:delete
764:Fargo
594:might
572:films
546:might
119:views
111:watch
107:links
16:<
1159:per
1137:Keep
1125:Keep
1113:Keep
1101:Keep
1085:Keep
1035:Keep
1003:this
953:Talk
927:but
925:Keep
817:here
813:here
809:here
793:most
758:and
518:and
510:and
501:and
451:Keep
343:form
325:Keep
279:like
264:talk
250:Keep
170:Note
149:Note
115:logs
89:talk
85:edit
52:Buck
1041:).
864:one
827:),
686:or
590:did
540:.
495:all
401:MLA
285:Pig
179:--
176:.
158:--
155:.
123:– (
62:ofg
57:ets
943:,
939:,
935:,
811:,
642:.
588:I
527:.
441:.
266:)
117:|
113:|
109:|
105:|
100:|
96:|
91:|
87:|
48:.
1053:T
823:(
270:.
262:(
209:5
204:1
127:)
121:)
83:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.