2053:- This AfD will be open for a week, barring a hasty close. It's pretty clear that the majority opinion is that the article should not exist, at least not in its current form. 404, i'd like to work with you to bring it up to a higher standard. This will necessitate culling many of the items in the list as they now stand, and finding sources that attest to the notability of others. I'd like the closing admin to consider the article in its final state, rather than its current one, when judging the rationales given above.
1783:, and your plea for reddit users to come stack this discussion took the form of "Help! Cranky Knowledge (XXG) editor trolls are trying to destroy good clean fun!". None the less— there is nothing about "internet rights" to even discuss here. Don't fall for the drivel pushed out by worthless "news" organizations on slow news days. This kind of information exists all over Knowledge (XXG) in the appropriate articles already, and there is absolutely no danger of any of it being removed.
2419:). Referencing items to some kind of relevant review is just an attempt to avoid the OR tag, and is not going to work because there is no established procedure in the arts for assessing plot twists: someone will write an article and comment on a plot simply to fill space, so some plots could be included or excluded purely by chance. Lists should be restricted to those with at least a hope of objective inclusion criteria (for example, winners of a particular award).
1225:, as stated above— it's an indiscriminate list in that there isn't an objective criteria for inclusion which doesn't span practically all fiction. The useful purposes of this article could be better addressed using a category or a collection of categories (E.g. "Films with surprise endings"). To whatever extent a useful, well cited, objectively selected article of this kind could exist it wouldn't benefit from this article as a starting point. --
2015:. There are many spoilers that have become notable in their own right, meaning they have been the subject of discussion in reputable media apart from general discussion of the film/novel/whatever. That's not indiscriminate. The Mousetrap spoiler is the great example. You could probably write a well-sourced article just on that spoiler and the controversy over it. I say merge because with such a criterion, the list might actually be
1539:. Changing my vote based on the progress the article has made. I can see how this could become a useful, encyclopedic source of information, but I also fear it would be a constant, neverending duel between the "only independently notable, cited examples" people and the "everyone knows about it, so it's notable!" people. In the past 24 hours, that battle has already started shaping up, and given that I think the purpose could
1787:
make for a good justification. If this was the only way that 'spoilers' existed in
Knowledge (XXG), I might argue that it simply isn't worth having them at all. I'd suggest taking this article to TV Tropes since it already imitates their organizational style far more than it does Knowledge (XXG)'s— but really the writing there is far better than this article is, or really, better than it could ever hope to be. --
1090:- There is a need for some people to peruse all notable spoilers in a single repository. It is quite unreasonable to create a "spoiler" section on every single Knowledge (XXG) article, nor is it reasonable to create a spoiler page for each article. As compiling this list would be a monumental task and would take the efforts of many researchers, there is no better place for this than with Knowledge (XXG).
69:
2036:- Even ignoring the fact that this list could potentially stretch on forever, this particular article serves no purpose besides aggregating individual unrelated plot twists that would make more sense to be listed on their own pages. There are a ridiculous number of plot twists in each book on its own, in addition to the major plot twist. Leave the plot twists on their own pages. --
1420:, stupid as this sounds, just research the internet. You haven't given people the chance to flesh out the article with citations yet. As for proof, just go to Google.com, start typing "List of spoilers" or "List of plot twists" and you will see that Google will try to autocomplete those phrases for you. That means many people are looking precisely for this list.
1462:, it was not created as an article as far as I can tell… and even if it were, that would have been an obvious mistake. It's not article material, it's Knowledge (XXG) navel gazing though amusing wikipedia navel gazing. Perhaps you should spend a little more time getting to know Knowledge (XXG) before you begin with the all-caps bold-text assertions? --
1651:- how about this as an objective value of significance/notability? "Some of these plot twists have been referenced so much that they have become in themselves accepted terms or memes, and have become part of pop culture." The fact that a number of these plot twists have become part of culture is proof of their significance and notability.
2394:. There is some commonality and overlap among the listings. Such published selective listings of particularly annoying spoilers, wherein a literary killjoy gives away the silly plot twists and "SHOCKING ENDINGS" that motivate a certain mediocre genre of play, book or movie, support this article. (edited after finding some such listings)
2164:
clearly indicates that spoilers and/or plot twists may have great notability, and so this article adds value by assisting readers in navigation to these cases, if they don't mind the risk. If particular entries are unsatisfactory then they may be dealt with by ordinary editing and deletion would be unhelpful and contrary to our
1566:. At present, this is attempting to be "a list of everything that has ever existed" within a large realm. There's clearly no effort to constrain this to a specific notable subset; this is a bunch of people submitting witty comments about a random bunch of movies. There's no point in trying to salvage this. --
1068:
The issue is not that I'm too lazy to "do it myself", it's that a lot of what is entering into the article is at worst a fabrication, at best a joke, and it needs to be removed completely. If I was lazy I wouldn't be addressing the issue by contributing here and elsewhere; I'd just be ignoring it. --
1067:
What is my problem is that this article continues getting expanded with increasingly irrelevant entries while your promise of taking care of the citations of the article is increasingly broken. It is every
Wikipedian's responsibility to ensure that everything on Knowledge (XXG) is properly sourced.
783:
I din't suggest merely wikifying. If you think that the subject matter would be better treated as a "list of notable spoilers", then let's rename and adjust the list accordingly. Deleting a two hour-old article by a newcomer when there is salvageable content in it strikes me as bitey and counter to
2252:
I doubt anyone disagrees that some plot twists are notable on their own, but why isn't the response to that a discussion about them in the articles you mentioned? What informative value does a great big list offer when those articles exists and provide a framework for a comprehensive discussion of
1786:
If anything this list does a disservice to the most compelling argument related to "spoilers": that we can't have a complete encyclopaedia coverage of a subject without divulging these critical details. By failing to be especially informative, encyclopaedic, or even accurate this lulzy list doesn't
2163:
There's a technical difficulty here. I started reading the article then realised that it was going to spoil works which I have not read or viewed yet. This makes it difficult to improve the article within the timescale of AFD - one has to approach the matter indirectly. The recent
Mousetrap case
1326:
should be deleted. How was that article different from "a list of trivia"? As mentioned before, there is a need to list down notable plot twists in a single repository. For people looking for this kind of data, it would be difficult to scour every single article for plot twists. This entry would be
906:
404, while I agree that the list has value, some of the items on it will need to come off. Only those which can be reliably sourced as being "notable" would be able to stay. Thus, "Snape kills
Dumbledore" would be notable because of the coverage it has received in mainstream press, while some of
730:
spoilers and covered spoilers which have received some notoreity of their own. For example, the fact that Vader is Luke's father, and the twist to The Sixth Sense have probably received enough independent coverage to be seen as 'famous spoilers'. Even then, though, they would be better off simply
2649:
All these presently here can certainly be sourced by secondary sources not just as being plot elements, but as being notable surprise endings. A few dozen more could easily be added. If it becomes a few hundred, no harm will be done, as long as they are properly referenced-- NOT PAPER. It is a
48:. For those who are tallying !votes, there were slightly more !deletes than !keeps, but a fairly even split with more than 30 persons expressing their view of what an online encyclopedia should or should not contain. Everyone is to be commended for conducting this as a very civil discussion.
2071:
The current article is definitely improved. That article in 'TheAge' is exactly the kind of source that is needed if this concept is ever to work. My concern remains that this kind of source is hard to find, and most editors will not bother, meaning this article will either stay very short and
1803:
Actually, 404 didn't make the "plea" you reference, I did. When I first saw the article, I thought it was jocular, but that there was salvageable content. Deleting it simply because it does not, in its current form, conform to our standards seemed to me, and still does, to be short-sighted.
2144:
has a very clear and definite scope and criteria, and is a list recorded by an recognised authority. This article does not have a clear and definite scope (what defines a twist?), the criteria for inclusion appears to be entirely POV (what makes a twist notable?), and there is no recognised
2228:. Some plot twists (and spoilers about them) are not just relevant in the context of the movie/whatever that contains them, but are also notable on their own just for being a remarkable plot twist, with reliable sources and references in popular culture. We could merge this list into
677:
This page is an attempt to list the most significant & notable spoilers in media, literature & history. It is not an indiscriminate list, nor is it random. Such an article deserves existence, and if there are things wrong with the list, it can be remedied by proper editing.
2097:
on principle - potentially endless list even if confined to cinema, but especially impossible if you do what it says and include twists from 19th, 20th, 21st century literature, computer games, comic books, an other "various media". At best, you could Merge the existing with
1972:
I don't know. While that would be a marked improvement, I still think the overall list would suffer from POV issues, scope, etc. I find myself more compelled by the argument that the information belongs in the relevant article about that work, such as the movie or book.
1010:
Benvewikilerim, you would do your case more good if you could avoid adding joke entries. IMHO, this only serves to reinforce my feeling that making this article useful, and then keeping it useful, well-sourced and vandalism-free is going to be well-nigh impossible.
1518:. This could be a very useful starting point for a (set of) category(ies) encompassing these topics, but as an article it lacks any coherent criteria for inclusion, is almost entirely uncited, and seems to be focused on lulzy wording rather than encyclopedic info.
2300:
I think this article is notable and has encyclopedic qualities. Here is your criteria: the fiction work is notable as it has its own article and more than one reliable source labels it as a spoiler. Categories are great as well to provide improved navigation per
1032:- "List of notable plot twists" is not a useful encyclopedia article. It sounds like a bad "In popular culture" section expanded to fill an entire article. And each list entry would have to be cited with a source showing its notability. Not worth it. --
2545:
Not sure what real value this has, and its also a huge spoiler space. But at the saem time its not more trivial then a lot of silly lists. I think I lean towards delete but only becasue this seems to be a list of massive spoilers that has no eclyclopedic
2357:, for example, is cited often in popular culture and probably references can be found. The article needs a lot of cleanup and referencing, but in the end seems to me a valuable list. Inclusion criteria can be tailored in the article talk page. --
2510:
It is disappointing when people blather about "It is all original research" and ignore the citations I provided above showing reliable sources with listings of notable spoilers, which can be used to support the commonly listed notable spoilers.
1165:
Agreed. Some of the items on this list (the snape kills dumbledore affair, for instance) are clearly spoilers, whereas others are plot twists. The two should be in separate lists/articles, should those individual articles merit creation.
632:
Is that a serious comment? "Knowledge (XXG) is not an indiscriminate collection of information" _Maybe_ even thoguh it's not listed as an example. We're not defining spoilers, we're listing spoilers. 00:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
1476:
Why should I spend my time researching something that you already claim to know the answer to? You claim that people have a use for this, but can't point to anything except a vague "search the internet." Google auto-completes
382:
272:
2650:
perfectly reasonable function of an encyclopedia to provide this material.If someone wishes to prepare such a list without giving away the ending, that's fine too, but it wouldn't belong on
Knowledge (XXG).
1110:
Note: Even though this "isn't a vote", you still can't !vote twice. If your comment is in response to someone, simply reply underneath their comment. If it's a general comment, just preface it with
907:
the others may not. A stylistic rewrite is in order, but I see this article as a good-faith creation, that has some value to the project and could be turned into an article that meets our standards.
2072:
incomplete or (more likely) slowly revert to being full of jokes, nonsense and a potentially infinite list of plot twists with no meaningful sources. My current preference would still be to simply
749:
Funny you should say that, because this is terribly unencyclopedic. An article like "List of significant plot twists" might be good but not this. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 14:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
703:. The article in its current form may have problems, but that's no reason to delete it. The topic is fairly encyclopedic as far as lists are concerned, and makes for a good, concise reference.
1720:
If this is the case, then you need to demonstrate it through reliable, independent sources. This would be a better use of your time than continuing to add yet more unsourced examples. --
1609:(just a lulzy kindof non-encyclopedic romp), without prejudice to it being recreated in proper tone with appropriate sources to support each plot twist that is asserted to be notable. –
2436:- this is definitely delete case per trivia and it is indiscriminate as of now, and unless someone does some huge expansion from reliable sources without OR, this needs to be deleted,
2267:
It is my honest belief that there is a need for a centralized repository/catalogue of this kind of content and said repository page will outgrow those two articles above mentioned by
376:
227:
76:
718:
A 'spoiler' is really just a significant plot detail , so this article is no more than a potentially infinite list of indiscriminate plot details which, I firmly believe, breaches
1850:. I stand by my initial statement— that this probably ought to just be a (set of) categor(y|ies). You've yet to suggest why you think that wouldn't be a reasonable solution. --
1754:
1180:
Indeed, and to further clarify what I was driving at, revealing a plot twist to someone who wasn't aware is almost always a spoiler, but a spoiler is not always a plot twist. –
852:
of poorly sourced information. If this page does remain after the AfD then I strongly feel that no 'twist' should appear without a decent source establishing the notability of
266:
2076:(e.g. 'Films with notable plot twists') and then establish the notability of the twist on the film page itself. However, I guess I'm open to being convinced otherwise. --
1820:
It's all a matter of proper writing style and citation then. Give the article time to be fleshed out. It's not easy to finish it in the span of a few hours, you know.
433:
Please do not delete this article. These spoilers are very significant spoilers. I've just started the article, so bear with me, still editing it to be a good article.
2389:
2567:. Doesn't that have many of the exact same issues for Keep/Delete comments being discussed here? I think list of notable plot twists has mostly the same problems as
1299:- Almost every work of fiction has some detail that could be considered a "plot twist", otherwise it would be boring and predictable. This is just a list of trivia.
816:
I know you don't like the article. You nom'd it after 28 minutes of existence and 12 edits. I think we should give it time and energy, flesh it out and improve it.
798:
I wasn't clear, I realise. If this was treated as a "list of notable spoilers" then I would see more justification for it, but I would still propose merging it with
321:
316:
1585:
325:
1873:(i.e. all entries reliable sourced inline, in encyclopedic tone, to a source that spoke to the notability of the twist itself) then I would change my position. –
1362:
page outside of the main namespace. Knowledge (XXG) internal amusement and navigational aids are not subject to the same criteria as encyclopedia articles. --
2279:. Moreover, it would serve as a very useful reference in the future for people doing research on the subject, and will be a big help for future generations.
308:
2124:
which has about 200,000 entries. It is our policy that we are not paper nor do we have a deadline and so there is no limit to our ambition in principle.
1520:
The article and its reddit post were mentioned on IRC, which is how I found the article and its AFD, but no one has asked/told me to vote in any way here.
1907:. Unmaintainable list that could go into the thousands of entries. Uncited. Unclear criteria for inclusion (what makes a twist "notable"??). Essentially
1765:
for example. So really, there is more to the creation of this article than just internet lulz and is also about internet rights. What do you guys think?
1888:
Agree with Xeno - if it looked like the page xe links, this article would have a fighting chance to be encyclopedic, useful information worth keeping.
1265:, a useful addition to the topic of plot twists. Also, as the article has been renamed, half the comments here (for or againsst) are no longer valid. —
232:
1990:
where lots of IP users keep removing sourced info and adding unsourced info, I fear this has no chance of actually meeting guidelines. It should go.
769:
Just 'Wikifying' this isn't going to make it an article worth keeping. I don't see what there is to 'fix'. My proposed solution is to delete it. --
1781:
834:'s suggestion. Better? This page would probably be need to be split up into individual pages for the sub-categories as the content fills up.
2578:
1390:. Most of these facts of yours have no basis. How is there a need? Where is the demand for it? Who are these people looking for this data?
533:
200:
195:
397:
85:
2186:
Your problem would be solved by the suggestion to make this a category, and this would still assist readers in navigating to these cases
1759:
The family of Agatha
Christie has criticised Knowledge (XXG) for revealing the ending of The Mousetrap, the world’s longest running play.
466:
364:
204:
2525:
Indeed, I'm quite confused as to how providing a citation that identifies a plot twist as noteworthy is considered original research. –
115:
1205:
640:
1386:
isn't an article. Its a link to a list in the
Knowledge (XXG) namespace. The redirect probably should be deleted as an inappropriate
1327:
an invaluable resource. There is no better way to create such an article/repository than with
Knowledge (XXG) and its contributors.
415:
List of trivia. If these spoilers are notable in some way, they would be better covered in the relevent film/book/game/etc. article.
17:
655:
which you proudly brandish in your personal user page deserving of a
Knowledge (XXG) entry when it is simply a directory of people (
187:
1460:
529:
1053:
That's not your problem. If you don't want to do it yourself, then let the people contributing to the article take care of that.
1836:
1667:
1343:
287:
2600:
1847:
It isn't "all a matter of proper writing style and citation", though the improvement of that isn't helped by your edit warring
358:
254:
101:
510:
1439:
1359:
755:. An article by a newcomer being not up to wikipedia standards is no reason to delete it. Just wikify and improve it.
354:
2663:
2490:
Other than that it's got one of the better-known and well-regarded plot twists (and plots, generally) of video games? –
969:. Where is the line? There are so many spoilers in any form of entertainment that it'd be impossible to list them all.
36:
312:
304:
2412:
871:
849:
2568:
2564:
501:
is a redirect out of articlespace. And too many of those are either subjective or the result of original research.
404:
1543:
be served almost as well by a set of categories, I'm not sure if keeping the article would end up being worth it.
652:
248:
74:
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
2415:. No criteria are available to determine what plots should be listed here, apart from polling among editors (aka
1278:
FWIW, even at the time you wrote the above a significant super-majority of the comments here were post-rename. --
147:
2662:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
2173:
2129:
1995:
1978:
1951:
If each entry were reliably sourced (and a source that spoke to the notability of the twist), would it be ok? –
1942:
1435:
1383:
1355:
1323:
997:
506:
498:
479:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
2641:
2612:
2586:
2582:
2555:
2535:
2520:
2500:
2485:
2468:
2445:
2428:
2403:
2371:
2335:
2314:
2288:
2262:
2245:
2214:
2199:
2177:
2151:
2133:
2111:
2085:
2062:
2045:
2028:
1999:
1982:
1961:
1946:
1917:
1897:
1883:
1859:
1840:
1813:
1796:
1774:
1729:
1715:
1695:
1671:
1641:
1619:
1600:
1575:
1552:
1530:
1495:
1471:
1451:
1429:
1404:
1371:
1347:
1313:
1287:
1269:
1257:
1234:
1217:
1190:
1175:
1154:
1127:
1099:
1076:
1062:
1040:
1020:
1001:
980:
957:
939:
916:
883:
865:
843:
825:
811:
793:
778:
764:
744:
687:
672:
627:
606:
580:
566:
541:
537:
514:
491:
472:
442:
424:
52:
2453:- I more or less agree with Johnuniq. The list is indiscriminate and relies upon editors' original research.
1762:
244:
1893:
1548:
1526:
1213:
975:
461:
2574:
1824:
1655:
1331:
874:
at all. There is a need to compile a list of these. Will add article citations to remedy this. Acceptable?
636:
554:
191:
131:
105:
2608:
2551:
2476:, trivia, wobbly inclusion criteria. Is there anything particularly notable about the plot of "Bioshock"?
2331:
644:
1991:
1974:
1938:
1908:
802:. Actually, even a merge seems unecessary as I can find no useful/salvageable content in this article. --
656:
615:
370:
90:
2141:
2121:
2058:
1809:
1171:
1123:
912:
821:
789:
760:
708:
294:
2386:
2165:
1204:, indiscriminate list. Who says "most notable" about these? Doubt it could ever be more than an essay.
1571:
2636:
2628:
exists, I'm not sure why anyone would want to list all of them outside of their respective articles.
2107:
2625:
1208:
has strong criteria for inclusion -- I can't see how you would come up with similar criteria here.--
752:
2310:
2284:
2169:
2125:
1832:
1770:
1711:
1663:
1447:
1425:
1339:
1095:
1058:
993:
953:
879:
839:
683:
668:
602:
576:
487:
438:
390:
280:
2383:
870:
These are the most discussed plot twists in the entirety of the internet. These do not fall under
2481:
2424:
2369:
2353:
2258:
2195:
2081:
1889:
1855:
1792:
1725:
1544:
1522:
1486:
1467:
1395:
1378:
1367:
1304:
1283:
1230:
1209:
1016:
970:
861:
807:
774:
740:
623:
562:
456:
420:
137:
68:
1136:
As a point of order, a 'spoiler' is when someone reveals a plot twist. There's not many notable
2604:
2547:
2327:
2209:
2146:
2041:
1912:
1631:(each entry sourced to a reliable source that speaks to the notability of the twist itself). –
1596:
260:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1481:, some of it pure nonsense, that's not even close to an indication of importance or utility.
2516:
2441:
2399:
2241:
2054:
1805:
1250:
1167:
1119:
908:
817:
785:
756:
704:
183:
58:
2302:
1926:
1563:
1416:. Give this article entry time, it's just a few hours old and hasn't been fleshed out yet.
1387:
719:
660:
594:
525:
451:
2630:
2276:
2233:
2103:
2099:
2012:
1780:
If so, I think it's funny that that mention of The
Mousetrap wasn't added until much later
1742:
799:
732:
2416:
1934:
1930:
2533:
2498:
2461:
2306:
2280:
2023:
1959:
1881:
1828:
1766:
1707:
1693:
1659:
1639:
1617:
1443:
1421:
1335:
1242:, but only those aspects that are notable, with the twist as a part of the coverage. --
1188:
1152:
1091:
1054:
949:
937:
875:
835:
830:
Agree. You haven't given it enough time to be fleshed out properly. Now renamed as per
679:
664:
598:
572:
483:
434:
49:
1741:
I actually began the article as a semi-reaction to the recent major media brouhaha by
2477:
2420:
2358:
2348:
2254:
2205:
2191:
2077:
1851:
1788:
1746:
1721:
1515:
1483:
1463:
1417:
1392:
1363:
1301:
1279:
1226:
1012:
857:
803:
770:
736:
619:
558:
416:
2388:
which lists six top spoilers amidst a discussion of why people object to spoilers,
2571:, and yet the latter has been allowed. Double-standards from inclusion opponents?
2037:
1592:
165:
153:
121:
342:
221:
1755:
Agatha Christie’s family criticise Knowledge (XXG) for revealing Mousetrap ending
454:
and as a collection of trivia. Certain parts of the article appear to be a joke.
100:
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to
2512:
2437:
2395:
2392:
2268:
2237:
2236:, but I think a long list like this is better kept as an independent article. --
1567:
1243:
2272:
2229:
1266:
848:
Fleshing it out is not the issue. Either way, I can see this remaining simply
2526:
2491:
2454:
2323:
1952:
1874:
1686:
1632:
1610:
1181:
1145:
1069:
1033:
930:
831:
1478:
478:
This is not trivia. This is a list of spoilers. How is this different from
2624:, would seem to be a rather loose inclusion criteria. Although obviously
2120:
What principle is this? We have some enormous lists already such as the
571:
Sorry, I was not aware of this policy. Am new to Knowledge (XXG).
2656:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
1761:
There's been a number of discussions on it on the internet like
1745:'s family criticizing Knowledge (XXG) for revealing the plot of
2391:
which lists five top spoilers in a discussion of spoilers, and
1933:. If we want to say something is a notable plot twist, we need
1929:
to start with. This is trivial and has no chance of not being
1685:
left on this AFD. Do note Throwaway's comments to you above. –
63:
94:(agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments,
528:, and also be weary that the article is being linked from
663:, which is exactly why you want the the article deleted?
84:
among Knowledge (XXG) contributors. Knowledge (XXG) has
2351:
is perhaps the most known example, but also the one of
2208:. If this is to work at all it should be a category. --
1988:
1871:
1848:
1628:
1607:
1413:
338:
334:
330:
217:
213:
209:
2380:
Comment If someone can find magazine articles or books
2322:- Topic seems too vaguely defined. I don't think even
856:
and not simply the notability of the original work. --
389:
279:
2019:
to qualify as an article rather than absurdly long.
653:
Category:Wikipedians in the Article Rescue Squadron
403:
293:
2385:which discusses "The top 10 spoilers of all time"
1459:. Go look at the logs on the unusual articles page
1870:If the article were to look something like this:
948:Done! I think it looks better that way. Good job!
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
2666:). No further edits should be made to this page.
2343:- There are plot twists that are surely notable
597:does the list of Spoilers violate in particular?
2190:spoiling plots that they don't want spoilt. --
1937:not just come up with a list. This should go.
1442:just to make a point here. How mature of you.
2599:- I.P person, may I direct your attention to
114:Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected
8:
726:happier if it were, for example, a list of
1586:list of Lists-related deletion discussions
1580:
550:Yes, I submitted that to Reddit. So what?
88:regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
1987:Based on the current state of the article
1627:if the end product looks something like
1584:: This debate has been included in the
108:on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
1140:, though there are a good many notable
1414:started as a list of unusual articles
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
2140:The important differences are that
1753:Please read the following article:
1606:Delete as the article is presently
1206:List of films considered the worst
616:Knowledge (XXG) is not a directory
24:
1434:Very funny. Someone just deleted
1440:Knowledge (XXG):Unusual articles
1360:Knowledge (XXG):Unusual articles
67:
988:. This could be improved under
929:and cleanup the presentation. –
2642:11:16, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
2613:16:40, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
2587:14:18, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
2556:14:03, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
1438:and stopped it redirecting to
53:00:03, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
1:
2536:19:41, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
2521:19:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
2501:18:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
2486:18:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
2469:14:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
2446:03:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
2429:01:17, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
2404:21:51, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
2372:18:36, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
2336:16:01, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
2315:12:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
2289:17:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
2263:14:19, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
2246:09:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
2215:09:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
2200:08:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
2178:08:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
2152:09:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
2134:08:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
2112:07:02, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
2086:08:24, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
2063:04:03, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
2046:03:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
2029:03:36, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
2000:23:23, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
1983:17:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
1962:23:44, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
1947:23:36, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
1918:23:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
1898:00:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
1884:23:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
1860:22:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
1841:22:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
1814:03:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
1797:22:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
1775:21:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
1730:20:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
1716:20:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
1696:20:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
1672:20:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
1642:23:44, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
1620:19:28, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
1601:18:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
1576:18:13, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
1553:00:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
1531:17:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
1496:19:55, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
1472:17:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
1452:16:58, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
1430:16:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
1405:16:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
1372:16:42, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
1348:16:37, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
1314:16:33, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
1288:16:42, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
1270:16:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
1258:16:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
1235:16:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
1218:15:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
1191:15:52, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
1176:15:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
1155:15:44, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
1128:15:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
1100:15:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
1077:19:44, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
1063:15:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
1041:15:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
1021:15:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
1002:15:17, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
981:15:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
958:14:57, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
940:14:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
917:15:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
884:15:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
866:15:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
844:14:57, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
826:14:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
812:14:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
794:14:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
779:14:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
765:14:33, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
745:14:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
688:14:20, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
673:16:45, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
628:14:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
607:14:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
581:15:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
567:14:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
542:13:50, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
515:16:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
492:14:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
473:13:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
443:13:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
425:13:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
104:on the part of others and to
2145:authority on the subject. --
850:an indiscriminate collection
2411:as a perfect example of an
990:List of notable plot twists
927:List of notable plot twists
305:List of notable plot twists
2683:
2569:List of Internet phenomena
2565:List of Internet phenomena
553:So, this would constitute
1322:By that definition, then
657:Knowledge (XXG):DIRECTORY
2659:Please do not modify it.
1514:- Almost exactly as per
1436:list of unusual articles
1384:List of unusual articles
1356:List of unusual articles
1324:List of unusual articles
992:name. Give it a chance.
680:http://www.object404.com
599:http://www.object404.com
499:list of unusual articles
484:http://www.object404.com
480:List of unusual articles
435:http://www.object404.com
32:Please do not modify it.
497:It's different because
146:; accounts blocked for
116:single-purpose accounts
86:policies and guidelines
2326:has a page like this.
1678:This marks your third
2563:guys, take a look at
2142:List of minor planets
2122:List of minor planets
854:the plot twist itself
2204:Agree entirely with
2074:make this a category
2051:Comment and proposal
1358:article. There is a
659:) which falls under
2413:indiscriminate list
921:At the very least,
661:Knowledge (XXG):Not
98:by counting votes.
77:not a majority vote
2561:Comparison Comment
2354:Planet of the Apes
555:stealth canvassing
2640:
2577:comment added by
2313:
1844:
1827:comment added by
1675:
1658:comment added by
1603:
1589:
1521:
1382:
1351:
1334:comment added by
1256:
1104:
978:
872:WP:INDISCRIMINATE
651:Question: why is
639:comment added by
593:Which section of
179:
178:
175:
102:assume good faith
44:The result was
2674:
2661:
2634:
2589:
2531:
2496:
2459:
2367:
2361:
2309:
2212:
2149:
2026:
2022:
1957:
1915:
1879:
1843:
1821:
1691:
1674:
1652:
1637:
1615:
1590:
1519:
1494:
1410:*COMPLETE WRONG*
1403:
1376:
1354:Um. There is no
1350:
1328:
1312:
1248:
1246:
1186:
1150:
1103:
1074:
1038:
974:
935:
648:
469:
464:
459:
408:
407:
393:
346:
328:
298:
297:
283:
235:
225:
207:
184:List of spoilers
173:
161:
145:
129:
110:
80:, but instead a
71:
64:
59:List of spoilers
34:
2682:
2681:
2677:
2676:
2675:
2673:
2672:
2671:
2670:
2664:deletion review
2657:
2572:
2527:
2492:
2465:
2455:
2365:
2364:
2359:
2277:Spoiler (media)
2234:Spoiler (media)
2210:
2147:
2100:Spoiler (media)
2024:
2020:
2013:Spoiler (media)
1953:
1925:. Just look at
1913:
1875:
1822:
1743:Agatha Christie
1687:
1653:
1633:
1611:
1482:
1391:
1329:
1300:
1244:
1182:
1146:
1070:
1034:
931:
800:Spoiler (Media)
733:Spoiler (Media)
634:
467:
462:
457:
350:
319:
303:
302:since moved to
240:
231:
198:
182:
163:
151:
135:
119:
106:sign your posts
62:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
2680:
2678:
2669:
2668:
2652:
2651:
2644:
2618:
2617:
2616:
2615:
2591:
2590:
2579:121.96.133.212
2558:
2540:
2539:
2538:
2505:
2504:
2503:
2471:
2463:
2448:
2431:
2406:
2374:
2362:
2338:
2317:
2294:
2293:
2292:
2291:
2253:the subject?--
2249:
2248:
2222:
2221:
2220:
2219:
2218:
2217:
2181:
2180:
2170:Colonel Warden
2166:editing policy
2157:
2156:
2155:
2154:
2137:
2136:
2126:Colonel Warden
2115:
2114:
2091:
2090:
2089:
2088:
2066:
2065:
2048:
2031:
2005:
2004:
2003:
2002:
1992:AliveFreeHappy
1985:
1975:AliveFreeHappy
1967:
1966:
1965:
1964:
1939:AliveFreeHappy
1920:
1902:
1901:
1900:
1867:
1866:
1865:
1864:
1863:
1862:
1818:
1817:
1816:
1784:
1751:
1750:
1735:
1734:
1733:
1732:
1718:
1701:
1700:
1699:
1698:
1646:
1645:
1644:
1604:
1578:
1557:
1556:
1555:
1507:
1506:
1505:
1504:
1503:
1502:
1501:
1500:
1499:
1498:
1474:
1454:
1374:
1317:
1316:
1293:
1292:
1291:
1290:
1273:
1272:
1260:
1237:
1220:
1198:
1197:
1196:
1195:
1194:
1193:
1160:
1159:
1158:
1157:
1131:
1130:
1107:
1106:
1084:
1083:
1082:
1081:
1080:
1079:
1044:
1043:
1026:
1025:
1024:
1023:
1005:
1004:
994:Benvewikilerim
983:
963:
962:
961:
960:
943:
942:
905:
904:
903:
902:
901:
900:
899:
898:
897:
896:
895:
894:
893:
892:
891:
890:
889:
888:
887:
886:
784:our purposes.
747:
713:
712:
697:
696:
695:
694:
693:
692:
691:
690:
649:
610:
609:
590:
589:
588:
587:
586:
585:
584:
583:
545:
544:
534:70.122.112.145
518:
517:
476:
475:
445:
413:
412:
411:
410:
347:
237:
233:AfD statistics
177:
176:
72:
61:
56:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2679:
2667:
2665:
2660:
2654:
2653:
2648:
2645:
2643:
2639:
2638:
2633:
2632:
2627:
2623:
2620:
2619:
2614:
2610:
2606:
2602:
2598:
2595:
2594:
2593:
2592:
2588:
2584:
2580:
2576:
2570:
2566:
2562:
2559:
2557:
2553:
2549:
2544:
2541:
2537:
2534:
2532:
2530:
2524:
2523:
2522:
2518:
2514:
2509:
2506:
2502:
2499:
2497:
2495:
2489:
2488:
2487:
2483:
2479:
2475:
2472:
2470:
2467:
2466:
2460:
2458:
2452:
2449:
2447:
2443:
2439:
2435:
2432:
2430:
2426:
2422:
2418:
2414:
2410:
2407:
2405:
2401:
2397:
2393:
2390:
2387:
2384:
2381:
2378:
2375:
2373:
2370:
2368:
2356:
2355:
2350:
2349:The Mousetrap
2346:
2342:
2339:
2337:
2333:
2329:
2325:
2321:
2318:
2316:
2312:
2308:
2304:
2299:
2296:
2295:
2290:
2286:
2282:
2278:
2274:
2270:
2266:
2265:
2264:
2260:
2256:
2251:
2250:
2247:
2243:
2239:
2235:
2231:
2227:
2224:
2223:
2216:
2213:
2207:
2203:
2202:
2201:
2197:
2193:
2189:
2185:
2184:
2183:
2182:
2179:
2175:
2171:
2167:
2162:
2159:
2158:
2153:
2150:
2143:
2139:
2138:
2135:
2131:
2127:
2123:
2119:
2118:
2117:
2116:
2113:
2109:
2105:
2101:
2096:
2093:
2092:
2087:
2083:
2079:
2075:
2070:
2069:
2068:
2067:
2064:
2060:
2056:
2052:
2049:
2047:
2043:
2039:
2035:
2032:
2030:
2027:
2018:
2014:
2010:
2009:Keep or Merge
2007:
2006:
2001:
1997:
1993:
1989:
1986:
1984:
1980:
1976:
1971:
1970:
1969:
1968:
1963:
1960:
1958:
1956:
1950:
1949:
1948:
1944:
1940:
1936:
1932:
1928:
1924:
1921:
1919:
1916:
1910:
1906:
1903:
1899:
1895:
1891:
1890:keɪɑtɪk flʌfi
1887:
1886:
1885:
1882:
1880:
1878:
1872:
1869:
1868:
1861:
1857:
1853:
1849:
1846:
1845:
1842:
1838:
1834:
1830:
1826:
1819:
1815:
1811:
1807:
1802:
1801:
1800:
1799:
1798:
1794:
1790:
1785:
1782:
1779:
1778:
1777:
1776:
1772:
1768:
1764:
1760:
1756:
1748:
1747:The Mousetrap
1744:
1740:
1737:
1736:
1731:
1727:
1723:
1719:
1717:
1713:
1709:
1705:
1704:
1703:
1702:
1697:
1694:
1692:
1690:
1684:
1681:
1677:
1676:
1673:
1669:
1665:
1661:
1657:
1650:
1647:
1643:
1640:
1638:
1636:
1630:
1626:
1623:
1622:
1621:
1618:
1616:
1614:
1608:
1605:
1602:
1598:
1594:
1587:
1583:
1579:
1577:
1573:
1569:
1565:
1561:
1558:
1554:
1550:
1546:
1545:keɪɑtɪk flʌfi
1542:
1538:
1535:
1534:
1533:
1532:
1528:
1524:
1523:keɪɑtɪk flʌfi
1517:
1516:User:Gmaxwell
1513:
1509:
1508:
1497:
1493:
1492:
1490:
1485:
1480:
1479:lots of stuff
1475:
1473:
1469:
1465:
1461:
1458:
1455:
1453:
1449:
1445:
1441:
1437:
1433:
1432:
1431:
1427:
1423:
1419:
1415:
1412:. That entry
1411:
1408:
1407:
1406:
1402:
1401:
1399:
1394:
1389:
1385:
1380:
1379:edit conflict
1375:
1373:
1369:
1365:
1361:
1357:
1353:
1352:
1349:
1345:
1341:
1337:
1333:
1325:
1321:
1320:
1319:
1318:
1315:
1311:
1310:
1308:
1303:
1298:
1295:
1294:
1289:
1285:
1281:
1277:
1276:
1275:
1274:
1271:
1268:
1264:
1261:
1259:
1254:
1253:
1247:
1241:
1238:
1236:
1232:
1228:
1224:
1221:
1219:
1215:
1211:
1210:SarekOfVulcan
1207:
1203:
1200:
1199:
1192:
1189:
1187:
1185:
1179:
1178:
1177:
1173:
1169:
1164:
1163:
1162:
1161:
1156:
1153:
1151:
1149:
1143:
1139:
1135:
1134:
1133:
1132:
1129:
1125:
1121:
1117:
1113:
1109:
1108:
1105:
1101:
1097:
1093:
1089:
1086:
1085:
1078:
1075:
1073:
1066:
1065:
1064:
1060:
1056:
1051:
1048:
1047:
1046:
1045:
1042:
1039:
1037:
1031:
1028:
1027:
1022:
1018:
1014:
1009:
1008:
1007:
1006:
1003:
999:
995:
991:
987:
984:
982:
977:
972:
971:Hurricanehink
968:
965:
964:
959:
955:
951:
947:
946:
945:
944:
941:
938:
936:
934:
928:
924:
920:
919:
918:
914:
910:
885:
881:
877:
873:
869:
868:
867:
863:
859:
855:
851:
847:
846:
845:
841:
837:
833:
829:
828:
827:
823:
819:
815:
814:
813:
809:
805:
801:
797:
796:
795:
791:
787:
782:
781:
780:
776:
772:
768:
767:
766:
762:
758:
754:
751:
750:
748:
746:
742:
738:
734:
729:
725:
722:. I would be
721:
717:
716:
715:
714:
710:
706:
702:
699:
698:
689:
685:
681:
676:
675:
674:
670:
666:
662:
658:
654:
650:
646:
642:
638:
631:
630:
629:
625:
621:
617:
614:
613:
612:
611:
608:
604:
600:
596:
592:
591:
582:
578:
574:
570:
569:
568:
564:
560:
556:
552:
551:
549:
548:
547:
546:
543:
539:
535:
531:
527:
523:
520:
519:
516:
512:
508:
504:
503:Strong delete
500:
496:
495:
494:
493:
489:
485:
481:
474:
471:
470:
465:
460:
453:
449:
446:
444:
440:
436:
432:
429:
428:
427:
426:
422:
418:
406:
402:
399:
396:
392:
388:
384:
381:
378:
375:
372:
369:
366:
363:
360:
356:
353:
352:Find sources:
348:
344:
340:
336:
332:
327:
323:
318:
314:
310:
306:
301:
300:
296:
292:
289:
286:
282:
278:
274:
271:
268:
265:
262:
259:
256:
253:
250:
246:
243:
242:Find sources:
238:
234:
229:
223:
219:
215:
211:
206:
202:
197:
193:
189:
185:
181:
180:
171:
167:
159:
155:
149:
143:
139:
133:
127:
123:
117:
113:
109:
107:
103:
97:
93:
92:
87:
83:
79:
78:
73:
70:
66:
65:
60:
57:
55:
54:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
2658:
2655:
2646:
2635:
2629:
2621:
2605:NotARealWord
2596:
2560:
2548:Slatersteven
2542:
2528:
2507:
2493:
2473:
2462:
2456:
2450:
2433:
2408:
2379:
2376:
2352:
2344:
2340:
2328:NotARealWord
2319:
2297:
2225:
2211:Escape Orbit
2187:
2160:
2148:Escape Orbit
2094:
2073:
2050:
2033:
2016:
2008:
1954:
1922:
1914:Escape Orbit
1904:
1876:
1758:
1752:
1738:
1688:
1682:
1679:
1648:
1634:
1624:
1612:
1581:
1559:
1540:
1536:
1511:
1510:
1488:
1487:
1456:
1409:
1397:
1396:
1306:
1305:
1296:
1262:
1251:
1239:
1222:
1201:
1183:
1147:
1141:
1137:
1115:
1111:
1102:
1087:
1071:
1050:Not worth it
1049:
1035:
1029:
989:
985:
966:
932:
926:
922:
853:
731:included in
727:
723:
700:
641:24.182.74.39
521:
502:
477:
455:
447:
430:
414:
400:
394:
386:
379:
373:
367:
361:
351:
290:
284:
276:
269:
263:
257:
251:
241:
169:
157:
148:sockpuppetry
141:
130:; suspected
125:
111:
99:
95:
89:
81:
75:
46:No consensus
45:
43:
31:
28:
2573:—Preceding
2055:Throwaway85
1823:—Preceding
1806:Throwaway85
1654:—Preceding
1330:—Preceding
1168:Throwaway85
1142:plot twists
1120:Throwaway85
1114:instead of
909:Throwaway85
818:Throwaway85
786:Throwaway85
757:Throwaway85
705:Throwaway85
635:—Preceding
377:free images
267:free images
2626:WP:SPOILER
2273:Plot twist
2230:Plot twist
2104:NZ forever
1909:list cruft
753:WP:SOFIXIT
82:discussion
2324:TV Tropes
2307:NortyNort
2281:Object404
2017:too short
1829:Object404
1767:Object404
1708:Object404
1660:Object404
1593:• Gene93k
1537:Weak keep
1444:Object404
1422:Object404
1336:Object404
1245:\/\/slack
1092:Object404
1072:Cyde Weys
1055:Object404
1036:Cyde Weys
950:Object404
876:Object404
836:Object404
832:user:xeno
665:Object404
573:Object404
138:canvassed
132:canvassed
91:consensus
50:Mandsford
2575:unsigned
2478:Hairhorn
2421:Johnuniq
2255:Gmaxwell
2206:Korruski
2192:Korruski
2078:Korruski
1852:Gmaxwell
1837:contribs
1825:unsigned
1789:Gmaxwell
1722:Korruski
1668:contribs
1656:unsigned
1464:Gmaxwell
1364:Gmaxwell
1344:contribs
1332:unsigned
1280:Gmaxwell
1227:Gmaxwell
1138:spoilers
1013:Korruski
858:Korruski
804:Korruski
771:Korruski
737:Korruski
724:slightly
637:unsigned
620:Korruski
559:Korruski
417:Korruski
228:View log
170:username
164:{{subst:
158:username
152:{{subst:
142:username
136:{{subst:
126:username
120:{{subst:
2597:Comment
2543:Comment
2508:Comment
2311:(Holla)
2188:without
2038:V2Blast
1739:Comment
1649:Comment
1112:Comment
728:notable
383:WP refs
371:scholar
322:protect
317:history
273:WP refs
261:scholar
201:protect
196:history
134:users:
2622:Delete
2546:value.
2513:Edison
2474:Delete
2451:Delete
2438:Sadads
2434:Delete
2409:Delete
2396:Edison
2345:per se
2320:Delete
2303:WP:CLN
2269:memset
2238:memset
2095:Delete
2034:Delete
1927:WP:NOT
1923:Delete
1905:Delete
1706:Fixed
1683:"keep"
1680:bolded
1568:ngroot
1564:WP:NOT
1562:— Per
1560:Delete
1512:Delete
1297:Delete
1223:Delete
1202:Delete
1052:-: -->
1030:Delete
967:Delete
923:rename
720:WP:NOT
595:WP:NOT
526:WP:NOT
522:Delete
452:WP:NOT
448:Delete
355:Google
326:delete
245:Google
205:delete
2417:WP:OR
2011:with
1935:WP:RS
1931:WP:OR
1267:Pengo
468:Space
398:JSTOR
359:books
343:views
335:watch
331:links
288:JSTOR
249:books
222:views
214:watch
210:links
112:Note:
16:<
2647:Keep
2637:talk
2609:talk
2601:this
2583:talk
2552:talk
2529:xeno
2517:talk
2494:xeno
2482:talk
2457:Reyk
2442:talk
2425:talk
2400:talk
2382:See
2377:Keep
2360:Cycl
2341:Keep
2332:talk
2298:Keep
2285:talk
2275:and
2259:talk
2242:talk
2226:Keep
2196:talk
2174:talk
2161:Keep
2130:talk
2108:talk
2082:talk
2059:talk
2042:talk
1996:talk
1979:talk
1955:xeno
1943:talk
1911:. --
1894:talk
1877:xeno
1856:talk
1833:talk
1810:talk
1793:talk
1771:talk
1763:this
1726:talk
1712:talk
1689:xeno
1664:talk
1635:xeno
1629:this
1625:Keep
1613:xeno
1597:talk
1582:Note
1572:talk
1549:talk
1541:also
1527:talk
1468:talk
1457:Sigh
1448:talk
1426:talk
1368:talk
1340:talk
1284:talk
1263:Keep
1252:talk
1240:Keep
1231:talk
1214:talk
1184:xeno
1172:talk
1148:xeno
1124:talk
1116:Keep
1096:talk
1088:Keep
1059:talk
1017:talk
998:talk
986:Keep
976:talk
954:talk
933:xeno
913:talk
880:talk
862:talk
840:talk
822:talk
808:talk
790:talk
775:talk
761:talk
741:talk
709:talk
701:Keep
684:talk
669:talk
645:talk
624:talk
603:talk
577:talk
563:talk
538:talk
530:here
524:per
511:talk
488:talk
463:From
458:Them
450:per
439:talk
431:Keep
421:talk
391:FENS
365:news
339:logs
313:talk
309:edit
281:FENS
255:news
218:logs
192:talk
188:edit
2631:Bob
2464:YO!
2366:pia
2305:.--
2232:or
2168:.
1591:--
1491:man
1484:Mr.
1418:Mr.
1400:man
1393:Mr.
1388:CNR
1309:man
1302:Mr.
1144:. –
925:to
405:TWL
295:TWL
230:•
226:– (
166:csp
162:or
154:csm
122:spa
96:not
2611:)
2603:.
2585:)
2554:)
2519:)
2484:)
2444:)
2427:)
2402:)
2347::
2334:)
2287:)
2271:,
2261:)
2244:)
2198:)
2176:)
2132:)
2110:)
2102:.
2084:)
2061:)
2044:)
2025:Þ
1998:)
1981:)
1945:)
1896:)
1858:)
1839:)
1835:•
1812:)
1795:)
1773:)
1757:-
1728:)
1714:)
1670:)
1666:•
1599:)
1588:.
1574:)
1551:)
1529:)
1489:Z-
1470:)
1450:)
1428:)
1398:Z-
1370:)
1346:)
1342:•
1307:Z-
1286:)
1233:)
1216:)
1174:)
1126:)
1118:.
1098:)
1061:)
1019:)
1011:--
1000:)
979:)
956:)
915:)
882:)
864:)
842:)
824:)
810:)
792:)
777:)
763:)
743:)
735:--
686:)
671:)
647:)
626:)
618:--
605:)
579:)
565:)
557:--
540:)
532:--
513:)
507:DS
505:.
490:)
441:)
423:)
385:)
341:|
337:|
333:|
329:|
324:|
320:|
315:|
311:|
299:)
275:)
220:|
216:|
212:|
208:|
203:|
199:|
194:|
190:|
172:}}
160:}}
150::
144:}}
128:}}
118::
2607:(
2581:(
2550:(
2515:(
2480:(
2440:(
2423:(
2398:(
2363:o
2330:(
2283:(
2257:(
2240:(
2194:(
2172:(
2128:(
2106:(
2080:(
2057:(
2040:(
2021:–
1994:(
1977:(
1941:(
1892:(
1854:(
1831:(
1808:(
1791:(
1769:(
1749:.
1724:(
1710:(
1662:(
1595:(
1570:(
1547:(
1525:(
1466:(
1446:(
1424:(
1381:)
1377:(
1366:(
1338:(
1282:(
1255:)
1249:(
1229:(
1212:(
1170:(
1122:(
1094:(
1057:(
1015:(
996:(
973:(
952:(
911:(
878:(
860:(
838:(
820:(
806:(
788:(
773:(
759:(
739:(
711:)
707:(
682:(
667:(
643:(
622:(
601:(
575:(
561:(
536:(
509:(
486:(
482:?
437:(
419:(
409:)
401:·
395:·
387:·
380:·
374:·
368:·
362:·
357:(
349:(
345:)
307:(
291:·
285:·
277:·
270:·
264:·
258:·
252:·
247:(
239:(
236:)
224:)
186:(
174:.
168:|
156:|
140:|
124:|
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
