531:
article content nor do I understand the way in which those ostensibly disagreeing with you there believed that it was an ethnic group. I might say it's a "racial classification," but beyond semantics, what's the difference? Whether it is or isn't an "ethnic group" certainly has no impact on whether the article should be deleted. The only real point I can make right now is that the topic of multiracial people in the U.S. is broader than just the census classification, so the article should not be arranged such that it appears the census classification defines it or provides a "complete count".
471:
we'd find a lot more, as this has been a vital topic in
American academics for decades. The issue has always been a relevant one because there have always been consequences for belonging to one race or another: legal at first, but even today, social and cultural, and recent history has seen the analysis and study of multiracial as itself a distinct identity. Multiracialism in the United States is a highly notable topic in American history, and a highly notable topic in contemporary sociology, race studies, media analysis, etc.
424:. I mean, sure there are certainly some notable multiracial Americans, but is the intersection of "multiracial" and "American" itself notable? Have a considerable number of books been written that focus solely on the subject of multiracial people in America? After considering a little more deeply, I'm a little cautious to explicitly suggest we delete the article now. If for nothing else than for the fact that have pages dedicated to
534:
lot of change in the past few decades that it's still contentious even for university curricula, let alone volunteer editors, to determine what's essential to the subject or what defines it. There's a germ of a decent outline in the article, so there's hope. And that the article admittedly has a long way to go is by no means grounds for deletion when there's a valid, notable topic and, at minimum, a not-awful start.
912:. I'm in accord with the over 80% of those who have commented so far that this is a keep. Meets GNG, highly notable, encyclopedic. RightCow put it quite well. Some of the arguments in favor of deletion are reminiscent of the arguments that were debunked and rejected in the following quite recent nominations by the same nom as here (Bulldog), which all ended up keeps as well:
217:
587:, and maintains an ethnic group infobox (including the idiotic montage). All these things make it seem like "multiracial american" is some type of uniform group of people. If your rename idea goes through, it would definitely help improve that. However, I'd prefer if the rename did not concern "people" but the "concept". Turns out that
325:, as that seems to be what the subject is, most generally stated. Given that there's not actually a claim by the nom that this isn't a valid topic, it seems that the only question that remains is whether the subtopic of multiracial people in the United States is substantive enough to merit a split off from
344:
historical experience of the people who are the offspring and descendants of such unions (not all of which were marriages, obviously) is outside the scope of that article, just as the topic of multiracialism in the U.S. is broader than any one article on a particular race/ethnicity in the United States.
1242:
The article is of importance because it deals with the issue that effects people who have a bi/multiracial background. It hits on kkey issues that effects how
Americans self-identify or feel pressured to self-identify with certain ethnic groups. The article is encyclopedic and goes over how American
503:
too because there are so many books on the subjects of individuals growing up with an Asian father/mother and White mother/father? Seems a bit... silly and overextensive. There are far less books on the subject than you're suggesting. I can only find two and both are about individuals in your google
470:
also produces a number of relevant hits (though more false hits, as "multiracial" is also used to mean a racially diverse group rather than an individual of racially diverse background). A lot (if not most) of the positive hits are from university presses; I'm sure if we dug into scholarly journals
221:
533:
One broader point: this kind of article is one of the most difficult for
Knowledge (XXG) to handle, for a number of reasons: 1) race is an emotionally volatile issue; 2) most Wikipedians' interests and backgrounds lean away from the humanities/social sciences; 3) racial studies have gone through a
1174:
by accusing an editor offering their opinion and analysis here (me) of trolling. Trolling is âdisrupt the usability of
Knowledge (XXG) for its editors.â. This isnât the proper venue to elaborate in any detail, but youâve been warned about this sort of thing before and this latest accusation is
1053:
It has proper and sufficient quotes to adequately buttress a topic that is intrinsically more controversial than most. It seems a wise move by whoever was the shepherding author, who may have perceived the need to preemptively fend off allegations of wp:synth and wp:POV (criticisms youâve been
530:
I took a look at that talk page discussion and it didn't really develop very far, so I'm not seeing much to respond to. I agree that multiracial is not a singular "ethnic group", obviously, at least as I would use that term, but I don't know what consequence you think that should have for the
343:
That it intersects with a number of other articles is not a reason for it not existing, particularly since none of those could cover this topic in full: interracial marriage in the U.S. is obviously related to multiracial people in the U.S., but a full discussion of the legal, cultural, and
1155:. Moreover, American legal rulings are not copyrighted and editors are free to use quotations of any length (and I canât think of a more apt long quotation than one from the U.S. Supreme Court in this particular subject). Taking all quotations into consideration and ignoring the
577:
and got almost no responses, besides a few requests that AfD is a better venue for this than the talk page... so... clearly something is not working here... The consequences are big regarding this article's "ethnic group" status. An ethnic group is defined as:
919:
799:
of the active editors will determine what is within the article, as well as said content following the general policies and guidelines of
Knowledge (XXG), but the primary question of an AfD is whether the subject of an article is Notable. This subject is.
794:
including major national newspapers, multiple accredited educational institutions, and a significantly notable percentage of the population of those who reside within the United States. The nature of the content of the article is debate-able and the
986:
are international, this one is specifically about the US). 'Multiracial
American' may or may not constitute a coherent ethnic group, but there's clearly a notable topic here. If the name is problematic, I'd be open to renaming it to something like
339:
I agree that the quotes need to be trimmed and/or summarized, but I'm not sure what the nom claims is OR in this article, and I'm not sure whether there is anything else here other than cleanup/article talk page issues which are not AFD problems.
1175:
without foundation. When other editors point out something on a matter of
Knowledge (XXG) business pertaining to content on the project and you disagree someoneâs opinion, such as how your cited objection over âquote farmâ takes the reader to the
1057:
Your arguments still donât dissuade me from looking at this AfD any differently: itâs better to put the underweight premies in the incubator in the nursery rather than euthanize them in the maternity ward; thatâs how volunteers build the
1243:
society has evolved and how the dark history of the United States has influenced how people self-identify in the past and how it is changing at a rapid rate. Remove the article would harm wikipedia's diversity and seems biased.
717:. This subject is part of any discussion of the evolving American society. It can be improved, as can most articles in WP, but articles just needing improvement do not get deleted. There is some other agenda going on here.
580:
a group of people whose members identify with each other, through a common heritage, often consisting of a common language, a common culture (often including a shared religion) and an ideology that stresses common ancestry or
157:
331:
On that question, I have a hard time believing that the parent topic can handle full coverage for the entire world, particularly for a country like the U.S., where race has been such an important issue. Same goes for
193:
628:
321:, though recognizing its current flaws. To frame the discussion, complaints about the term "Multiracial American" seem to me overly caught up on form over substance; maybe the article should be titled
895:
a whole class of articles that makes some editors uncomfortable (the nom has a track record of objecting to these articles). Nor do we delete articles that have have shortcomings; we improve them.
943:
937:
931:
925:
467:
659:
I've watchlisted it, and if I feel I have something to contribute to a discussion at that talk page, I will. You can feel free to ping me if you would like my input on a thread there.
216:
or a "uniform collection of people" of the United States. The only times "Multiracial
American" shows up on a google search is when an individual writes about their "life" coming from a
1190:
personally attack those who disagree with you. Nor should you taunt and bait them. All that sort of behavior is prohibited and is incompatible with a collaborative writing environment.
689:
1013:. I don't see what parts of the article are at risk of being lost. I didn't put "Delete" in the rationale because a "merge" or "rename" could be in order. However, I don't see
151:
462:, the identity itself. "Have a considerable number of books been written that focus solely on the subject of multiracial people in America"? Yes. Many books appear in the
333:
233:
387:- this is potentially a significant article, so it should be forked out. Many articles intersect with one another, often complimenting each other. I have the feeling that
118:
1073:-link. It doesnât seem to support whatever impeaching point you were alleging (other than point out how the article is handling quotations properly). Please try to avoid
266:
I don't like the title very much either, but the general topic of mixed-race people in the United States is certainly an important one and probably WP "notable" too.
399:. I don't see how this can't be fixed in the ordinary editing process and kept fixed with a few dozen eyes on their watchlists. A move per Postdlf is in order.
1186:
From hereon on this pageâand everywhere else on
Knowledge (XXG) where you might landâplease try to keep your comments focused on the subject at hand and do
584:
1183:
the guideline, and they opine that they donât see a problem, it is not appropriate conduct on
Knowledge (XXG) to falsely accuse them of disruption. Mâkay?
237:
375:
91:
86:
463:
95:
834:
reliable sources in major newspapers and multiple accredited education institutions showing otherwise, it would be helpful to list them here.
78:
189:
774:
371:
17:
172:
139:
512:
work on the talk page to get stuff like the infobox and mentions of "multiracial" as a uniform group of individuals removed?
322:
1014:
988:
441:
1026:
765:
598:
561:? A lot of times people just come to AfD, vote !keep, and the article continues to languish in its miserable state (e.g.
760:
called "multiracial Americans". There is, in fact, no such ethnic group, which makes the very foundation of the article
566:
1267:
36:
805:
133:
1252:
1222:
1199:
1116:
1090:
1077:. I find that to be the Knowledge (XXG)-equivalent of what engineers sometimes do in design-review meetings, where
1038:
1000:
961:
904:
871:
843:
809:
778:
744:
726:
704:
643:
610:
547:
521:
484:
458:
The number of notable multiracial Americans is beside the point, as this isn't a list. The article's topic is the
453:
408:
379:
357:
309:
275:
257:
60:
129:
82:
1266:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
867:
289:
245:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
891:â, which, though it is also encyclopedic, is of interest to far fewer readers. We donât build the project by
508:
that refers to "Multiracial" as an American ethnic group. If you are proposing a keep so vehemently, can you
179:
1130:
1062:
819:
801:
700:
639:
1100:
1047:
Yes; we gathered youâre not an admirer of the article given that you are the nom and creator of this AfD.
769:
601:
would be better. Still, I can't see what there is to salvage from this article. It's a huge quote farm.
562:
500:
388:
293:
241:
1214:
1152:
1148:
1108:
1074:
1030:
957:
835:
736:
602:
513:
301:
249:
74:
66:
421:
863:
165:
574:
145:
996:
888:
271:
1104:
1010:
225:
1248:
978:
issues that one does - we don't seem to have another article that covers this specific topic (
696:
667:
635:
583:
This article is currently in the Template for ethnic groups, in a category for ethnic groups (
542:
479:
404:
352:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
975:
396:
1195:
1086:
1079:
68.656% of statistics cited by engineers are contemporaneously fabricated to feign expertise
900:
722:
449:
437:
433:
429:
232:
say. The vast majority of content in this article is just scrapped from the header articles
1171:
796:
787:
761:
595:
417:
367:
1070:
953:
444:, etc, etc..... Excluding a "multiracial" category could easily be perceived as bias....
425:
791:
392:
297:
1054:
throwing about lately on the whole, broad subject of ethnic and racial classifications).
1078:
1017:
as a verifiable topic. There are no external sources for such a "people," only for the
971:
51:
880:
296:? If you read the content, it's not different, just forked and expanded with a lot of
992:
983:
267:
209:
1244:
1103:. Yup. Real difficult to scroll down and find that. Here's a blue link for you: Go
714:
661:
536:
473:
400:
346:
213:
1167:, which is hardly the âquote farmsâ Knowledge (XXG) has suffered from in the past.
112:
1142:
1134:
857:
592:
588:
579:
1210:
1191:
1082:
1022:
979:
896:
718:
496:
445:
416:- When I first saw this, my reaction was delete since the topic seemed somewhat
326:
285:
205:
197:
196:" is anything more than a terminology, which can be and is aptly covered in
786:
article subject, individuals who are of multiple races and american pass
570:
991:
or something similar, but I'm not convinced that's really necessary.
735:
Please, do inform everyone of what you think that "other agenda" is.
336:; the topic is larger than what that can incorporate given its scope.
1143:
doesnât seem to support whatever impeaching point you were alleging
764:. As Bulldog suggested, Knowledge (XXG) could use an article about
557:
I meant: will you work toward fixing the article on the talk page
1049:
The article is clearly not âmostlyâ a âquote farmâ; at least not
881:
Stats.Grok shows it consistently receives over 500 views per day.
1260:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
1065:, which you curiously aliased as âquote farmâ. Once again, I
920:
AfD for List of Black Golden Globe Award winners and nominees
629:
list of United States of America-related deletion discussions
944:
CfD for American film directors by ethnic or national origin
938:
CfD for American film directors by ethnic or national origin
1147:
There are only two âlongâ (more than a paragraph) quotes,
879:
This article is clearly an encyclopedic topic. Moreover,
826:
is notable. However, I don't believe that the subject of
1133:. I assume that was your intention. Like I wrote above,
499:
not cover all that? Are you going to argue that we need
1050:
397:
a content fork with a radically different point of view
108:
104:
100:
164:
932:
CfD for American artists by ethnic or national origin
204:
of Multiracial-ism is notable (which is why we have
334:
Racial and ethnic demographics of the United States
234:
Racial and ethnic demographics of the United States
220:(notice the quotes), or in the context of the word
178:
690:list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions
974:, but I don't think this article raises the same
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1270:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1021:of being mixed-race, which would lend itself to
1170:And, true to form, you once again engaged in a
1101:Knowledge (XXG):QUOTEFARM#Overusing_quotations
756:The article is a hodgepodge about a purported
713:for the more than adequate reasons offered by
464:search here for "mixed race" + "United States"
1075:WP:Feigning knowledge with inapplicable links
830:(as uniform group of people) is. If you have
240:, so I'm not seeing much to merge. Note that
8:
818:I'd disagree with you on the last point per
591:is actually a word. One of its meanings is:
883:We have articles on individual episodes of
585:Category:Ethnic groups in the United States
970:(possibly rename). I supported a merge on
862:demonstrates the notability of the topic.
684:
623:
288:(and the other articles) in the same way
238:Interracial marriage in the United States
228:, poorly recapitulating what most of the
768:, but this isn't likely to become it. â
688:: This debate has been included in the
627:: This debate has been included in the
284:I agree, but why can't it be covered in
248:, which is what this article should do.
593:composed of or involving multiple races
323:Multiracial people in the United States
290:Eurasian (mixed ancestry)#United States
1015:Mixed-race people in the United States
989:Mixed-race people in the United States
858:Multiracial Americans and social class
1141:linked guideline, and once again, it
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
1149:this bit from a Supreme Court ruling
1027:Multiracialism in the United States
822:. But, in any case, the subject of
766:multiracialism in the United States
599:Multiracialism in the United States
573:). I went to the talk page to do a
395:of said article, and whether it is
1029:. This article isn't that though.
567:List of black Golden Globe winners
24:
1071:I made it BLUE so it must be TRUE
1051:the version as I write this post.
1061:And, thank you for your link to
926:CfD for African American artists
1209:Once again, save this material
952:Not even a close call, IMHO.--
372:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )
1:
1213:and go troll somewhere else.
1125:You aliased your link to the
1009:The article is mostly just a
504:books link, and I can't find
495:I don't understand. How does
442:Hispanic and Latino Americans
824:being multiracial in America
224:. This article is already a
212:, etc...), but it is not an
468:multiracial+"United States"
366:meets every requirement in
222:Multiracial American Indian
1287:
1253:05:52, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
1063:Knowledge (XXG):Quotations
820:Knowledge (XXG):ITSNOTABLE
61:08:14, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
1223:20:15, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
1200:18:46, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
1179:guideline, and that they
1117:15:52, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
1091:01:51, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
1039:03:55, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
1023:Multiracial#United States
1001:22:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
962:17:01, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
905:16:21, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
872:13:44, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
844:03:59, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
810:12:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
779:05:16, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
745:05:15, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
727:03:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
705:21:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
644:21:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
611:00:08, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
597:. So even something like
548:23:01, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
522:20:30, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
497:multiracial#United States
485:19:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
454:19:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
409:18:25, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
380:17:14, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
358:17:11, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
310:15:43, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
286:Multiracial#United States
276:15:11, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
258:14:45, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
246:Eurasian (mixed ancestry)
198:Multiracial#United States
190:no external documentation
1263:Please do not modify it.
1159:section, the article is
389:the outcomes have varied
218:"multiracial" background
32:Please do not modify it.
1153:this one by Tiger Woods
559:if this article is kept
828:Multiracial Americans
563:List of Jewish actors
194:multiracial American
75:Multiracial American
67:Multiracial American
889:Mayored to the Mob
44:The result was
855:A source such as
802:RightCowLeftCoast
762:original research
707:
693:
646:
632:
501:Eurasian American
438:Chinese Americans
434:African Americans
430:Russian Americans
391:primarily on the
294:Eurasian American
242:Eurasian American
59:
1278:
1265:
1220:
1217:
1165:original content
1144:
1140:
1114:
1111:
1107:somewhere else.
1036:
1033:
841:
838:
792:reliable sources
742:
739:
694:
633:
608:
605:
594:
590:
582:
519:
516:
466:, for example.
426:Indian Americans
307:
304:
255:
252:
183:
182:
168:
116:
98:
58:
56:
49:
34:
1286:
1285:
1281:
1280:
1279:
1277:
1276:
1275:
1274:
1268:deletion review
1261:
1218:
1215:
1172:personal attack
1112:
1109:
1034:
1031:
839:
836:
777:
740:
737:
606:
603:
517:
514:
506:a single source
420:and lacking in
305:
302:
253:
250:
125:
89:
73:
70:
52:
50:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1284:
1282:
1273:
1272:
1256:
1255:
1236:
1235:
1234:
1233:
1232:
1231:
1230:
1229:
1228:
1227:
1226:
1225:
1204:
1203:
1135:Once again, I
1120:
1119:
1095:
1094:
1042:
1041:
1004:
1003:
972:White American
950:
949:
948:
947:
941:
935:
929:
923:
914:
913:
907:
874:
864:Colonel Warden
849:
848:
847:
846:
813:
812:
781:
773:
750:
749:
748:
747:
730:
729:
708:
681:
680:
679:
678:
677:
676:
675:
674:
673:
672:
648:
647:
620:
619:
618:
617:
616:
615:
614:
613:
589:Multiracialism
552:
551:
525:
524:
490:
489:
488:
487:
411:
382:
361:
315:
314:
313:
312:
279:
278:
186:
185:
122:
69:
64:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1283:
1271:
1269:
1264:
1258:
1257:
1254:
1250:
1246:
1241:
1238:
1237:
1224:
1221:
1212:
1211:for your blog
1208:
1207:
1206:
1205:
1202:
1201:
1197:
1193:
1189:
1184:
1182:
1178:
1173:
1168:
1166:
1164:
1158:
1154:
1150:
1138:
1137:actually read
1132:
1131:WP:Quotations
1128:
1124:
1123:
1122:
1121:
1118:
1115:
1106:
1102:
1099:
1098:
1097:
1096:
1093:
1092:
1088:
1084:
1080:
1076:
1072:
1068:
1067:actually read
1064:
1059:
1055:
1052:
1046:
1045:
1044:
1043:
1040:
1037:
1028:
1025:and possibly
1024:
1020:
1016:
1012:
1008:
1007:
1006:
1005:
1002:
998:
994:
990:
985:
984:miscegenation
981:
977:
973:
969:
966:
965:
964:
963:
959:
955:
945:
942:
939:
936:
933:
930:
927:
924:
921:
918:
917:
916:
915:
911:
908:
906:
902:
898:
894:
890:
886:
882:
878:
875:
873:
869:
865:
861:
859:
854:
851:
850:
845:
842:
833:
829:
825:
821:
817:
816:
815:
814:
811:
807:
803:
798:
793:
790:via mutliple
789:
785:
782:
780:
776:
771:
770:Malik Shabazz
767:
763:
759:
755:
752:
751:
746:
743:
734:
733:
732:
731:
728:
724:
720:
716:
712:
709:
706:
702:
698:
691:
687:
683:
682:
670:
669:
664:
663:
658:
657:
656:
655:
654:
653:
652:
651:
650:
649:
645:
641:
637:
630:
626:
622:
621:
612:
609:
600:
596:
586:
576:
572:
568:
564:
560:
556:
555:
554:
553:
550:
549:
545:
544:
539:
538:
529:
528:
527:
526:
523:
520:
511:
507:
502:
498:
494:
493:
492:
491:
486:
482:
481:
476:
475:
469:
465:
461:
457:
456:
455:
451:
447:
443:
439:
435:
431:
427:
423:
419:
415:
412:
410:
406:
402:
398:
394:
393:sourceability
390:
386:
383:
381:
377:
373:
369:
365:
362:
360:
359:
355:
354:
349:
348:
341:
337:
335:
328:
324:
320:
317:
316:
311:
308:
299:
295:
291:
287:
283:
282:
281:
280:
277:
273:
269:
265:
264:Possible Keep
262:
261:
260:
259:
256:
247:
244:redirects to
243:
239:
235:
231:
230:main articles
227:
223:
219:
215:
211:
210:Miscegenation
207:
203:
199:
195:
191:
181:
177:
174:
171:
167:
163:
159:
156:
153:
150:
147:
144:
141:
138:
135:
131:
128:
127:Find sources:
123:
120:
114:
110:
106:
102:
97:
93:
88:
84:
80:
76:
72:
71:
68:
65:
63:
62:
57:
55:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1262:
1259:
1239:
1187:
1185:
1180:
1176:
1169:
1162:
1160:
1156:
1146:
1136:
1126:
1066:
1060:
1056:
1048:
1018:
967:
951:
909:
892:
885:The Simpsons
884:
876:
856:
852:
831:
827:
823:
783:
758:ethnic group
757:
753:
710:
685:
666:
660:
624:
558:
541:
535:
532:
509:
505:
478:
472:
459:
413:
384:
363:
351:
345:
342:
338:
330:
318:
263:
229:
214:ethnic group
201:
192:suggesting "
187:
175:
169:
161:
154:
148:
142:
136:
126:
53:
45:
43:
31:
28:
1129:guideline:
980:multiracial
887:, such as â
877:Strong Keep
784:Strong Keep
414:Weak Delete
327:Multiracial
206:multiracial
152:free images
1157:References
1011:quote farm
954:Epeefleche
422:notability
226:quote farm
54:Sandstein
797:consensus
581:endogamy.
575:WP:BEFORE
418:synthetic
292:does for
188:There is
1058:project.
993:Robofish
893:deleting
832:multiple
571:Massacre
510:at least
268:Kitfoxxe
119:View log
1245:Mcelite
1019:concept
976:WP:FORK
715:postdlf
662:postdlf
537:postdlf
474:postdlf
460:concept
401:Bearian
347:postdlf
158:WPÂ refs
146:scholar
92:protect
87:history
1219:dog123
1192:Greg L
1177:entire
1127:entire
1113:dog123
1083:Greg L
1035:dog123
897:Greg L
840:dog123
788:WP:GNG
754:Delete
741:dog123
719:Hmains
697:Danger
636:Danger
607:dog123
518:dog123
446:NickCT
368:WP:GNG
306:dog123
254:dog123
200:. The
130:Google
96:delete
1161:over
1105:troll
1069:your
940:, and
775:Stalk
298:WP:OR
202:topic
173:JSTOR
134:books
113:views
105:watch
101:links
16:<
1249:talk
1240:Keep
1216:Bull
1196:talk
1181:read
1151:and
1139:your
1110:Bull
1087:talk
1032:Bull
997:talk
982:and
968:Keep
958:talk
910:Keep
901:talk
868:talk
853:Keep
837:Bull
806:talk
738:Bull
723:talk
711:keep
701:talk
686:Note
668:talk
640:talk
625:Note
604:Bull
569:and
543:talk
515:Bull
480:talk
450:talk
405:talk
385:Keep
376:talk
370:. --
364:Keep
353:talk
319:Keep
303:Bull
272:talk
251:Bull
236:and
166:FENS
140:news
109:logs
83:talk
79:edit
46:keep
1188:not
1163:84%
1081:.
695:--
634:--
329:.
180:TWL
117:â (
1251:)
1198:)
1089:)
999:)
960:)
903:)
870:)
808:)
800:--
725:)
703:)
692:.
642:)
631:.
565:,
546:)
483:)
452:)
440:,
436:,
432:,
428:,
407:)
378:)
356:)
300:.
274:)
208:,
160:)
111:|
107:|
103:|
99:|
94:|
90:|
85:|
81:|
48:.
1247:(
1194:(
1145:.
1085:(
995:(
956:(
946:.
934:,
928:,
922:,
899:(
866:(
860:]
804:(
772:/
721:(
699:(
671:)
665:(
638:(
540:(
477:(
448:(
403:(
374:(
350:(
270:(
184:)
176:¡
170:¡
162:¡
155:¡
149:¡
143:¡
137:¡
132:(
124:(
121:)
115:)
77:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.