1419:
The use of neologisms should be avoided in
Knowledge (XXG) articles because they are not well understood, are not clearly definable, and will have different meanings to different people. Articles on neologisms that have not yet caught on widely are commonly deleted as these articles are often created
1396:
The article I have in mind is not "completely unconnected" - it is the selfsame one that we are discussing here. You argument seems to be based upon a misunderstanding of the WP:NEO which is a style guideline, not a reason to delete. Its point is that we should write with clarity and so avoid words
1440:
This is not an article about a neologism - the focus of the article is the topic, not any particular word. Various authorities describe the topic in various ways. We have to pick one of them as the nominal title of the article but this is not the point of the article and so the guideline you quote
891:
If a source puts the single mention of the subject in quotes, it's probably not that good of a source. These are all trivial mentions. Besides, you don't seem to realize that the word "amphibious" means "able to operate both on land and water". That company's idea of an amphibious building is one of
1369:
If you don't mind, I'm not going to continue this repetitive discussion. My objections are based in concrete policies and guidelines. Your desire to keep the article is based on the existence of a completely unconnected subject of a much larger scope. If you feel that immense underwater structures
1050:
AFD's are not the place to have discussions about name changes. The talk pages of articles are supposed to do that. The point of the discussion at hand is to determine if the subject is notable, not the name. If you are admitting that the subject is notable, but that you don't agree with the name,
320:
till then? The more interest we build the sooner we can all be living 50 floors below sea level. And the name seascraper couldn't be more appropriate. From the material that has been gathered, it seems that this is more than just a throwaway thought. Long live the future, long live the seascraper.
319:
Whether or not a seascraper has been built or begun initial planning stages is not a reason to delete. It is as real as dragons or hoverboards (both in wikipedia). Neither are in existence but does that make them irrelevant? It's only a matter of time before a seascraper is a reality but why wait
259:
Do you have another reason to want to delete it? Do you believe anyone reading the article might be confused by what it is? Do people call other things
Seascrapers? If so, you could have a note at the top of the article linking to those articles instead. I've never heard anyone use that term
830:. The other problem is the seeming lack of significant coverage. Again, a term doesn't belong to WP unless it's specifically covered by at least a couple of reliable sources. If we want to rename it, it's better to rename it to something like
1320:
and dozens of similar neologisms. We're not discussing the concept of large floating structures. We're discussing a particular subject of "seascrapers" that apparently hasn't received enough direct coverage in reliable secondary sources. —
629:, there we go. Now, since the Gotthard Base Tunnel is more specific, does that mean that it cannot be referenced in the tunnel article? Of course not, as it is mentioned there. Now, what was your argument about being specific is wrong?
998:. I could consider a compromise with a clear consensus on a better sourced title, but if it comes to keeping this version of the stub, there's really nothing in there worth saving. If you feel that you can make it encyclopedic, try
507:
There are enough sources that this seems to pass notability and verifiability. More importantly, it's a pretty coherent topic with good scope. It needs to be edited to be clear that it is mostly a science fiction idea.
1241:
The coverage explicitly shows the equivalence of floating cruise liners and skyscrapers in scale and function. Taken along with the other sources that we have, it demonstrates that we have a topic worthy of note. Q.E.D.
614:
1. The entire article is about seascrapers. Just because they do not explicitly use the term does not mean that they aren't talking about it. Reading the article and just seeing the picture shows what they're talking
1652:. I, however, do not support the deletion of this article as this is a term that is indeed used, and is not vague in its definition. There are articles relating to what future seascrapers may look like for example:
1067:
Didn't you read the comment? Although I see some coverage for a more general concept of floating building, the article and its contents deal with the particular subject of seascrapers, which I find not notable. —
842:
839:
169:
1582:
and were called skyscrapers by nearly every single source. Only one of them ever used the term "seascraper" and only because that happened to be a part of the project's proper name. Mention them on
1485:. Aside from the unsourced definition, the article only has two descriptions of concept buildings that no one (except one of the building's authors and a couple of blogs) ever actually called
486:
Then, as I stated above, the lead should be rewritten to say floating buildings instead of underwater buildings. This is an edit you can even do yourself if you dislike what it is currently.
1189:
It demonstrates that the term has some currency and so we should have something to offer when our readers search using it. We should keep this and develop it further in accordance with our
1619:
that the article is about the concept of a seascraper, listing waterscraper as an alternate name that has been used for it. It is not trying to be a dictionary definition, and should not.
748:
almost handily. The term is not really applied directly, so I feel that the article should instead focus on amphibious buildings in general, with seascrapers being a specific subsection.
295:
594:
216:
the content and/or expand on a basic definition of what the word means (most likely due to the fact that no such "seascraper" has been built or even begun real planning stages).
124:
1262:
a new term does not belong in
Knowledge (XXG) unless there are reliable sources specifically about the term — not just sources which mention it briefly or use it in passing.
652:
A new term does not belong in
Knowledge (XXG) unless there are reliable sources specifically about the term — not just sources which mention it briefly or use it in passing.
1397:
which our readers will not understand. Reworking and rewording to improve clarity is performed by normal editing, not by deletion and so there is no case for deletion.
470:
The sources show various floating buildings, not underwater buildings that the article describes. I also hate the word "seascraper" but that's not a reason to delete.
1108:
Pages with incorrect names can simply be renamed via page movement procedure. Naming disputes are discussed on the articles' talk pages or listed at requested moves.
163:
954:
Even more notable coverage of this. Whatever the designers call it, is what the article should be named. Instead of
Skyscrapers, most call them Waterscrapers.
1648:
as the article is describing a possible building structure, it is not speculating about a future event. Rather, a more appropriate nomination would be under
921:
proves it does exist, and is rather cool. If the article needs to be renamed, then discuss it on the talk page. That isn't a reason to delete something.
1286:
That is irrelevant because our topic here is the concept of large floating structures of this sort, not the words used to describe them. It is our
560:
129:
342:
1557:
We have two good examples of the proposed structure. It is this architectural concept which is our topic and its notability is established.
400:
Although, despite statement in the lead, the linked examples of 'waterscrapers' are all floating buildings rather than underwater buildings.
1627:
is satisfied by the existing refs. Having qualified for notability, the article is a stub which should be retained and expanded over time.
798:
769:
618:
2. Again, they are talking about seascrapers without explicitly using the term. He's the guy who primarily builds them, for goodness sake.
244:
346:
635:
There are already enough reliable sources that talk directly about the subject to make it notable. You're too caught up in the term.
17:
1709:
Didn't you read my earlier comments about the quality of these sources? Three of them don't even use the term. From the last two,
1343:. This is not an article about word(s), it is an article about a topic. It would work just as well under another title such as
222:
97:
92:
386:, which briefly covers potential future large-scale underwater structures, or if kept should at least be referred to there.
101:
184:
405:
391:
1745:
151:
36:
1496:
1493:
84:
1416:
Knowledge (XXG) articles are not dictionary articles, are not whole dictionaries, and are not slang and usage guides.
845:
1716:
1020:
If the product gets multiple independent news coverage in notable reliable sources, then yes, it does get covered.
1661:
338:
325:
1744:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1562:
1526:
1446:
1402:
1356:
1295:
1247:
1198:
1158:
823:
513:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1655:
569:
982:
Just because there is a product named
Marzocchi Super Monster doesn't mean that we should have an article on
919:
574:
401:
387:
248:
145:
1490:
1171:
The book doesn't seem to contain any significant coverage of the term. You can browse it through Amazon. —
892:
a small house floating on high tides or floodwater but resting on a solid platform when the water recedes.
867:
710:
334:
321:
1116:
1057:
881:
807:
778:
754:
729:
676:
641:
530:
492:
426:
1190:
952:
696:
1694:
1539:
Two of what? I'm saying that the article has no relevant content except for the unsourced definition. —
1713:
1649:
141:
1730:
1698:
1679:
1636:
1595:
1566:
1548:
1530:
1510:
1450:
1431:
1406:
1387:
1360:
1330:
1299:
1277:
1251:
1232:
1202:
1180:
1162:
1121:
1095:
1077:
1062:
1043:
1011:
977:
944:
905:
886:
856:
812:
783:
759:
734:
714:
681:
663:
646:
606:
579:
535:
517:
497:
479:
459:
431:
409:
395:
372:
329:
310:
283:
252:
226:
66:
626:
1645:
205:
1616:
1558:
1522:
1442:
1398:
1352:
1291:
1243:
1194:
1154:
983:
509:
177:
1482:
1313:
1287:
999:
443:
191:
704:
475:
383:
204:. While the concept of a "seascraper" is an interesting topic, I believe that this article fails
1309:
1265:
1317:
873:
1726:
1591:
1544:
1506:
1427:
1383:
1326:
1273:
1228:
1176:
1111:
1073:
1052:
1007:
901:
876:
852:
831:
802:
773:
749:
724:
671:
659:
636:
602:
525:
487:
421:
306:
49:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1710:
1667:
1290:
that
Knowledge (XXG) is not a dictionary and so we must focus upon the topic, not the words.
822:. I object to the above renaming proposal. For one, it's patently obvious that the mentioned
201:
1690:
1632:
1579:
ignoring the facts. The proposed structures were submitted to skyscraper design competitions
1091:
1021:
955:
922:
368:
261:
1620:
1499:
1375:
1216:
1103:
1083:
995:
597:, none of which appear to be reliable sources with significant coverage of the subject. —
546:
576:
discusses the Gyre
Seascraper—the proper name of a conceptual building, not a common noun.
88:
835:
723:
I'm in agreement with the idea, it would make more sense to people who find the article.
621:
3. Just because it's more specific, we can't use it? Let me give an example. I looked up
356:
209:
1673:
1051:
then you should be voting keep and discussing a name change on the talk page, not here.
864:
654:
As for renaming the article, I'll have to take another look at the available sources. —
157:
549:. Although the earlier comments claim that the article is sufficiently sourced to meet
1624:
1371:
1220:
745:
550:
360:
213:
1348:
700:
471:
217:
1351:. We have adequate sources to support the topic and so deletion is inappropriate.
1722:
1587:
1540:
1502:
1423:
1379:
1322:
1269:
1224:
1172:
1069:
1003:
991:
897:
848:
655:
598:
452:
302:
1501:, etc) and some irrelevant information on the mentioned "amphibious" buildings. —
1082:
AfDs may indeed discuss renaming, as well as other alternatives to deletion. See
118:
744:
I realized I hadn't actually voted yet. The sources for the article make it pass
1686:
1628:
1142:
1087:
364:
593:
GNews, GBooks and GScholar return nothing but trivial mentions. Google returns
420:
The lead should probably be changed (and have one of the refs attached to it).
1583:
1138:
987:
827:
80:
72:
1308:
The problem with your argument is that it could just as easily be applied to
1580:
1340:
583:
geek blog dedicated to the scientific study of gadgets, gizmos, and awesome
564:
should call it a "seascraper" instead of a "waterscraper", sounds cooler
562:'s "coverage" of the subject is limited to the following user comment: "
236:
622:
240:
1719:
1420:
in an attempt to use
Knowledge (XXG) to increase usage of the term.
586:
446:
to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
632:
4. Which explains why, oh would you look at that, it's gone. Poof.
625:. Which, clearly, gave me the article on tunnel. Then I looked up
1656:
The Water-Scraper: I would live on it without a huge eco-disaster
1347:
just as we have numerous articles about the similar concept of a
870:
239:, or some underwater mining or construction equipment, such as a
1738:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
1370:
deserve an article, try creating one that doesn't conflict with
951:
I added a link to an architectural magazine in the article.
986:. Once again, unless you can come up with better sources,
896:
obviously wouldn't operate in such a manner, would it? —
1264:
Your interpretation of the above sentence is irrelevant
1213:
is like a horizontal floating skyscraper or "seascraper"
1521:
Two is enough to establish notability of the concept.
114:
110:
106:
1110:" They should be discussed on talk pages, not at AFD.
894:
A building about the size of the Empire State
Building
176:
1712:
is a contest entry (i.e., a primary source; compare
451:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
190:
1674:Floating city kicks off colonization of the oceans
1260:I can't believe I'm forced to quote it again, but
695:This topic has potential. A better title might be
1215:" isn't demonstrative of anything. Please reread
296:list of Architecture-related deletion discussions
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1748:). No further edits should be made to this page.
611:I will respond to each of your comments in turn.
1339:The problem with your argument is that it is a
363:. It could use improvement but not deletion.
355:{{CB-keep}} Article has adequate refs to meet
8:
1662:Gyre Floating City for inhabiting the oceans
290:
1193:. Deletion would not be constructive.
1137:We do already have floating buildings -
699:, which was used in one of the sources.
294:: This debate has been included in the
260:before though, so doubt its necessary.
918:Google news link shows four results.
742:Keep and rename to Amphibious Building
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
1680:Underwater Seascrapers Of The Future
768:This article has been nominated for
670:Which is why I want to rename it.
24:
863:But so does Amphibious Building,
838:sources for this one, including
571:has no mention of the neologism.
834:. Google Books has a number of
524:Well, it does say conceptual.
1:
235:a seascraper could also be a
208:as there are just not enough
1721:is an inadmissible blog. —
1685:This topic would fall under
797:I've listed the article for
1765:
1731:02:07, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
1699:00:37, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
1668:Seascraper – Floating City
1637:11:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
1596:00:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
1567:23:44, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
1549:17:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
1531:17:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
1511:16:32, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
1451:23:44, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
1432:17:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
1407:17:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
1388:16:32, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
1361:16:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
1331:15:41, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
1300:15:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
1278:15:18, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
1252:15:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
1233:14:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
1203:14:04, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
1181:13:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
1163:07:42, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
1151:Reinventing the skyscraper
1122:06:23, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
1096:04:22, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
1078:12:40, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
1063:09:02, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
1044:05:41, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
1012:03:21, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
978:23:50, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
945:23:37, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
906:19:55, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
887:19:41, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
857:19:23, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
813:19:00, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
784:19:00, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
760:18:55, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
735:18:55, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
715:14:05, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
682:19:41, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
664:19:00, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
647:18:55, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
607:13:47, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
536:08:03, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
518:08:00, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
498:03:39, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
480:03:37, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
460:00:24, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
432:00:26, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
410:10:15, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
396:10:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
373:12:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
330:23:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
311:17:14, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
284:23:37, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
253:05:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
227:04:28, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
67:01:41, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
1644:-This doesn't fall under
1741:Please do not modify it.
588:. Not a reliable source.
553:, it is simply not true.
32:Please do not modify it.
1149:shows up in works like
243:, or sand siphon, etc.
382:could be merged into
347:few or no other edits
1664:, CoolestGadgets.com
1658:, CoolestGadgets.com
627:Gotthard Base Tunnel
349:outside this topic.
1441:is not applicable.
1345:Floating skyscraper
1153:and so we're good.
697:Amphibious building
595:133 unique results
402:Jonathan Oldenbuck
388:Jonathan Oldenbuck
384:underwater habitat
44:The result was
832:Floating building
786:
462:
350:
313:
299:
1756:
1743:
1623:does not apply.
1119:
1114:
1060:
1055:
1040:
1037:
1034:
1031:
1028:
1025:
974:
971:
968:
965:
962:
959:
941:
938:
935:
932:
929:
926:
884:
879:
826:is anything but
810:
805:
781:
776:
764:
757:
752:
732:
727:
718:
679:
674:
644:
639:
533:
528:
495:
490:
457:
450:
448:
429:
424:
335:Detroitsprinkles
332:
322:Detroitsprinkles
300:
280:
277:
274:
271:
268:
265:
210:reliable sources
195:
194:
180:
132:
122:
104:
64:
34:
1764:
1763:
1759:
1758:
1757:
1755:
1754:
1753:
1752:
1746:deletion review
1739:
1615:. I agree with
1586:if you must. —
1575:You seem to be
1211:Coverage like "
1117:
1112:
1058:
1053:
1038:
1035:
1032:
1029:
1026:
1023:
972:
969:
966:
963:
960:
957:
939:
936:
933:
930:
927:
924:
882:
877:
824:Gyre Seascraper
808:
803:
779:
774:
755:
750:
730:
725:
708:
677:
672:
642:
637:
531:
526:
493:
488:
453:
441:
427:
422:
278:
275:
272:
269:
266:
263:
225:
137:
128:
95:
79:
76:
60:
56:
50:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1762:
1760:
1751:
1750:
1735:
1734:
1733:
1704:
1703:
1702:
1701:
1683:
1677:
1671:
1665:
1659:
1639:
1617:Colonel Warden
1609:
1608:
1607:
1606:
1605:
1604:
1603:
1602:
1601:
1600:
1599:
1598:
1570:
1569:
1559:Colonel Warden
1552:
1551:
1534:
1533:
1523:Colonel Warden
1514:
1513:
1478:
1477:
1476:
1475:
1474:
1473:
1472:
1471:
1470:
1469:
1468:
1467:
1466:
1465:
1464:
1463:
1462:
1461:
1460:
1459:
1458:
1457:
1456:
1455:
1454:
1453:
1443:Colonel Warden
1435:
1434:
1410:
1409:
1399:Colonel Warden
1391:
1390:
1364:
1363:
1353:Colonel Warden
1334:
1333:
1303:
1302:
1292:Colonel Warden
1281:
1280:
1255:
1254:
1244:Colonel Warden
1236:
1235:
1206:
1205:
1195:Colonel Warden
1191:editing policy
1184:
1183:
1166:
1165:
1155:Colonel Warden
1131:
1130:
1129:
1128:
1127:
1126:
1125:
1124:
1099:
1098:
1080:
1047:
1046:
1015:
1014:
948:
947:
911:
910:
909:
908:
860:
859:
816:
815:
790:
788:
787:
762:
738:
737:
720:
719:
713:comment added
689:
688:
687:
686:
685:
684:
667:
666:
633:
630:
619:
616:
612:
591:
590:
589:
577:
572:
567:
555:
554:
539:
538:
521:
520:
510:Quantumelfmage
501:
500:
483:
482:
464:
463:
449:
438:
437:
436:
435:
434:
415:
414:
413:
412:
376:
375:
352:
351:
314:
287:
286:
256:
255:
221:
198:
197:
134:
130:AfD statistics
75:
70:
58:
54:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1761:
1749:
1747:
1742:
1736:
1732:
1728:
1724:
1720:
1717:
1714:
1711:
1708:
1707:
1706:
1705:
1700:
1696:
1692:
1688:
1684:
1681:
1678:
1675:
1672:
1669:
1666:
1663:
1660:
1657:
1654:
1653:
1651:
1647:
1643:
1640:
1638:
1634:
1630:
1626:
1622:
1618:
1614:
1611:
1610:
1597:
1593:
1589:
1585:
1581:
1578:
1577:intentionally
1574:
1573:
1572:
1571:
1568:
1564:
1560:
1556:
1555:
1554:
1553:
1550:
1546:
1542:
1538:
1537:
1536:
1535:
1532:
1528:
1524:
1520:
1519:
1518:
1517:
1516:
1515:
1512:
1508:
1504:
1500:
1497:
1494:
1491:
1488:
1484:
1480:
1479:
1452:
1448:
1444:
1439:
1438:
1437:
1436:
1433:
1429:
1425:
1421:
1417:
1414:
1413:
1412:
1411:
1408:
1404:
1400:
1395:
1394:
1393:
1392:
1389:
1385:
1381:
1377:
1373:
1368:
1367:
1366:
1365:
1362:
1358:
1354:
1350:
1349:Floating city
1346:
1342:
1338:
1337:
1336:
1335:
1332:
1328:
1324:
1319:
1315:
1311:
1307:
1306:
1305:
1304:
1301:
1297:
1293:
1289:
1285:
1284:
1283:
1282:
1279:
1275:
1271:
1267:
1263:
1259:
1258:
1257:
1256:
1253:
1249:
1245:
1240:
1239:
1238:
1237:
1234:
1230:
1226:
1222:
1218:
1214:
1210:
1209:
1208:
1207:
1204:
1200:
1196:
1192:
1188:
1187:
1186:
1185:
1182:
1178:
1174:
1170:
1169:
1168:
1167:
1164:
1160:
1156:
1152:
1148:
1144:
1140:
1136:
1133:
1132:
1123:
1120:
1115:
1109:
1105:
1102:According to
1101:
1100:
1097:
1093:
1089:
1085:
1081:
1079:
1075:
1071:
1066:
1065:
1064:
1061:
1056:
1049:
1048:
1045:
1042:
1041:
1019:
1018:
1017:
1016:
1013:
1009:
1005:
1001:
997:
993:
989:
985:
984:Super monster
981:
980:
979:
976:
975:
953:
950:
949:
946:
943:
942:
920:
917:
913:
912:
907:
903:
899:
895:
890:
889:
888:
885:
880:
874:
871:
868:
865:
862:
861:
858:
854:
850:
846:
843:
840:
837:
833:
829:
825:
821:
818:
817:
814:
811:
806:
800:
796:
793:
792:
791:
785:
782:
777:
771:
767:
763:
761:
758:
753:
747:
743:
740:
739:
736:
733:
728:
722:
721:
716:
712:
706:
702:
698:
694:
691:
690:
683:
680:
675:
669:
668:
665:
661:
657:
653:
650:
649:
648:
645:
640:
634:
631:
628:
624:
620:
617:
613:
610:
609:
608:
604:
600:
596:
592:
587:
584:
580:
578:
575:
573:
570:
568:
565:
561:
559:
558:
557:
556:
552:
548:
544:
541:
540:
537:
534:
529:
523:
522:
519:
515:
511:
506:
503:
502:
499:
496:
491:
485:
484:
481:
477:
473:
469:
466:
465:
461:
458:
456:
447:
445:
440:
439:
433:
430:
425:
419:
418:
417:
416:
411:
407:
403:
399:
398:
397:
393:
389:
385:
381:
378:
377:
374:
370:
366:
362:
358:
354:
353:
348:
344:
340:
336:
331:
327:
323:
318:
315:
312:
308:
304:
297:
293:
289:
288:
285:
282:
281:
258:
257:
254:
250:
246:
245:70.29.210.242
242:
238:
234:
231:
230:
229:
228:
224:
219:
215:
211:
207:
203:
193:
189:
186:
183:
179:
175:
171:
168:
165:
162:
159:
156:
153:
150:
147:
143:
140:
139:Find sources:
135:
131:
126:
120:
116:
112:
108:
103:
99:
94:
90:
86:
82:
78:
77:
74:
71:
69:
68:
65:
63:
62:
61:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1740:
1737:
1641:
1612:
1576:
1486:
1481:Speaking of
1418:
1415:
1344:
1314:Watermansion
1261:
1212:
1150:
1146:
1145:. The term
1143:cruise ships
1134:
1107:
1022:
1000:userfication
992:Waterscraper
956:
923:
915:
893:
819:
794:
789:
765:
741:
692:
651:
582:
563:
542:
504:
467:
454:
442:
379:
316:
291:
262:
232:
199:
187:
181:
173:
166:
160:
154:
148:
138:
53:
52:
51:
46:no consensus
45:
43:
31:
28:
1691:Smallman12q
1687:Seasteading
1682:,Geekologie
1650:WP:Neolgism
1642:Strong keep
1487:seascrapers
1139:house boats
994:fall under
709:—Preceding
345:) has made
164:free images
1646:WP:CRYSTAL
1584:skyscraper
1310:Oceancondo
988:Seascraper
828:amphibious
206:WP:CRYSTAL
200:Contested
81:Seascraper
73:Seascraper
57:rbitrarily
1483:WP:DICDEF
1341:straw man
1318:Aquahouse
1147:seacraper
303:• Gene93k
1266:WP:SYNTH
701:Kitfoxxe
472:Kitfoxxe
444:Relisted
343:contribs
223:Contribs
125:View log
1723:Rankiri
1718:), and
1613:Comment
1588:Rankiri
1541:Rankiri
1503:Rankiri
1424:Rankiri
1380:Rankiri
1323:Rankiri
1270:Rankiri
1225:Rankiri
1173:Rankiri
1070:Rankiri
1004:Rankiri
898:Rankiri
849:Rankiri
820:Comment
795:Comment
711:undated
656:Rankiri
599:Rankiri
455:JForget
380:Comment
237:dragnet
170:WP refs
158:scholar
98:protect
93:history
1676:,Dvice
1670:, Evob
1629:Ikluft
1621:WP:NEO
1376:WP:NEO
1288:policy
1217:WP:NEO
1113:Silver
1104:WP:ATD
1088:Ikluft
1084:WP:ATD
1054:Silver
996:WP:NEO
878:Silver
872:, and
844:, and
804:Silver
799:rescue
775:Silver
770:rescue
751:Silver
726:Silver
693:Userfy
673:Silver
638:Silver
623:tunnel
615:about.
581:is a "
547:WP:NEO
543:Delete
527:Silver
489:Silver
468:Delete
423:Silver
365:Ikluft
241:dredge
233:Delete
214:verify
142:Google
102:delete
1489:(see
1118:seren
1059:seren
1039:Focus
973:Focus
940:Focus
883:seren
836:WP:RS
809:seren
780:seren
766:Note:
756:seren
731:seren
678:seren
643:seren
532:seren
494:seren
428:seren
357:WP:RS
279:Focus
185:JSTOR
146:books
119:views
111:watch
107:links
16:<
1727:talk
1715:and
1695:talk
1633:talk
1625:WP:N
1592:talk
1563:talk
1545:talk
1527:talk
1507:talk
1447:talk
1428:talk
1403:talk
1384:talk
1378:. —
1374:and
1372:WP:N
1357:talk
1327:talk
1296:talk
1274:talk
1268:. —
1248:talk
1229:talk
1223:. —
1221:WP:N
1219:and
1199:talk
1177:talk
1159:talk
1141:and
1135:Keep
1092:talk
1074:talk
1008:talk
1002:. —
990:and
916:Keep
902:talk
853:talk
847:. —
746:WP:N
705:talk
660:talk
603:talk
551:WP:N
514:talk
505:Keep
476:talk
406:talk
392:talk
369:talk
361:WP:N
359:and
339:talk
326:talk
317:KEEP
307:talk
292:Note
249:talk
218:Nick
202:PROD
178:FENS
152:news
115:logs
89:talk
85:edit
1106:, "
707:)
301:--
212:to
192:TWL
127:•
123:– (
1729:)
1697:)
1635:)
1594:)
1565:)
1547:)
1529:)
1509:)
1498:,
1495:,
1449:)
1430:)
1422:—
1405:)
1386:)
1359:)
1329:)
1316:,
1312:,
1298:)
1276:)
1250:)
1231:)
1201:)
1179:)
1161:)
1094:)
1086:.
1076:)
1010:)
904:)
875:.
869:,
866:,
855:)
841:,
801:.
772:.
662:)
605:)
566:".
545::
516:)
478:)
408:)
394:)
371:)
341:•
333:—
328:)
309:)
298:.
251:)
220:—/
172:)
117:|
113:|
109:|
105:|
100:|
96:|
91:|
87:|
48:.
1725:(
1693:(
1689:.
1631:(
1590:(
1561:(
1543:(
1525:(
1505:(
1492:,
1445:(
1426:(
1401:(
1382:(
1355:(
1325:(
1294:(
1272:(
1246:(
1227:(
1197:(
1175:(
1157:(
1090:(
1072:(
1036:m
1033:a
1030:e
1027:r
1024:D
1006:(
970:m
967:a
964:e
961:r
958:D
937:m
934:a
931:e
928:r
925:D
914:'
900:(
851:(
717:.
703:(
658:(
601:(
585:"
512:(
474:(
404:(
390:(
367:(
337:(
324:(
305:(
276:m
273:a
270:e
267:r
264:D
247:(
196:)
188:·
182:·
174:·
167:·
161:·
155:·
149:·
144:(
136:(
133:)
121:)
83:(
59:0
55:A
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.