52:. This was a difficult AfD to close. First, let me note that the claim that the article was original research does not hold water since the article does not make any new synthesis from the source material (aside from a few sentences in the introduction that may be problematic). Second, the claim that there is a copyright problem is also not persuasive. While some sentences are very similar to that of the source material to the point where it might be considered plagiarism in an academic setting, the vast majority of the article appears to be substantially paraphrased to the point where it is not an issue. However, overall there is no reason to consider this notable. We have no reliable secondary sources about the matter and as it stands fails
447:
Orions, a smaller star-faring culture on their border. The Orions quickly set up trade relations." This is brilliantly rearranged to "Y21 The
Federation encounters the Orions. Trade relations are quickly established." We all "link" to copyrighted material, but we don't all copy and pass an alteration off as our own work. Big difference between the two.
1160:
creatures; and, of course, the plot itself." Seems fairly evident to me what can be included using primary sources without interpretation. And I know what he is saying (SamBC) , I disagree completley, there is plenty of information in fiction that without interpretation and analysis is not a plot summary.
1104:
argument, the precise definition of story becomes important. From the argument you actually make, you would be claiming that an entire setting (in this case a game setting) is a "story", which is probably rather tenuous. From the argument I suggest, I would say that a fictional history isn't a story,
812:-ball gazing going on. The article doesn't contain speculation as to how the timeline is going to develop with new source material. The timeline doesn't contain analytical (etc) material, so primary sources are sufficient and don't mean that there's any OR. I'm slightly confused by these allegations.
1055:
sourced, and if content passes all the other WP:THISORTHAT rules it would be addable. All the examples are "sourced based research". For example say the glasses did fit with notability for whatever reason. There would inevitably be sources that proved notability, then you could add information about
742:
to main SFU article without prejudice for later re-splitting if size of section warrants it. SFU as a whole is notable, not least because of the range of notable products relating to it. If timeline(s) get too large to fit handily into the main article for a topic, it's worth splitting them for this
1027:
Can you collect from the primary source that a certain dragon is red? Yes. Does it require interpretation? No. Could it be added to WP? Yes. You see? One can collect and organize more than just the plot using primary sources and without interpretation. The problem which I have stated before is that
472:
The other thing (that I thought of later, silly me) is that there's a difference between republishing copyrighted material in a research paper for class, and doing the same thing in an article on
Knowledge. For schoolwork, it's simply laziness. On Knowledge, it's something that the service wishes
446:
Oh, please. Don't be naive. I had to go to school before there were word processors, so we couldn't do the "cut-paste-alter" maneuver, and it was easier to put something in your own words than to copy it verbatim and change a little here and there. For example "Y21 The
Federation encounters the
947:
So, is the argument of the delete !votes (from
Phirazo and Burntsauce) based on notability? First-party and/or primary sources are a perfectly good source of direct "factual" (ie non-analytical) content, but they don't establish notability. If so, I would point out that, as a content fork for size
681:
original research. Saying that the PDF that's referenced doesn't count as a primary source makes no sense -- it was created by the publisher of the Star Fleet
Universe games, so why wouldn't it be a perfectly reasonable primary source for an article about those games? You keep trying to call the
658:
has got a large body of primary and secondary sources for most of the individual dates, whereas the Star Fleet
Universe timeline came from a PDF of dates created for the one instance of this game. I would suggest that one primary source (which possibly make this article a copyright violation - see
423:
per WP:COPYVIO. Follow the link to the site that begins "THE STAR FLEET UNIVERSE TIMELINE Copyright (c) 1985-2007 Amarillo Design Bureau, Inc. Revised 12 April 2007". Changing a few words here or there doesn't make it less of a violation. People pay the U.S. Copyright office good money for that
1212:
It's a fairly long-standing principle that notability of an article's subject is unnecessary when it's a content fork due to the size of the section. It can be argued that this article would be excessively long if it were a section of the main article, hence it gets spun off as a seperate article
60:
universe but from a side-universe constructed for a series of games. Notability is not generally inherited and it is certainly not inherited from things that are only barely notable themselves. The main reason is this not a decision of delete is that some of the material might make sense as being
676:
The question of notability is a separate one from the question of whether this is original research. No, a single primary source is probably not sufficient to establish notability. But that still doesn't mean it's original research: obviously, the material in the article came from that primary
1159:
where it says this: "Examples of information available in primary sources include: the birth and death dates of fictional characters; performance statistics or characteristics for fictional vehicles or devices; history of fictional locations or organizations; background information on fictional
771:
I would say that the only aspect in which the current article is "too long" to merge is that it might end up a little disproportionate. The main article is by no means too long to accept that much more material. I would suggest consulting on the talk page for the main article to see if there is
843:
That doesn't make any sense... why should we stop having an article just because it's going to grow in the future? Many articles are going to grow and change in the future as new things happen to their subjects; that doesn't mean we shouldn't have articles about what they're currently like.
456:
First, please don't make assumptions, I had to go to school before computers as well. The example you give would hold up as not a copyvio. Especially since there is not that much info in the first place, the ways to re-write that sentence are limited. Also, Naive would be thinking copy write
436:
Not a copyvio. Have you written a research paper? One takes info from sources (almost always copy written) and uses it to write about the subject (of course changing info so its not a direct copy and paste). From WP:copyvio "almost any
Knowledge article which cites its sources will link to
761:
Have you looked at the articles in question? I would consider the current timeline article way to big to merge into the main article as is. If you are thinking that the current content needs to be trimmed down, feel free to give suggestions, I'm going to need them if this goes to 'merge'.
1329:
says articles on fiction must have real world context and sourced analysis, and this article has neither. The only place to find real world context and sourced analysis is secondary sources, which this article does not have. I also have concerns that a timeline like this is a
987:
regarding
Primary sources, "Research that consists of collecting and organizing material from existing sources within the provisions of this and other content policies is encouraged: this is "source-based research," and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia." Also from
789:
This raises an important point about the potential for this article to be extended or amended over and over. If, say, the existing timeline is expanded, or a new timeline is written for a new edition of SFU, this article could run and run. The answer must be that it is
271:
I created this article to make sure that the main SFU article to keep it from gaining an ungainly amount of weight in the history section (that is, a preemptive content fork). Merging any significant portion into the article would create the situation I was trying to
1342:
guidelines, particularly because the article is derived entirely from primary sources and is almost completely in-universe. This article fails even the lower standards of an article section, and has no place anywhere in
Knowledge. Therefore, it should be deleted.
1056:
the glasses directly from the movie. In the context of this discussion, we know the game is notable, if the time line is notable, then one can use primary sources for reference. My whole point above was that no, interpretation is not always required for fiction.
1169:
I'm not saying that you can't extract plot points and characters from primary sources (you can), I'm saying that articles on fiction require interpretation, and you can not do that with only primary sources. Besides, this article doesn't follow
1022:
Not true, Watch the matrix. Can you collect the fact that Neo wears sun glasses in a particular scene? Yes. Does it require interpretation? No. Could it be added to WP? Yes. Another example this time using another role playing game. Look at
638:, which, as a long-running setting of commercially-released products, is a valid topic in and of itself. Does that make sense? We've been arguing this particular point for weeks, and I'm not sure how I can make this any clearer.
1127:
by narrowly interpreting the letter of the policy. Lists of events in a fictional work have long been considered unencylopedic, and you can't get around that by declaring your particular work of fiction is not a "story" per se.
694:, which isn't something being made up for the Knowledge, as your arguments seem to indicate that you believe, but rather something that has been created by a game company for the series of games that these articles are about.
314:
364:
807:
Um, if new published material alters the actual information that the article tries to provide, then the article will be altered. What it currently contains is all justified by current published material, so there's no
375:
1037:
None of the examples you give are "real-world context and sourced analysis", but are instead plot points and trivia. (I would argue whether or not Neo is wearing sunglasses in a particular scene of "The Matrix" can
1141:. I also have no dislike for it. I just disagree that fictional histories for a broad setting are stories, and I doubt that was the intent of those drafting or discerning consensus for the guidelines and policies.
508:
A notable fictional game that has sources available, The article needs improvement and better footnotes, but it easily meets
Knowledge guidelines for inclusion and will certainly be improved over time.
1313:
I am going to restate my case here, since the debate above has gotten long, and I want to make myself clear. This article is little more than a plot summary, and even if we belabor the definition of "
772:
consensus in either direction (should/shouldn't be forked). I personally think that the verdict of this AfD ought to be "keep or merge based on consensus at main article talk page" along these lines.
353:
1100:
Well, I think your argument would be better served by saying that a fictional history is a story, and thus a timeline is a summary of the events and actions of that story, thus a plot summary. From
320:
1042:
be added to WP, since it is the worst kind of fancruft and trivia.) How can you give real-world context and sourced analysis in the absence of secondary sources without it being OR? --
1232:
1069:
interpretation and analysis can only be a plot summary. I'm not actually sure that I agree with it in all cases, but your arguments don't really counter it. My main problem with it in
533:
I'm striking out my entire comment because on further review I realized I don't have time to do the needed research, so I withdraw my !vote rather than enter an arbitrary opinion. --
169:
1073:
case is that a fictional history isn't really a "plot". Yes, it's a summary, but it's not a summary of a plot, it's a summary of fictional history. That's what I think, anyway...
308:
127:
348:
302:
359:
659:
above) is insufficient to establish notabiliy.I would even go further and say that this PDF does not count as a primary source for this article at all; I would say this is
913:
reliable sources. This is all sourced to primary sources (which seems to be role-playing game manuals). Articles must be able to stand on thier own, this one does not. --
296:
1156:
370:
983:
Your second statement is very far off from the truth. Suggesting that you can only summarize the plot with primary sources is irresponsible, inane, and senseless. From
100:
95:
104:
1338:, since it does not have the critical commentary that would make it allowable as a fair use of copyrighted material. This article also has big problems with the
874:
Sorry to get into semantics, but the important point of "original research" is the "original" part, and if it's one step removed, it can't really be "original".
87:
1183:
Well, I disagree with that. Not all information from fiction requires interpretation. One could gather plenty of information without any interpretation.
626:. But you don't agree... Gavin, you're still totally missing the point. Yes, the timeline was made up for the game. But that doesn't mean it's
992:"Examples of primary sources include... ...scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos, and television programs." Finally also from
1009:, which requires "real-world context and sourced analysis". In the case of articles on fiction, "interpretation of the primary source"
1005:
All that can "collected and organized" is the plot of a role playing game. If this article does not have secondary sources, it fails
948:
concerns, notability is not an issue for this article provided that the article it is spun off from is appropriate under notability.
830:
If this timeline is extended by a further, say by 1,000 years, then at some point you would have to agree its a pointless article. --
690:
TV shows/movies. But that doesn't make sense, since these aren't articles about the Star Trek universe, they're articles about the
91:
558:
which features the specific Star Trek example. Note that there is a similar situation here: there already exists an article called
382:
I'm inclined to allow for timelines, myself (but not timeline comparisons). But there's big inconsistency in how these votes go. --
1028:
WP editors don't understand OR is supposed to block original thought or idea's, not source based research from a primary source.
17:
1347:
1304:
1270:
1261:
1239:
1222:
1187:
1178:
1164:
1150:
1132:
1114:
1095:
1082:
1060:
1046:
1032:
1017:
1000:
978:
957:
942:
917:
883:
865:
848:
834:
821:
798:
781:
766:
752:
734:
698:
667:
642:
614:
598:
574:
542:
518:
477:
461:
451:
441:
428:
415:
390:
336:
263:
243:
222:
210:
198:
176:
159:
146:
69:
655:
562:
based on the television and film series, from which it draws its primary sources. However, there is no rationale for keeping
559:
1252:. Whether it's a valid case of that is another matter, but generally a valid spinout doesn't need independent notability.
563:
83:
75:
283:
for this content fork. Recent AfDs seem to show that SFU is notable enough for a main article and a few off-branches.
457:
infringement didn't happen when there was not computers. Now days they have computer programs that check for that.
1364:
36:
1363:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
732:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
190:
article, with some appropriate paring down/cleaning up/sourcing. As with all the other articles, this isn't
1120:
1266:
I have to agree with Sam here in that, in my experience, that has been a fairly long-standing principle. --
1228:
963:
743:
consideration only, as is a common practice. Content forks for size don't require independent notability.
686:
original research based on the fact that the universe depicted in them is not the same one as that of the
65:
article and leaving a redirect makes it easier for the material be used there or at some other project.
286:
OR - This page is derived from fictional works. It therefore proceeds from original sources, but does
235:
by our standards, since primary sources don't count for notability, but use of primary sources is not
290:
consist of original thought, promote a point of view, nor comprise of new syntheses of that material.
1335:
721:
691:
256:
187:
156:
62:
49:
966:. Secondly, any article on fiction that does not have secondary sourcing will inevitability be a
155:: This is not original research but is based upon the published sources which the article cites.
862:
831:
795:
664:
611:
571:
537:
513:
387:
173:
143:
1298:
1245:
809:
570:, where original research is allowed to some extent and fact-based speculations are welcome.--
135:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1088:
996:
Secondary sources are only required when interpretation of the primary source was required.
409:
1331:
1257:
1218:
1146:
1110:
1078:
953:
926:
879:
817:
777:
748:
595:
260:
218:
No citations to independent secondary sources - that means it's original research, folks.
342:
138:
and just too in universe to be classed as anything other than original research based on
967:
845:
695:
639:
474:
448:
425:
240:
195:
53:
1325:
would say that Knowledge is not the place for a simple summary of a work of fiction.
506:
very notable work of fiction, highly documented with many reference sources available.
1339:
1326:
1322:
1171:
1124:
1006:
791:
627:
555:
534:
510:
501:
383:
239:, as long as they're used in a way that doesn't involve synthesis or interpretation.
1344:
1291:
1249:
1236:
1184:
1175:
1161:
1129:
1092:
1057:
1043:
1029:
1014:
997:
993:
989:
984:
975:
971:
914:
858:
660:
631:
458:
438:
236:
219:
191:
139:
66:
1087:
A plot "is the rendering and ordering of the events and actions of a story" (from
121:
763:
497:
493:
405:
333:
328:
Please note that (other than the 1st HP nom) AfDs that resulted in a Delete are
232:
1174:
in the slightest, since it fails most of the conclusions in that guideline. --
1105:
but can't think of cogent arguments for that off the top of my head right now.
1321:", this article is still a summary of a fictional work. The intent I read in
1267:
1253:
1214:
1142:
1106:
1074:
949:
875:
813:
773:
744:
594:
are not the same thing. One is inspired by the other but they are not equal.
1231:
the notability of a parent article is not a "long standing principle". See
687:
207:
57:
970:, since this is all that can be derived from primary sources without being
315:
Knowledge:Articles_for_deletion/Dates_in_Harry_Potter_(second_nomination)
293:
Some previous AfDs of Fictional timeline articles, for those interested:
365:
Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Metal Gear timeline compared to reality
1314:
376:
Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Timeline of Grand Theft Auto III canon
1318:
1024:
566:, as the timeline was made up for the game, and as such, belongs at
1227:
The idea that sub-articles are immune to notability, or that they
1357:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
857:
Only if they are sourced from independent sources. This is just
654:
I would have to disagree with you there. The point is that that
134:
This history of the future is, of course, unfinished, but also
343:
timeline site:en.wikipedia.org/wikipedia:articles_for_deletion
567:
354:
Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Timeline of Faerûn: Present
321:
Knowledge:Articles_for_deletion/Back_to_the_Future_timeline
1137:
I resent that accusation. I actually have no fondness for
1065:
I think that the argument is that any coverage of fiction
341:
Here's some delete outcomes (my Google search string was "
634:
for the purposes of the Knowledge, since this article is
1233:
Knowledge:Articles for deletion/List of Akatsuki members
279:
Non-notable - that is more a question of is SFU notable
332:
listed here, as my Wiki-fu isn't up to finding them. --
117:
113:
109:
1123:
this to death. You are trying to skirt the spirit of
309:
Knowledge:Articles_for_deletion/Dates_in_Harry_Potter
206:- Per Colonel Warden, this is not original research.
349:
Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Castlevania timeline
303:
Knowledge:Articles_for_deletion/Dragonlance_timeline
360:
Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Metal Gear timeline
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
297:Knowledge:Articles_for_deletion/EverQuest_timeline
1157:Knowledge:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)
371:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Degrassi timeline
1367:). No further edits should be made to this page.
925:due to a lack of reliable third party sources.
1091:). I'd say a fictional history is a plot. --
56:. Furthermore, this isn't even from the main
8:
1244:I was referring to the process described by
231:No, it doesn't. It may mean that it's not
794:: that is original research by the way. --
554:I think this debate echoes the guideline
1290:useful resource, pathetic referencing.
168:: This debate has been included in the
656:Chronological list of Star Trek stories
560:Chronological list of Star Trek stories
194:, as it's information from the books.
1213:without needing seperate notability.
1051:Your seem to be missing my point, It
7:
720:to main Star Fleet Universe article
610:I am glad we agree on this point. --
356:(several articles for same universe)
24:
170:list of science fiction deletions
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1305:01:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
1271:21:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
1262:01:02, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
1240:00:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
1223:22:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
1151:20:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
1133:19:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
1115:17:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
1096:16:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
1083:14:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
1061:11:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
1047:01:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
1033:06:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
1018:00:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
1001:20:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
979:18:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
958:17:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
943:17:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
918:17:14, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
884:21:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
866:21:36, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
849:19:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
835:18:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
822:17:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
799:17:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
782:17:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
767:17:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
753:15:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
735:11:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
699:14:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
668:14:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
643:13:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
615:11:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
599:10:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
575:09:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
543:18:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
519:08:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
478:23:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
462:20:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
452:18:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
442:02:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
429:20:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
416:19:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
391:22:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
337:19:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
264:19:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
244:18:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
223:18:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
211:18:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
199:17:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
186:to the History section of the
177:16:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
160:16:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
147:16:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
1:
1235:, which was upheld in DRV. --
564:Star Fleet Universe timeline
84:Star Fleet Universe timeline
76:Star Fleet Universe timeline
1348:17:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
1188:22:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
1179:17:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
1165:08:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
1155:You (Phirazo) need to read
964:notability is not inherited
424:"c" with the circle in it.
70:00:55, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
61:incorporated into the main
1384:
1360:Please do not modify it.
792:unverifiable speculation
32:Please do not modify it.
861:, one step removed. --
437:copyrighted material"
677:source, and thus is
1336:Star Fleet Universe
1139:Star Fleet Universe
692:Star Fleet Universe
588:Star Fleet Universe
257:Star Fleet Universe
188:Star Fleet Universe
63:Star Fleet Universe
50:Star Fleet Universe
556:WP:NOT#CRYSTALBALL
972:original research
859:original research
632:original research
237:original research
192:original research
180:
140:original research
1375:
1362:
1303:
1296:
1089:Plot (narrative)
939:
936:
933:
930:
730:
727:
724:
663:once removed. --
473:to be avoided.
164:
125:
107:
34:
1383:
1382:
1378:
1377:
1376:
1374:
1373:
1372:
1371:
1365:deletion review
1358:
1332:derivative work
1301:
1292:
937:
934:
931:
928:
728:
725:
722:
540:
516:
98:
82:
79:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1381:
1379:
1370:
1369:
1352:
1308:
1307:
1285:
1284:
1283:
1282:
1281:
1280:
1279:
1278:
1277:
1276:
1275:
1274:
1273:
1210:
1209:
1208:
1207:
1206:
1205:
1204:
1203:
1202:
1201:
1200:
1199:
1198:
1197:
1196:
1195:
1194:
1193:
1192:
1191:
1190:
1153:
1117:
920:
903:
902:
901:
900:
899:
898:
897:
896:
895:
894:
893:
892:
891:
890:
889:
888:
887:
886:
869:
868:
852:
851:
838:
837:
825:
824:
802:
801:
756:
755:
737:
714:
713:
712:
711:
710:
709:
708:
707:
706:
705:
704:
703:
702:
701:
671:
670:
646:
645:
636:about the game
618:
617:
602:
601:
578:
577:
548:
547:
546:
545:
538:
523:
522:
514:
486:
485:
484:
483:
482:
481:
480:
465:
464:
444:
431:
418:
398:
397:
396:
395:
394:
393:
380:
379:
378:
373:
368:
362:
357:
351:
326:
325:
324:
318:
312:
311:(1st) - Delete
306:
300:
299:- No consensus
291:
284:
274:
273:
266:
249:
248:
247:
246:
226:
225:
213:
201:
181:
162:
157:Colonel Warden
132:
131:
78:
73:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1380:
1368:
1366:
1361:
1355:
1354:
1353:
1350:
1349:
1346:
1341:
1337:
1333:
1328:
1324:
1320:
1316:
1312:
1306:
1300:
1297:
1295:
1289:
1286:
1272:
1269:
1265:
1264:
1263:
1259:
1255:
1251:
1247:
1243:
1242:
1241:
1238:
1234:
1230:
1226:
1225:
1224:
1220:
1216:
1211:
1189:
1186:
1182:
1181:
1180:
1177:
1173:
1168:
1167:
1166:
1163:
1158:
1154:
1152:
1148:
1144:
1140:
1136:
1135:
1134:
1131:
1126:
1122:
1121:wikilawyering
1118:
1116:
1112:
1108:
1103:
1099:
1098:
1097:
1094:
1090:
1086:
1085:
1084:
1080:
1076:
1072:
1068:
1064:
1063:
1062:
1059:
1054:
1050:
1049:
1048:
1045:
1041:
1036:
1035:
1034:
1031:
1026:
1021:
1020:
1019:
1016:
1013:required. --
1012:
1008:
1004:
1003:
1002:
999:
995:
991:
986:
982:
981:
980:
977:
973:
969:
965:
961:
960:
959:
955:
951:
946:
945:
944:
941:
940:
924:
921:
919:
916:
912:
908:
905:
904:
885:
881:
877:
873:
872:
871:
870:
867:
864:
863:Gavin Collins
860:
856:
855:
854:
853:
850:
847:
842:
841:
840:
839:
836:
833:
832:Gavin Collins
829:
828:
827:
826:
823:
819:
815:
811:
806:
805:
804:
803:
800:
797:
796:Gavin Collins
793:
788:
785:
784:
783:
779:
775:
770:
769:
768:
765:
760:
759:
758:
757:
754:
750:
746:
741:
738:
736:
733:
731:
719:
716:
715:
700:
697:
693:
689:
685:
680:
675:
674:
673:
672:
669:
666:
665:Gavin Collins
662:
657:
653:
650:
649:
648:
647:
644:
641:
637:
633:
629:
625:
622:
621:
620:
619:
616:
613:
612:Gavin Collins
609:
606:
605:
604:
603:
600:
597:
593:
589:
585:
582:
581:
580:
579:
576:
573:
572:Gavin Collins
569:
565:
561:
557:
553:
550:
549:
544:
541:
536:
532:
529:
528:
527:
526:
525:
524:
521:
520:
517:
512:
507:
503:
499:
495:
491:
487:
479:
476:
471:
470:
469:
468:
467:
466:
463:
460:
455:
454:
453:
450:
445:
443:
440:
435:
432:
430:
427:
422:
419:
417:
413:
412:
407:
404:per above. —
403:
400:
399:
392:
389:
385:
381:
377:
374:
372:
369:
366:
363:
361:
358:
355:
352:
350:
347:
346:
344:
340:
339:
338:
335:
331:
327:
322:
319:
316:
313:
310:
307:
304:
301:
298:
295:
294:
292:
289:
285:
282:
278:
277:
276:
275:
270:
267:
265:
262:
258:
254:
251:
250:
245:
242:
238:
234:
230:
229:
228:
227:
224:
221:
217:
214:
212:
209:
205:
204:Keep or Merge
202:
200:
197:
193:
189:
185:
182:
178:
175:
174:Gavin Collins
171:
167:
163:
161:
158:
154:
151:
150:
149:
148:
145:
144:Gavin Collins
141:
137:
129:
123:
119:
115:
111:
106:
102:
97:
93:
89:
85:
81:
80:
77:
74:
72:
71:
68:
64:
59:
55:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1359:
1356:
1351:
1310:
1309:
1293:
1287:
1138:
1101:
1070:
1066:
1052:
1039:
1010:
968:plot summary
927:
922:
910:
906:
786:
739:
717:
683:
678:
651:
635:
623:
607:
591:
587:
586:Once again,
583:
568:Future Wikia
551:
530:
505:
489:
488:
433:
420:
410:
401:
329:
287:
280:
268:
252:
215:
203:
183:
165:
152:
133:
45:
43:
31:
28:
1327:WP:NOT#PLOT
1323:WP:NOT#PLOT
1125:WP:NOT#PLOT
1007:WP:NOT#PLOT
962:First off,
911:independent
596:Web Warlock
261:Web Warlock
136:non-notable
1315:wikt:story
1246:WP:SPINOUT
810:WP:CRYSTAL
259:as above.
1319:wikt:plot
1288:Weak keep
846:Pinball22
696:Pinball22
688:Star Trek
640:Pinball22
592:Star Trek
475:Mandsford
449:Mandsford
426:Mandsford
241:Pinball22
196:Pinball22
58:Star Trek
1119:You are
684:articles
652:Response
535:Parsifal
511:Parsifal
384:Dhartung
128:View log
46:redirect
1345:Phirazo
1317:" and "
1311:Comment
1294:ALKIVAR
1237:Phirazo
1229:inherit
1185:Viperix
1176:Phirazo
1162:Viperix
1130:Phirazo
1093:Phirazo
1067:without
1058:Viperix
1044:Phirazo
1030:Viperix
1025:D&D
1015:Phirazo
998:Viperix
976:Phirazo
915:Phirazo
787:Comment
723:Rainbow
628:made up
624:Comment
608:Comment
584:Comment
552:Comment
531:Update.
459:Viperix
439:Viperix
269:Comment
233:notable
220:MarkBul
101:protect
96:history
67:JoshuaZ
54:WP:FICT
1340:WP:WAF
1172:WP:WAF
923:Delete
907:Delete
764:Rindis
502:WP:HEY
500:, and
421:Delete
334:Rindis
323:- Keep
317:- Keep
305:- Keep
281:enough
272:avoid.
216:Delete
105:delete
1268:Kizor
1254:SamBC
1250:WP:SS
1215:SamBC
1143:SamBC
1107:SamBC
1075:SamBC
994:WP:OR
990:WP:OR
985:WP:OR
950:SamBC
876:SamBC
814:SamBC
774:SamBC
745:SamBC
740:Merge
729:Light
718:Merge
661:WP:OR
539:Hello
515:Hello
504:. A
490:Keep.
255:with
253:Merge
184:Merge
179:(UTC)
122:views
114:watch
110:links
16:<
1258:talk
1248:and
1219:talk
1147:talk
1111:talk
1102:that
1079:talk
1071:this
974:. --
954:talk
880:talk
818:talk
778:talk
749:talk
590:and
498:WP:V
496:and
494:WP:N
492:per
434:Keep
411:talk
402:Keep
388:Talk
208:Rray
166:Note
153:Keep
142:. --
118:logs
92:talk
88:edit
1334:of
1040:not
935:sau
929:Bur
909:No
679:not
630:or
406:RJH
367:(!)
345:):
330:not
288:not
172:.--
126:– (
48:to
1343:--
1260:)
1221:)
1149:)
1128:--
1113:)
1081:)
1053:is
1011:is
956:)
938:ce
932:nt
882:)
820:)
780:)
762:--
751:)
726:Of
509:--
414:)
386:|
120:|
116:|
112:|
108:|
103:|
99:|
94:|
90:|
1302:☢
1299:™
1256:(
1217:(
1145:(
1109:(
1077:(
952:(
878:(
816:(
776:(
747:(
408:(
130:)
124:)
86:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.