1171:(ASC). There are many such cinematography organizations the world over, including the newer Society of Independent Cinematographers (SIC) that may prove valuable to smaller productions. The list includes (not exhaustive) British Society of Cinematographers (BSC), Asian Cinematography Awards (ACA), , Australian Cinematography Society (ACS), French Society of Cinematographers (Association Française des directeurs de la photographie Cinématographique or AFC), Association of Polish Filmmakers, and many others. If recognition is noted according to our inclusion standards, and there is some significant coverage for a biography, there should be no reason notability would not be established.
1011:, especially when inclusion is contested for years. I do not see the Sundance award alone as significant (needs reliable source) to tip the scale, and movie industry sources alone should be backed by sources according to our many policies and guidelines if they are deemed primary sources. IMDb is big money backed by big corporations, so that alone means Knowledge should consider being careful when thousands of articles are created and kept, especially when linked solely to that site, that provides ample advertising exposure for IMDb on Knowledge but offers little or nothing to the article.
916:
nominated but made comments on the article talk page when I was not able to find anything to warrant a stand alone article. When notability is questioned being "pretty sure" there is coverage somewhere in the world (maybe on
American Cinematographer?) is not a good rationale for "keep". We keep articles that comply with the broad community standards of reliable sourcing. If sourcing or content is contested, then per
546:
1176:
prestigious award (usually national or international) or other critical acclaim, is a good indication. There are many such awards, such as the
Academy Award for Best Cinematography, BAFTA Award for Best Cinematography, IMAGO International Award for Cinematography, Asian Cinematography Awards (ACA), and awards presented by various organizations of respective countries.
1056:(both from Craft truck) that is primary at best if reliable at all, but might only support one aspect. Just providing a couple of links is not sufficient. The opening paragraph of the lead is not supported by a reliable source and is not found in IMDb. That is content issues in one instance but lacking reliable sourcing cannot be disproved as being
1208:
shows the subjects name at the top, and some comments, but is mainly about the film and not the subject. A biography needs to present biographical information, not just a list of jobs, and although there is not a timeline for improvements there is a point when it should be more closely examined. The
858:
in full before nominating and made my own assessment on the notability of the sources available. Just because others have found additional sources, or that their interpretation of notability differs, does not mean that I didnât complete these initial checks, or that Iâm âto active to delete articles
1095:
does not make the subject notable. The current state of the article becomes important if the article cannot ever be improved to reflect a biography according to
Knowledge standards. Why not show valid reasoning (I have looked) to support a biography on Knowledge (I am all for that and have actually
975:
OTR's comments and talkpage regurgitation are out of date as a reliable source has been added to the article that show significant coverage in reliable source and other sources have been identified which can be added to the article., that have nothing at all to do with imdb. Renominating an article
994:
The discussion is not "out of date". Providing one source and IMDb (that conflicts with that source. See below) still does not even give the presumption of notability. Some editors think all subjects should have a title. Some think all subjects with a listing on IMDb is notable enough to create or
915:
and sources provided do not give enough information to substantiate notability for a stand alone article. If there has been a "project" (official or not) to include all things IMDb on
Knowledge then reviewing and deleting inappropriate subjects is just as important. I actually did not see this was
1080:
The use of the IMDb on
Knowledge as a sole reference is usually considered unacceptable and is discouraged. Its romanization of Chinese titles does not follow the standard. Reliable sourcing from established publications cannot be stressed enough. Anonymous or pseudonymous sources from online
1175:
There generally needs to be a defining point when a cinematographer becomes prominent, a tilting point for a presumption of notability, enough for recording on
Knowledge. This is usually advanced by substantial or significant coverage in reliable and independent sources. The receiving of a
1209:
article was created in 2008 and tagged in 2008 and with a lack of reliable sourcing will likely not see any improvements required for a BLP and two notable films are lacking. Nobody will likely offer improvements after the fact so it might be subjected to a revisit at AFD if kept.
460:
Well, let's hope that editors with film expertise weigh in. These many notable films had to be shot by someone... I don't know enough about Wiki's film guidelines to determine if a
Sundance award is notable "enough," in addition to the many reliable sources that mention him.
1167:"The position of Cinematographer (Director of photography in many cases) is important in the world of visual arts. The person is in charge of the camera, lighting, and grip department. In movie production in the US the position is usually someone associated with the
697:
I looked at the sources you gave. They are not particularly convincing. ACS is
American Cinematographers Society, of which he is probably a member. "livedesign" is an article; the site has a store page where you can buy an award for your organization for $ 395!
671:
is one such guideline. Not sure how to best apply it since #3 likely applies most to directors. It seems like this cinematographer has contributed to numerous notable works, though probably on a level lower than the "co-creating" term that #3 uses.
1179:
Just being included on IMDb is not an acceptable criteria. It is a starting point but
Knowledge has grown so that just having a title, a short dictionary lead, and a filmography section, supported only by IMDb, is not sufficient. At best it is a
206:
1024:), added before I added one to support one other film, gives some insight but is mainly about two films. It may not have been looked at (just listed) but it is in conflict with IMDb. The site seems to indicate a certainty that
1003:. There are also some that think inclusion should be more than adding one or two links to a particular movie, backed by relying on IMDB. This does not provide sufficient evidence the subject is notable enough to pass
1036:
made a mistake but offering one source that, backs up two films at best, is just not enough to argue that an embedded IMDb film credit list is sufficient for a biography on a subject according to policies and
314:
955:
needs to be more than a trivial mention. The aforementioned source, as an example, is the opposite of a trivial mention. It is even more than significant; it is directly about the cinematographer.
274:
1147:
However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface.
200:
727:, which is a major corporation. I understand your concern about a self-serving purpose, but I do not see anything to indicate that it is a press release of any kind. Even so, that leaves
924:. When there are no sources (so no inline citations), and IMDb in an "External link" inappropriately supporting the content and title with no other sources, notability is not evident. A
951:, notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. Furthermore, notability is dependent on significant coverage, which per
1091:
is questioned, even fans and project members should look closer than adding one source and claiming there is notability. One extra example of adding one source and claiming
717:
is a reliable source for covering cinematographers. I'm pretty sure that it does not cover only ASC members and that it pursues a wider set of individuals. I have not seen
132:
127:
353:
159:
136:
334:
119:
372:
1137:: Then turn me into an advocate instead of trying to dismiss my comments. There are many members of ASC that have articles. "JUST" being a member and being in a
254:
166:
294:
106:
91:
411:
similarly, I found many name checks but no significant coverage. Notability of the subject is not inherited from the many notable films he worked on.
928:
is usually performed and the criteria is a "minimum search". If that does not produce results then the criteria is satisfied so there is no need to
1032:
was released "within a week of each other" (August 7 and 14) and the article (sourced with IMDb) shows 1997 and 1998 respectively. It is likely an
221:
944:
758:
594:
188:
1168:
1138:
1063:
620:
has Tom
Richmond as one of 55 cinematographers interviewed in this 410-page book (so on average, maybe 7 pages' worth of content about him)
394:
Found many, many short mentions in reliable sources via a quick search--he's shot many notable movies. More detailed coverage may exist.
775:
You're right that the lack of titling is odd, but I'm hard-pressed to take that to mean that the coverage is problematic. Searching for
123:
1189:
182:
528:
Biographies of living people need reliable sources. This is a BLP. It has no reliable sources. Thus is must be deleted immediately.
1293:
1270:
1252:
1218:
1158:
1127:
1105:
1047:
985:
968:
901:
872:
846:
829:
792:
770:
752:
707:
685:
662:
646:
585:
558:
537:
519:
491:
470:
455:
441:
420:
403:
383:
364:
345:
326:
306:
286:
266:
246:
61:
1185:
178:
86:
79:
17:
1288:
115:
67:
228:
100:
96:
1066:
gives caution on using the site, gives restrictions, and this has been determined by many discussions, as well as at
1227:
1123:
964:
883:
788:
748:
681:
642:
1310:
533:
40:
194:
766:
713:
703:
578:
487:
451:
430:
416:
1278:
as above and per Erik's findings, there are definitely reliable sources that pass GNG out there, notable too.
614:; no direct link, but this link has the snippet, "otherworldly DP Tom Richmond interviewed by Scott Macaulay"
1262:
per the sources provided post-nomination. He won a top award at the Sundance Film Festival, amongst others.
1096:
been trying) instead of providing a possible temporary reprieve and a more than possible return to AFD? ---
868:
842:
322:
302:
282:
262:
242:
1053:
1306:
981:
825:
36:
1111:
1067:
996:
929:
610:
529:
515:
779:, it looks like the website has had articles about other DPs, so I find it to be a reliable source.
1205:
1087:
I was not involved in creating these "warnings" but when an article is advertised only by IMDb and
917:
897:
762:
699:
630:
573:
483:
447:
412:
214:
943:
I've added content sourced to a reliable source completely focused on the cinematographer as seen
1284:
1008:
864:
851:
838:
668:
658:
554:
466:
437:
399:
318:
298:
278:
258:
238:
653:
Thank you for finding. Are there Wiki guidelines in relation to cinematographers? Thank you.
1075:
446:
it's fine to say might be out there, but it carries little weight until we actually find them.
376:
357:
338:
75:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1305:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1214:
1181:
1154:
1101:
1092:
1000:
977:
952:
948:
937:
925:
855:
821:
605:
57:
1247:
1033:
976:
for AFD rather than adding identified reliable sources would be considered disruptive,imv
922:
The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material
482:
the Sundance award definitely helps. But there needs to be more coverage to establish GNG.
761:: "Detective of photography: DP tom richmond starts from ground zero on two new movies".
1200:
The Sundance award (Excellence in Cinematography-Drama) is one I do place prominence on
757:
Live Design looks dubious to me: they did not even bother to capitalize Richmond's name
1119:
960:
893:
784:
744:
677:
638:
1280:
1071:
1004:
912:
860:
817:
654:
626:
550:
510:
477:
462:
433:
395:
1264:
1057:
1022:
Detective Of Photography: DP Tom Richmond Starts From Ground Zero On Two New Movies
739:
book. There may be more sources out there more locked up in industry publications.
595:
Detective of photography: DP tom richmond starts from ground zero on two new movies
429:
Very true, but he has won stuff such as the Sundance dramatic cinematography award
820:
such as Filmmaker and Cinematograher Style Book and American Cinematographer, imv
153:
1210:
1150:
1097:
933:
719:
599:
53:
1083:
IMDB might provide information leading editors to the preferable reliable sites
1081:
fansites are generally unacceptable. So, while itself discouraged as a source,
1237:
1115:
956:
780:
740:
692:
673:
634:
1049:
A Conversation with Tom Richmond Through the Lens - Season 1, Episode 14
837:
it seems that some editors are a litte bit to active to delete articles.
618:
Cinematographer Style: The Complete Interviews, Conducted from 2003-2005
724:
1149:
I would be happy to change my !vote with evidence. --- Short enough?
1301:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
1230:
to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
886:
to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
315:
list of United States of America-related deletion discussions
545:. This cinematographer has a very substantial filmography.
237:
Non notable BLP. Sourced only with IMDb for several years.
547:
Here are several sources that provide substantial coverage
275:
list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions
149:
145:
141:
1046:
Many industry related sources might be found, such as
586:
On STRAIGHT TO HELL: Straight From Its Cinematographer
213:
1236:
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, â
432:. Additional claims to notability may be out there.
892:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
574:Sundance 2006: Frozen Moments â Right At Your Door
582:; covers the work that won him the Sundance award
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1313:). No further edits should be made to this page.
371:Note: This discussion has been included in the
352:Note: This discussion has been included in the
333:Note: This discussion has been included in the
313:Note: This discussion has been included in the
293:Note: This discussion has been included in the
273:Note: This discussion has been included in the
253:Note: This discussion has been included in the
354:list of Television-related deletion discussions
1145:the last sentence of your provided WP:NEXIST:
335:list of New York-related deletion discussions
227:
8:
625:Pinging others to review the above sources.
373:list of Artists-related deletion discussions
107:Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
947:. Additional sources are listed above. Per
731:headlining the cinematographer, as well as
255:list of People-related deletion discussions
1204:and other notability aspects are evident.
1141:with up to 400 others, is not sufficient.
1060:and certainly does not advance notability.
513:
370:
351:
332:
312:
292:
272:
252:
295:list of Film-related deletion discussions
52:. Sufficient sourcing found during AFD.
667:Not cinematographers specifically, but
1146:
1079:
921:
7:
1169:American Society of Cinematographers
816:as there is enough coverage to pass
777:site:livedesignonline.com intitle:dp
1184:, a resume, which is covered under
1202:when it generates enough attention
930:cast even nicely worded aspersions
24:
92:Introduction to deletion process
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
116:Tom Richmond (cinematographer)
68:Tom Richmond (cinematographer)
1:
1165:From the article talk page:
1110:Nearly 650 words above. See
1007:, let alone the criteria of
723:before, but it is owned by
82:(AfD)? Read these primers!
1330:
1294:07:39, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
1271:06:40, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
1253:04:35, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
1219:16:48, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
1190:WP:policies and guidelines
1159:12:25, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
1128:14:30, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
1106:11:27, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
986:00:11, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
969:00:03, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
902:02:52, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
873:21:56, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
847:21:28, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
830:00:28, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
566:after doing some research:
62:08:27, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
1206:The source provided above
793:01:11, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
771:00:50, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
753:00:36, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
708:21:46, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
686:19:52, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
663:18:44, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
647:12:00, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
559:22:54, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
538:16:54, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
520:15:10, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
509:Sources Maybe Available.
492:20:17, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
471:18:19, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
456:15:24, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
442:13:43, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
421:13:16, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
404:13:01, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
384:12:56, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
365:12:56, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
346:12:56, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
327:12:51, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
307:12:51, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
287:12:51, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
267:12:51, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
247:12:51, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
1303:Please do not modify it.
714:American Cinematographer
579:American Cinematographer
32:Please do not modify it.
999:movie credit list of a
759:in the article headline
1188:, and fails a host of
1030:Slums of Beverly Hills
1026:First Love, Last Rites
1020:The one extra source (
1186:What Knowledge is not
737:Cinematographer Style
80:Articles for deletion
1064:The Film WikiProject
911:per Nom: Unsourced
1255:
1058:original research
904:
606:Winter 1995 issue
530:John Pack Lambert
522:
386:
367:
348:
329:
309:
289:
269:
97:Guide to deletion
87:How to contribute
1321:
1292:
1267:
1250:
1245:
1235:
1233:
1231:
1182:pseudo biography
1001:pseudo biography
891:
889:
887:
729:BirthMoviesDeath
696:
590:BirthMoviesDeath
481:
381:
362:
343:
232:
231:
217:
169:
157:
139:
77:
34:
1329:
1328:
1324:
1323:
1322:
1320:
1319:
1318:
1317:
1311:deletion review
1279:
1265:
1256:
1248:
1238:
1226:
1224:
905:
882:
880:
859:(sic)â. Please
690:
475:
377:
358:
339:
174:
165:
130:
114:
111:
74:
71:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1327:
1325:
1316:
1315:
1297:
1296:
1273:
1234:
1223:
1222:
1221:
1197:
1196:
1177:
1173:
1163:
1162:
1161:
1132:
1131:
1130:
1061:
1041:
1040:
1039:
1038:
1015:
1014:
1013:
1012:
989:
988:
973:
972:
971:
890:
879:
878:
877:
876:
875:
832:
810:
809:
808:
807:
806:
805:
804:
803:
802:
801:
800:
799:
798:
797:
796:
795:
763:ThatMontrealIP
700:ThatMontrealIP
631:ThatMontrealIP
623:
622:
621:
615:
603:
592:
583:
568:
567:
561:
540:
523:
518:comment added
503:
502:
501:
500:
499:
498:
497:
496:
495:
494:
484:ThatMontrealIP
448:ThatMontrealIP
424:
423:
413:ThatMontrealIP
406:
388:
387:
368:
349:
330:
310:
290:
270:
235:
234:
171:
110:
109:
104:
94:
89:
72:
70:
65:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1326:
1314:
1312:
1308:
1304:
1299:
1298:
1295:
1290:
1286:
1282:
1277:
1274:
1272:
1269:
1268:
1261:
1258:
1257:
1254:
1251:
1246:
1244:
1243:
1232:
1229:
1220:
1216:
1212:
1207:
1203:
1199:
1198:
1195:
1191:
1187:
1183:
1178:
1174:
1172:
1170:
1164:
1160:
1156:
1152:
1148:
1144:
1140:
1136:
1133:
1129:
1125:
1121:
1117:
1113:
1112:WP:WALLOFTEXT
1109:
1108:
1107:
1103:
1099:
1094:
1090:
1086:
1084:
1077:
1073:
1069:
1068:WP:CITINGIMDB
1065:
1062:
1059:
1055:
1051:
1050:
1045:
1044:
1043:
1042:
1035:
1031:
1027:
1023:
1019:
1018:
1017:
1016:
1010:
1006:
1002:
998:
993:
992:
991:
990:
987:
983:
979:
974:
970:
966:
962:
958:
954:
950:
946:
942:
941:
939:
935:
931:
927:
923:
919:
914:
910:
907:
906:
903:
899:
895:
888:
885:
874:
870:
866:
865:Cardiffbear88
862:
857:
853:
852:Christo jones
850:
849:
848:
844:
840:
839:Christo jones
836:
833:
831:
827:
823:
819:
815:
812:
811:
794:
790:
786:
782:
778:
774:
773:
772:
768:
764:
760:
756:
755:
754:
750:
746:
742:
738:
734:
730:
726:
722:
721:
716:
715:
711:
710:
709:
705:
701:
694:
689:
688:
687:
683:
679:
675:
670:
666:
665:
664:
660:
656:
652:
651:
650:
649:
648:
644:
640:
636:
632:
628:
624:
619:
616:
613:
612:
607:
604:
602:
601:
596:
593:
591:
587:
584:
581:
580:
575:
572:
571:
570:
569:
565:
562:
560:
556:
552:
548:
544:
541:
539:
535:
531:
527:
524:
521:
517:
512:
508:
505:
504:
493:
489:
485:
479:
474:
473:
472:
468:
464:
459:
458:
457:
453:
449:
445:
444:
443:
439:
435:
431:
428:
427:
426:
425:
422:
418:
414:
410:
407:
405:
401:
397:
393:
390:
389:
385:
382:
380:
374:
369:
366:
363:
361:
355:
350:
347:
344:
342:
336:
331:
328:
324:
320:
319:Cardiffbear88
316:
311:
308:
304:
300:
299:Cardiffbear88
296:
291:
288:
284:
280:
279:Cardiffbear88
276:
271:
268:
264:
260:
259:Cardiffbear88
256:
251:
250:
249:
248:
244:
240:
239:Cardiffbear88
230:
226:
223:
220:
216:
212:
208:
205:
202:
199:
196:
193:
190:
187:
184:
180:
177:
176:Find sources:
172:
168:
164:
161:
155:
151:
147:
143:
138:
134:
129:
125:
121:
117:
113:
112:
108:
105:
102:
98:
95:
93:
90:
88:
85:
84:
83:
81:
76:
69:
66:
64:
63:
59:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1302:
1300:
1275:
1263:
1259:
1241:
1239:
1225:
1201:
1193:
1166:
1142:
1134:
1088:
1082:
1048:
1029:
1025:
1021:
918:WP:CHALLENGE
908:
881:
854:I completed
834:
813:
776:
736:
732:
728:
718:
712:
617:
609:
598:
589:
577:
563:
542:
525:
506:
408:
391:
379:CAPTAIN RAJU
378:
360:CAPTAIN RAJU
359:
341:CAPTAIN RAJU
340:
236:
224:
218:
210:
203:
197:
191:
185:
175:
162:
73:
49:
47:
31:
28:
1143:Please note
1037:guidelines.
1034:IMDb editor
1009:WP:CREATIVE
978:Atlantic306
863:in future.
822:Atlantic306
720:Live Design
669:WP:CREATIVE
600:Live Design
514:âPreceding
201:free images
1089:Notability
1076:WP:RS/IMDB
1307:talk page
1093:WP:SIGCOV
953:WP:SIGCOV
949:WP:NEXIST
926:WP:BEFORE
894:Barkeep49
856:WP:BEFORE
733:Filmmaker
611:Filmmaker
37:talk page
1309:or in a
1281:dibbydib
1228:Relisted
1139:category
1078:states:
1054:this one
884:Relisted
735:and the
655:Caro7200
627:Caro7200
551:Ssilvers
511:twerk000
478:Caro7200
463:Caro7200
434:Caro7200
396:Caro7200
160:View log
101:glossary
39:or in a
1266:Lugnuts
1124:contrib
997:forever
995:keep a
965:contrib
789:contrib
749:contrib
725:Informa
682:contrib
643:contrib
516:undated
507:Comment
392:Comment
207:WPÂ refs
195:scholar
133:protect
128:history
78:New to
1211:Otr500
1151:Otr500
1098:Otr500
1072:WP:ELP
1005:WP:GNG
934:Otr500
909:Delete
861:WP:AGF
818:WP:GNG
526:Delete
409:Delete
179:Google
137:delete
54:Stifle
1135:Reply
597:from
588:from
576:from
549:. --
222:JSTOR
183:books
167:Stats
154:views
146:watch
142:links
16:<
1276:Keep
1260:Keep
1240:brad
1215:talk
1155:talk
1120:talk
1116:Erik
1102:talk
1070:and
1028:and
982:talk
961:talk
957:Erik
945:here
938:talk
898:talk
869:talk
843:talk
835:Keep
826:talk
814:Keep
785:talk
781:Erik
767:talk
745:talk
741:Erik
704:talk
693:Erik
678:talk
674:Erik
659:talk
639:talk
635:Erik
564:Keep
555:talk
543:Keep
534:talk
488:talk
467:talk
452:talk
438:talk
417:talk
400:talk
323:talk
303:talk
283:talk
263:talk
243:talk
215:FENS
189:news
150:logs
124:talk
120:edit
58:talk
50:keep
1126:)
1052:or
967:)
913:BLP
791:)
751:)
684:)
645:)
608:of
229:TWL
158:â (
1287:
1249:đ
1217:)
1192:."
1157:)
1122:|
1114:.
1104:)
1074:.
984:)
963:|
940:)
932:.
920::
900:)
871:)
845:)
828:)
787:|
769:)
747:|
706:)
680:|
661:)
641:|
633:.
629:,
557:)
536:)
490:)
469:)
454:)
440:)
419:)
402:)
375:.
356:.
337:.
325:)
317:.
305:)
297:.
285:)
277:.
265:)
257:.
245:)
209:)
152:|
148:|
144:|
140:|
135:|
131:|
126:|
122:|
60:)
1291:)
1289:C
1285:T
1283:(
1242:v
1213:(
1194:.
1153:(
1118:(
1100:(
1085:.
980:(
959:(
936:(
896:(
867:(
841:(
824:(
783:(
765:(
743:(
702:(
695::
691:@
676:(
657:(
637:(
553:(
532:(
486:(
480::
476:@
465:(
450:(
436:(
415:(
398:(
321:(
301:(
281:(
261:(
241:(
233:)
225:·
219:·
211:·
204:·
198:·
192:·
186:·
181:(
173:(
170:)
163:·
156:)
118:(
103:)
99:(
56:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.