192:
listed there no matter what, because those two pages chronicle all those topics/articles. There's only one "Texas
Chainsaw Massacre", and that's the movie franchise. The video doesn't actually have an article, it's redirected to the franchise page to the section where it is mentioned. The comic page is misleading to start. There is only one comic with the name "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" and that was a few years ago. The first was just called "Leatherface", and the next was called "Jason vs. Leatherface". It wasn't until 2005 that the listed title was even used. Plus, the page appears to be nothing but plot info, and should probably be merged to the franchise article anyway. A similar discussion is happening with
858:(people spell said film with and without the space) and using them to draw conclusion C (that people searching for the name sans the space will be looking for the 1974 film). That's synthesis, plain and simple. As for consensus, it appears from the above that you are the only one still on the side of making the sans space redirect to the 1974 article. JHunter doesn't mind either option, Mandsford agrees with using the "Otheruses" option, and myself. Since this isn't a controversial issue, it doesn't require community wide consensus, because it's a subjective call.
723:
unspaced version of the name goes to another film. That takes priority, because you cannot make a subjective call on what someone intends to search for, when you have no data to support such a position. I'm away that there are sources that refer to the 1974 film with no space, but guess what, every source that refers to the remake does it without the space as well. If these two films shared a name and nothing else, this discussion wouldn't even be taking place, because you'd have two completely different films with a similar name that is distinguished by a space.
360:" the franchise page. The franchise wouldn't link to itself. From there, you have the Table of Contents that navigates that page. The video game is irrelevant, because it doesn't have an article anyway, I don't know why it's even on the disambig page still. The comics are the only other thing besides the film, and again the TOC has a link directly to the comics section of the franchise page (which, at least on my screen is visible without having to even scroll down). This disambig is unnecessary.
685:
are two films, they share a similar name, you just came to the wrong page so here is the right one." If anything, and I like to think the average reader has a bit more common sense than I think you're giving them credit for, they'd more likely be more confused when they type in the title without the space (maybe even looking for the 2003 remake) and get taken to an article that uses a space to separate "Chain" and "Saw".
342:
of navigating to the required article, which is just what it's there for. Ther may be a link to the franchise page near the top of all the other articles but if for example I was looking for the video game, it certainly isn't obvious that I'm going to find that by clicking on a link which simply reads "The Texas
Chainsaw Massacre".--
843:
Well, no. What you incorrectly consider as synthesis is used all the time to determine primary topic. Synthesis is primarily about article content. The considerations for naming article are different. There is objective evidence (Google and page views) supporting the proposition that the 1973 film is
788:
When there is a well-known primary topic for an ambiguous term, name or phrase, much more used than any other topic covered in
Knowledge to which the same word(s) may also refer (significantly more commonly searched for and read than other meanings), then that term or phrase should either be used for
935:
There can be confusion of just about every title that shares similarities with other topics. The fact that these two articles are basically on the same topic, one is just updated, it makes better sense to use "Otherstuff". You have a popular 1974 film, that's 30 years old and a popular 2003 remake -
857:
Just because "it's used all the time" doesn't make it any less synthesis. Synthesis is when you take two separate points and use them to prove a third point that is not backed solely by either individual point. To quote the policy, you are taking argument A (1974 film is most popular) and argument B
684:
It's not going to be more confusing with either solution. Who is going to put in "The Texas
Chainsaw Massacre", be taken to the 2003 remake page where a big sign says "This is for the remake, here is the 1974 film"....and stop and go "I'm confused"? It's plain English, and easy to understand: "There
425:
I don't know what you're referring to? At most you'd have to click twice to get to whatever article you wanted. Your initial try, if that wasn't where you wanted to go, and then the second time for the article you wanted. Kind of like how many times you'd have to click in a dab page, except you have
761:
the primary topic, but that doesn't change the fact that another film exists that uses the name of the proposed redirect you want. That is why, per naming conventions, we have those templates for "If you were looking for this" at the top of pages. You cannot simply ignore the fact that another film
410:
different articles. Yes, I suppose that each time a Texas
Chainsaw Massacre article is created, someone can be sure to make eight edits (and a ninth "to grow on"). Or you could go to a dab page to figure out which article you're trying to find. When it comes to helping people navigate Knowledge,
341:
Maybe you have bigger monitor than me or a smaller font, but the only link to any of these that's immediately visible when I open the franchise page is to the 1974 film. Even if those links were evident in the first few paragraphs of the franchise article, a disambiguation page is a much easier way
818:
Here the problem with your argument. You cannot show that "The Texas
Chainsaw Massacre" (sans space) is their intented search option for the 1974 film. You can show that the 1974 film is more trafficked than the 2003 remake. You can show that people in the past, and some currently, still spell the
722:
It doesn't matter the number of page views for the original film, because you don't know how they got to the page. They could have typed it in exactly the way it's spelled. They could have typed it in without the space and used the disambig page. Again, that's irrelevant. The fact remains that the
643:
It's the primary topic, but it's not the way the film is spelled. There are two films in this series that share a name, but are distinguished by how they spell said name. As per the naming conventions, each should have their own undisambiguated title, but given the similarities between said titles
191:
I'm not sure I follow what you're saying. If they have a new game, and it gets an article, or a new comic/movie/etc., then it's just as easy to create the space on the template as it is to put it on this disambiguous page (it'll happen regardless). The same goes for the franchise, it's going to be
878:
And that is specifically prohibited with regards to article content. Evaluation of evidence from sources such as Page views, Google hits, and internal links are precisely what is prescribed for determining primary topic. EVERYONE, including reliable sources and even movie posters for the original
598:
That's irrelevant, because we'd have that nice little link at the top saying "if you meant the 1974 film then go here". Claiming that people are looking for the original over the remake is subjective. Yes, the original is more notable, but naming conventions are based on popular searching, not
705:
Well, you have your opinions, I have as well. That's why there are discussion pages. The point is that the 1973 film is arguably the primary topic regardless of the spacing. In April it had some 64K page views vs. about 15K for the 2003 film. The 1973 film is spelled without the space in many
743:
The point of the page views is that the 1973 film is by a fairly wide margin more looked for than the 2003 film. That is what primary topic is about. And if the 1973 is commonly referred to in reliable sources by both the spaced and unspaced name, it should be the primary topic rather than a
527:
a redirect made a couple of years ago by someone who was concerned that it would be "superfluous" to use the word disambiguation in a disambiguation page, rather than "helpful". Of course, the title continued to exist as a redirect, so I don't know what was accomplished. Move it on back.
176:
Although I wish that I could say that there will never ever again be another film, game, book, etc. that has the words Texas, chainsaw and massacre in its title, it would be easier to add that to a disambiguation page than to alter each of the articles referred to above.
584:
came from, and as the article points out, the 1973 film is presented with both spellings with some frequency in various reliable sources, and as the 2003 film is not particularly more notable than any of the others, the variant spelling should go to the original.
819:
1974 without the space. What you cannot show (at least you have not been able to show) is that those things are inexplicably linked. In other words, that people type in the title sans the space with the intention of going to the 1974 film. You are trying to use
200:. It's unnecessary. If someone is looking for a "game", then they're likely to put "Texas Chainsaw Massacre game" or "...comic", because they probably realize that "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" is typically associated with the two movies that share that title.
707:
48:. There are a number of solutions here, and I have my own suggestion. However, the consensus is that the current solution works fine, so we might as well go with that consensus and keep the current solution as impose any other.
193:
297:. I don't see how this is in any way redundant simply because other articles have a template containing these links at the end (which won't be visible immediately when those articles are opened). If you want to move this to
148:, which is linked in the first sentence of each of the film pages. Having a disambiguous page that does nothing but link film pages that are already linked like that twice is unnecessary. This page should be deleted so that
644:
there should be a "for other use.." note at the top of each article's page. It's as simple as that. The notability of the 1974 film is irrelevant to the naming convention discussion, as the unspaced version of "Chainsaw"
844:
the primary topic for the title regardless of spacing. If there is no consensus that there is a primary topic, then perhaps the disambiguation page should be at the base name with a redirect from the other base name.
380:
Ok, I can see I'm not getting through. The disambiguation page is by far the easiest way of navigating to the required article. It will take little or no effort to maintain, so there's no case that I can see for
973:), and the 2nd 3rd and 4th movies are close behind. As a reader, I'd rather initially go to a short disambig page, than a long page for the wrong movie (irregardless which of the 6 I'm actually looking for). --
619:
It's not irrelevant when the 1973 film is arguably the primary topic for either variant spelling. As others have pointed out, primary topic is what this discussion should be about rather than deletion.
671:
It's not that simple because the 1973 film is commonly known by both names with and without spacing by various reliable sources. The goal is to make it less confusing for readers, not more confusing.
936:
I mean, if you throw Google searches out there then box office performance counts for something as well, and a 9 mill. movie making over $ 100 million constitutes some strong popularity.
272:"Chain Saw", so it's already undisambiguated. It's the 2003 remake that doesn't have the space, and is the only film with just "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" as its title (no subtitle).
1046:(which is known by both names as the poster of the film shows). The first film is by far the most notable so it should be the default. Then we can add a hat note with a reference to
453:
240:
as a redundant page, however, to disagree with the nominator, the original, 1973 Texas
Chainsaw Massacre film should be the one to get the undisambiguated article title. --
1034:. I've just typed "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" expecting to find the first film in the series and came across the desambiguation page instead. I think we should create
305:
that's fine, but don't expect people to search through to the end other articles to find what they're looking for via a template, or search through the franchise page.--
823:
to prove your point, and you cannot do that. That is why both articles should be nondisambiguated, and "Otheruse" should be used to point to each respective article.
125:
92:
87:
96:
651:
how the film spells its title. Yes, some people spell it that way, but that's neither here nor there since we have a film that does spell it without the space.
1113:
477:
298:
79:
599:
notability and frankly most people that saw the 2003 remake didn't know it was a remake (exception being the people who were already fans of the series).
406:
I agree with Michig on this one. I don't see the logic in deleting a disambiguation page on the grounds that there is a "see also" template on each of
1068:
If you delete it, there's no point to rename and put a hatnote at the top. Each already already has a template that lists all of the related articles.
762:
has that title just because another more notable film exists that shares a common title that is often misspelled. It's precisely those instances that
426:
the list in front of you instead of the table of contents of another page...so yeah, it's basically the same which makes the dab page unnecessary.
255:
145:
411:
redundancy doesn't bother me at all. I'm sure there are plenty of counterarguments, but I've taken up more space now than the dab page did.
321:
They also all have a link to the franchise, which lists everything that has a page and doesn't have a page, right at the top of the article.
137:
502:
Mostly agree with JHunterJ's suggestion except that the name "The Texas
Chainsaw Massacre" (sans space in Chainsaw) should redirect to
485:
149:
542:
If that's the case, then the "sans space" title should be given to the 2003 remake, with a "for the 1974 film see" added at the top.
580:
I don't particularly care all that much. But as the 1973 film was the primordial ooze from which all the other, um, err, derivative
1047:
1035:
83:
17:
1133:
1102:
1083:
1063:
1022:
1005:
982:
951:
920:
907:
887:
873:
852:
838:
799:
781:
752:
738:
717:
700:
679:
666:
628:
614:
593:
573:
557:
537:
514:
497:
467:
441:
420:
390:
375:
351:
336:
314:
287:
262:
232:
215:
186:
167:
61:
791:
If both films were uniquely named and there were no risk of confusion, then there would be no question of a primary topic.
709:). If it is indeed the primary topic, then it should have the base name, regardless of irrelevant typographical variants.
1129:
1121:
1051:
1043:
503:
481:
268:
1117:
1039:
302:
248:
75:
67:
271:? I'm saying they both should, because of the similarities. The original film puts a space between "Chainsaw" --: -->
1148:
36:
1147:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
488:
to the base name, and either way with a hatnote on the (target of the) base name page to link to the dab. --
1125:
1000:
966:
241:
1059:
152:
can take over this title, with a "This is for the 2003 film, for the 1973 film see.." added to the top.
995:
990:
per
Quiddity. We must remember that readers of the 'pedia may not understand our naming conventions.
1013:- good use of disamb page. I see above there is disagreement over which article would have dibs. --
820:
763:
569:
533:
416:
226:
182:
1018:
978:
493:
58:
1078:
946:
917:
902:
884:
868:
849:
833:
796:
776:
749:
733:
714:
695:
676:
661:
625:
609:
590:
552:
511:
436:
370:
331:
282:
210:
162:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1098:
1055:
386:
347:
310:
879:
movie get the spacing confused. Why should we expect readers to behave any differently?
565:
529:
460:
412:
178:
1014:
994:
is the place they will start, the name they will enter the search box first. Cheers,
974:
489:
51:
1069:
937:
913:
893:
880:
859:
845:
824:
792:
767:
745:
724:
710:
686:
672:
652:
621:
600:
586:
543:
507:
427:
361:
322:
273:
201:
153:
113:
1094:
382:
343:
306:
969:: The 2006 movie is getting just as many hits as the 2003 movie (according to
912:
Which might be just fine if there were not such confusion over the title.
132:
Completely unnecessary and virtually useless disambiguous page. Every
789:
the title of the article on that topic or redirect to that article.
1141:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
970:
120:
109:
105:
101:
356:
What I said was that there is a link on all of them "
523:
I agree with the move, which would more properly be
454:
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1151:). No further edits should be made to this page.
961:because this is what disambiguation pages are
786:That is precisely what primary topic means --
1093:this is what disambiguation pages are for. --
1048:The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (disambiguation)
1036:The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (disambiguation)
8:
1114:The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (disambiguation)
506:(the 1973 film) as a typographical variant.
478:The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (disambiguation)
299:The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (disambiguation)
448:
452:: This debate has been included in the
301:and then put a link to it at the top of
146:The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (franchise)
892:Again, hence the "Otheruse" template.
480:and either redirect the base name to
7:
965:. This should be a discussion about
138:Template:The Texas Chainsaw Massacre
486:The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (film)
150:The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (film)
24:
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
706:reliable sources (for example
1:
1122:The Texas Chain Saw Massacre
1052:The Texas Chain Saw Massacre
1044:The Texas Chain Saw Massacre
504:The Texas Chain Saw Massacre
482:The Texas Chain Saw Massacre
269:The Texas Chain Saw Massacre
1118:The Texas Chainsaw Massacre
1040:The Texas Chainsaw Massacre
303:The Texas Chainsaw Massacre
144:related page. We also have
76:The Texas Chainsaw Massacre
68:The Texas Chainsaw Massacre
1168:
140:) that links every single
1144:Please do not modify it.
1134:20:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
1116:and add a redirect from
1103:15:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
1084:00:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
1064:00:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
1023:13:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
1006:21:32, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
983:18:32, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
952:15:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
921:15:02, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
908:14:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
888:14:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
874:14:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
853:13:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
839:13:35, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
800:13:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
782:12:19, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
753:12:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
739:05:18, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
718:04:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
701:04:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
680:04:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
667:03:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
629:03:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
615:03:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
594:03:05, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
574:00:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
558:23:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
538:16:44, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
515:15:35, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
498:15:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
468:14:30, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
442:23:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
421:23:09, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
391:21:52, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
376:20:22, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
352:20:08, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
337:19:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
315:19:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
288:19:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
263:18:52, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
233:15:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
216:15:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
187:14:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
168:23:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
136:article has a template (
62:19:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
32:Please do not modify it.
564:That seems reasonable.
196:Nightmare on Elm Street
134:Texas Chainsaw Massacre
971:http://stats.grok.se
764:Template:Otheruses4
1126:Fences and windows
231:and his otters •
44:The result was
1081:
1076:
949:
944:
905:
900:
871:
866:
836:
831:
779:
774:
744:derivative work.
736:
731:
698:
693:
664:
659:
612:
607:
555:
550:
470:
466:
457:
439:
434:
373:
368:
334:
329:
285:
280:
213:
208:
165:
160:
1159:
1146:
1079:
1074:
1070:
1003:
998:
947:
942:
938:
903:
898:
894:
869:
864:
860:
834:
829:
825:
777:
772:
768:
734:
729:
725:
696:
691:
687:
662:
657:
653:
610:
605:
601:
553:
548:
544:
465:
463:
458:
437:
432:
428:
371:
366:
362:
332:
327:
323:
283:
278:
274:
260:
253:
246:
229:
228:Ten Pound Hammer
211:
206:
202:
163:
158:
154:
123:
117:
99:
60:
54:
34:
1167:
1166:
1162:
1161:
1160:
1158:
1157:
1156:
1155:
1149:deletion review
1142:
1072:
1038:, and redirect
1001:
996:
967:WP:PRIMARYTOPIC
940:
896:
862:
827:
770:
727:
689:
655:
603:
546:
461:
430:
364:
325:
276:
256:
249:
242:
227:
225:Redundant dab.
204:
156:
119:
90:
74:
71:
52:
49:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1165:
1163:
1154:
1153:
1137:
1136:
1106:
1105:
1088:
1087:
1086:
1025:
1008:
985:
955:
954:
933:
932:
931:
930:
929:
928:
927:
926:
925:
924:
923:
816:
815:
814:
813:
812:
811:
810:
809:
808:
807:
806:
805:
804:
803:
802:
641:
640:
639:
638:
637:
636:
635:
634:
633:
632:
631:
578:
577:
576:
518:
517:
500:
471:
446:
445:
444:
400:
399:
398:
397:
396:
395:
394:
393:
318:
317:
292:
291:
290:
267:Huh? You mean
235:
220:
219:
218:
130:
129:
70:
65:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1164:
1152:
1150:
1145:
1139:
1138:
1135:
1131:
1127:
1123:
1119:
1115:
1111:
1108:
1107:
1104:
1100:
1096:
1092:
1089:
1085:
1082:
1077:
1075:
1067:
1066:
1065:
1061:
1057:
1053:
1049:
1045:
1041:
1037:
1033:
1029:
1026:
1024:
1020:
1016:
1012:
1009:
1007:
1004:
999:
993:
989:
986:
984:
980:
976:
972:
968:
964:
960:
957:
956:
953:
950:
945:
943:
934:
922:
919:
915:
911:
910:
909:
906:
901:
899:
891:
890:
889:
886:
882:
877:
876:
875:
872:
867:
865:
856:
855:
854:
851:
847:
842:
841:
840:
837:
832:
830:
822:
817:
801:
798:
794:
790:
785:
784:
783:
780:
775:
773:
766:was created.
765:
760:
756:
755:
754:
751:
747:
742:
741:
740:
737:
732:
730:
721:
720:
719:
716:
712:
708:
704:
703:
702:
699:
694:
692:
683:
682:
681:
678:
674:
670:
669:
668:
665:
660:
658:
650:
649:
642:
630:
627:
623:
618:
617:
616:
613:
608:
606:
597:
596:
595:
592:
588:
583:
579:
575:
571:
567:
563:
562:
561:
560:
559:
556:
551:
549:
541:
540:
539:
535:
531:
526:
522:
521:
520:
519:
516:
513:
509:
505:
501:
499:
495:
491:
487:
483:
479:
475:
472:
469:
464:
455:
451:
447:
443:
440:
435:
433:
424:
423:
422:
418:
414:
409:
405:
402:
401:
392:
388:
384:
379:
378:
377:
374:
369:
367:
359:
355:
354:
353:
349:
345:
340:
339:
338:
335:
330:
328:
320:
319:
316:
312:
308:
304:
300:
296:
293:
289:
286:
281:
279:
270:
266:
265:
264:
261:
259:
254:
252:
247:
245:
239:
236:
234:
230:
224:
221:
217:
214:
209:
207:
199:
197:
190:
189:
188:
184:
180:
175:
172:
171:
170:
169:
166:
161:
159:
151:
147:
143:
139:
135:
127:
122:
115:
111:
107:
103:
98:
94:
89:
85:
81:
77:
73:
72:
69:
66:
64:
63:
59:
56:
55:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1143:
1140:
1109:
1090:
1080:(Contact me)
1071:
1031:
1027:
1010:
991:
987:
962:
958:
948:(Contact me)
939:
904:(Contact me)
895:
870:(Contact me)
861:
835:(Contact me)
826:
787:
778:(Contact me)
769:
758:
735:(Contact me)
726:
697:(Contact me)
688:
663:(Contact me)
654:
647:
645:
611:(Contact me)
602:
581:
554:(Contact me)
545:
524:
473:
449:
438:(Contact me)
429:
407:
403:
372:(Contact me)
363:
357:
333:(Contact me)
324:
294:
284:(Contact me)
275:
257:
250:
243:
237:
222:
212:(Contact me)
203:
195:
173:
164:(Contact me)
155:
141:
133:
131:
50:
45:
43:
31:
28:
381:deletion.--
1050:on top of
1002:cierekim
821:synthesis
566:Mandsford
530:Mandsford
462:Paul Erik
413:Mandsford
179:Mandsford
1073:BIGNOLE
1032:Redirect
1015:Evb-wiki
975:Quiddity
941:BIGNOLE
897:BIGNOLE
863:BIGNOLE
828:BIGNOLE
771:BIGNOLE
728:BIGNOLE
690:BIGNOLE
656:BIGNOLE
604:BIGNOLE
547:BIGNOLE
490:JHunterJ
484:or move
431:BIGNOLE
365:BIGNOLE
326:BIGNOLE
277:BIGNOLE
251:Squadron
205:BIGNOLE
157:BIGNOLE
142:Chainsaw
126:View log
53:SilkTork
1056:Laurent
525:undoing
174:Comment
93:protect
88:history
1110:Rename
1095:GRuban
1028:Delete
383:Michig
344:Michig
307:Michig
238:Delete
223:Delete
121:delete
97:delete
918:wiser
914:older
885:wiser
881:older
850:wiser
846:older
797:wiser
793:older
750:wiser
746:older
715:wiser
711:older
677:wiser
673:older
626:wiser
622:older
591:wiser
587:older
582:stuff
512:wiser
508:older
408:eight
258:Raven
124:) – (
114:views
106:watch
102:links
16:<
1130:talk
1099:talk
1091:Keep
1060:talk
1030:and
1019:talk
1011:Keep
997:Dloh
992:This
988:keep
979:talk
959:Keep
570:talk
534:talk
494:talk
474:Move
450:Note
417:talk
404:Keep
387:talk
348:talk
311:talk
295:Keep
244:Blue
198:page
183:talk
110:logs
84:talk
80:edit
46:keep
1120:to
1112:as
1042:to
963:for
757:It
648:not
646:is
476:to
1132:)
1124:.
1101:)
1062:)
1054:.
1021:)
981:)
916:≠
883:≠
848:≠
795:≠
759:IS
748:≠
713:≠
675:≠
624:≠
589:≠
572:)
536:)
510:≠
496:)
456:.
419:)
389:)
358:to
350:)
313:)
194:a
185:)
112:|
108:|
104:|
100:|
95:|
91:|
86:|
82:|
1128:(
1097:(
1058:(
1017:(
977:(
568:(
532:(
492:(
459:—
415:(
385:(
346:(
309:(
181:(
128:)
118:(
116:)
78:(
57:*
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.