873:. Agreed. How many times must an article (or type of article, in this case) be run through the ringer? once? twice? three times? Enough is enough! Users and editors have spoken out time and again to KEEP these articles; leave 'em alone already. Knowledge (XXG) is full of "lists" and "tables" to help navigate and organize groups of related articles, and these are no different. They present the data in a most logical fashion and it just makes sense to have them. They also happen to be rather popular and contain often searched-for information. Knowledge (XXG) is also where you find articles on the networks, programs, actors, producers, directors, distributors, awards, etc. so moving these pages elsewhere makes no sense either. So long as all these other related articles remains on Knowledge (XXG), these "schedule" articles must also remain; their use could even be expanded (links to them from the television show articles; links from them to respective Emmy awards articles, etc).
855:
facts are relevant to an encyclopedia, since it provides a clear picture of the weekly broadcast schedules which is itself the subject of coverage in newspapers and books. Why wouldn't it be covered? You do realize there are thousands of dates that have articles about them on
Knowledge (XXG), aren't you? Why? Because that provides a context to the events. The same as this does. Therefore, I say your claims of a problem are very poor. I think this is very much part of an encyclopedia, the same way s covering election results, sports events or population changes are. I'm sorry you feel I'm commenting on you, but I do feel you should give more consideration to the prior discussion. It is very troublesome to me that you didn't even know about them.
574:- this is sensible, encyclopedic information. In the best of all possible worlds we'd have some sort of "data" or "interactive thingy" section that we could put content like this. Barring that, it's a sensible thing for an encyclopedia with unlimited amounts of space to have (as it would be reasonable to have an article on each of these television seasons, and this is a reasonable piece of information to have in those articles), and there's nowhere better for it than the article space.
815:
policy is miswritten. I think you seriously need to examine whether or not there's a real problem here. These are historical facts. The notability is sufficiently covered by yearly discussions of the subject. The pages are limited to a natural grouping of the major broadcasters in the country. Where is the problem here? And please don't waste my time with links to pages. I want an actual articulation of the problem.
1168:. If these articles are left alone, classic TV will be saved. If they are deleted anyway, the person who planned the deletions will be subject to a permanent block from editing Knowledge (XXG). A new rule should be made: If any user plans or threatens to delete any TV shedule, primetime, saturday morning, or daytime, that user will be blocked from editing Knowledge (XXG) for more than three weeks. That is all.
693:. The spirit of the rules is more important. Convince me there's a real problem with these pages, don't throw me a bunch of wikilinks. The directory issue has been invalidated before. Time Capsule is a useless reference. There's nothing in indiscriminate about this. You're going to have to actually provide arguments, not just wikilinks.
1572:- Maybe they need some work, but these are more than mere schedules. They are a record of American television history, and that's encyclopedic. Being that they are limited to network programming and not local programming, they are also potentially of interest to a significant number of people. There is not one tenet of
592:. Upon reflection, these are most interesting as the starts of articles on the evolution and cultural impact of television in the United States over the years. That is something we should definitely have. Those articles need more than just this, but on the other hand, these are excellent stubs for those articles.
1054:
1420:
The threshold for inclusion is being part of the schedule of the nationally broadcast television networks, hardly an indiscriminate criteria. And while it is certainly true that schedules do change, there's a simple solution to that: Add information about schedule changes to the page as appropriate.
1318:
makes it clear that
Knowledge (XXG) should contain elements of both a generalized and a specialized encyclopedia: since other encyclopedias include this information, there is no reason for Knowledge (XXG) to remove it. The "not encyclopedic" argument has no basis when other encyclopedias include this
1076:
or any of the plenty of others you can find. If your problem is that these articles don't offer enough content besides the raw schedules, I'd respect the desire to expand them. That seems a reasonable request. However, objecting to the inclusion of the schedules themselves? Doesn't make sense, as
844:
Well, it may violate one facet. Though that facet isn't very clear, so it's not a useful test. It does have context - these are clearly subtopics of the larger topic of
American mass culture, and the significance of network television in that is straightforward. There may be issues with sourcing, but
824:
I think I have articulated the problem fairly clearly above, there is little sourcing, no context, and violates three full facets of WP:NOT. That they are "historical facts" is not relevant to what we are doing here, building an encyclopedia. Your rhetoric (and attempt to turn the focus to me) is not
1496:
I specifically looked at these pages before reading the discussion and nothing mentioned in the debates changed my mind. In fact, they more than solidified my thoughts on the subject. Knowledge (XXG) has tons of list that provide value to the reader. Some of those lists are very beneficial, while
1268:
Not every user is interested in every topic in this or any other comprehensive reference. These pages are valuable resources to any one interested in pop culture and the history of US mass media. Some recategorization would be helpful. References would not hurt either. Those are valid points but
1181:
I don't think that will be happening, as outside of an
Arbitration case, it's unlikely for specific rules to be imposed, and I can't imagine one being blanketly done of this scope. It might be possible for a given user to have such a restriction imposed, but while I feel that the nominator in this
854:
What facets? How? Lack of sources? I don't see any serious problem with the sourcing. A lack of sources in the articles only means whoever put them together should have sourced them at the time. It doesn't mean the sources don't exist. They quite obviously and undeniably do. And these historical
1129:
for many reasons: (1) it works as a navigational tool much in the spirit of the ubiquitous succession boxes and List of... articles; (2) the topic of what television programs are airing nationally in the United States is notable (in summary form); (3) readers may not remember the name of a program
1104:
The "raw content" as you call it is actually an aid in understanding the schedule, so no, I'd say it should not be removed. The value of a tabular representation of the shows in relation to each other, by time, day, network, and whether or not they're new, or moved in the schedule is quite high.
1533:
I'm reserving my right to "vote" at a latter time, but I'd like to say this -- in the event that these are deleted, surely the information must be preserved somewhere in some form on the internet. I've never been one to argue on the side of "so much work has been put into this, you can't possibly
1046:
Don't know that it's possible to meaningfully answer your question without going into a long discussion, and I don't know that I feel like giving you a primer on
American broadcast programming practices, but the fact is, there are a plethora of sources that refer specifically to the schedule as a
814:
I'm surprised you're unaware of these, and yet you see fit to nominate all these articles. That doesn't bode well for the degree of examination you've given to this subject. Personally, I'd say if you're reading policy to exclude these kinds of articles, then either you're misreading it or the
795:. And to be honest, that the pages " a page that lists the appearance of a program by day" is not a valid, policy based argument fot keeping the data (and that's all it is, indiscriminate data). Knowledge (XXG) is not the place for a historical guide to past television airings, Wikisource is. --
1555:
Well, I consider it sincerely unlikely that this information will be deleted (there being a strong showing of support for keeping), if you like, you can make a copy of it right now, since the GFDL does permit such action, and then do what you like with it. Dont' feel it's needed, but it is an
768:
764:
779:. Twice. These articles very much a purpose of an encyclopedia by providing a page that lists the appearance of a program by day, time and network. All of which is valid information about a television show. It's also the subject of regular coverage in the news.
640:
and tagged as stubs. But the fact remains, these are wholly sensible topics to have articles about, and these are sensible tables for those articles. It's a bit odd that the tables came in before the articles, but deleting the tables is still losing progress.
1380:
there is no threshold for inclusion in these articles, they violate NOT#GUIDE, and on top of that, they don't seem to realize that TV schedules change during the year too. There's just too much indiscriminate info here that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia.
1449:
refers to current schedules, not past schedules, which may have historical value. Knowledge (XXG) is not a TV Guide, but if these schedules are removed, you might also call every TV reference book, such as the Brooks and Earle "Encyclopedia", TV Guides. --
540:
encyclopedic purpose. Folks have put a fair amount of work into these, so a transwiki would be best (Wikisource?)... but at the very least they need to be removed from here because this content (which is largely unsourced) is just not appropriate for an
1182:
case was ignorant and mistaken, I don't believe there's any bad faith here. Just a bad decision. Thus no reason to impose blocks or bans. If for some reason the closing admin chooses to act against the obvious consensus, then DRV is the place to go.
760:
776:
772:
1497:
others take a stretch at reaching a rational perspective. These lists, are, IMHO, something that many readers will be interested in at some point. They are not an in discriminant collection of facts. They are collected around specific criteria.
1480:, is referenced). That's one more thing I dislike about these mass deletion nominations: there's no way the nominator looked through each one before nominating them all for deletion, but mentions the lack of sourcing(!) as a reason to delete.
1026:
Nope. That's week to week. This is describing the schedule as set for the season. If there was an attempt to make things up-to-date, then I would agree with your concern, but since that's not the intent here, it's not a problem.
1475:
Obviously I can't close this (as I already participated), but I will gladly help the closing admin de-tag the pages and even add references to the pages that are unreferenced (they aren't all unreferenced; the first one I checked,
957:
Last I heard, encyclopedia articles included information. Perhaps you might not want to make your distinctions based on splitting hairs in definitions. Of course, it doesn't help that
Wikisource also includes some Encyclopedias...
790:
I was unaware of the prior AfDs, but looking at them, there are few policy based arguments for keeping... comments like "novel navigation guide" and "interesting".... but never addressing that this info is not appropriate for an
1328:
There's the argument that these are indiscriminate lists. The fact that they are arranged by year, network, and time aired (Mister
Manticore's point, above) seems to indicate to my mind that these are hardly "indiscrimiate".
706:
would be a directory, but this organizes its information into sensible cultural moments and eras such that continuity is established. And time capsule is relatively new - and, frankly, relatively badly written and unclear.
1003:
Please explain your view then, since there's nothing I can see that makes this particular instructional. Now if these lists said "Watch this program at 8 pm tonight" I would probably agree, but that's not their purpose.
1235:
per other supporters. Also, these charts help illustrate how television programmes competed with each other in the various time slots, an important aspect of the
American television industry. Such lists also assist with
1036:
How often does a network change its prime time programming, especially during the times when ratings are being calculated? If such a change is made, this article would be updated to reflect the change in programming.
1345:
1014:
516:
512:
508:
504:
489:
485:
481:
477:
473:
469:
465:
461:
457:
453:
438:
434:
430:
426:
422:
418:
414:
410:
406:
402:
383:
379:
375:
371:
367:
363:
359:
355:
351:
531:
With every single one of these articles, there is little more than what the titles say, i.e. the network television schedule for the years listed. I'm quite wogboggled that these have existed this long...
1352:) and unfamiliarity with historic national programming grids, which affected (and still affect) 300 million viewers (not to mention the entire U.S. television and film industries) each year: national
1142:
because it is not a weekly listing, but a summarized version of an entire television season (schedules do change week-to-week, but are generally set for the entire season). All of that said, these
976:, even as is. Knowledge (XXG) is an encyclopedia, but this article fits within the scope of Knowledge (XXG), which is not restricted to paper and the formality required of paper encyclopedias.
1314:, and they've only been around since 1997. I think the nominator has limited experience reading or using television encyclopedias, so it's an understandable mistake, but Knowledge (XXG)'s
1221:
per reasons stated above. These articles are an important part of
Knowledge (XXG)'s coverage of television history and a great resource for readers researching American television. --
1306:
the major ones (McNeil, Brooks, etc) have national program grids from 1946/8 to the present (McNeil: 1948, Brooks 1946), and they have since at least the 1960s. I'm pretty sure the
525:
1095:
My problem is the raw content in the TV guide format. If that's removed from these, I'd have no objection, as long as all the analysis is sourced from reliable sources.
1519:
have to do with the local station schedules, not the national ones as they have more significance than something from WQRS-TV or KXYZ-TV....especially the older ones. -
1477:
1426:
1422:
1135:
324:
320:
316:
312:
308:
304:
300:
296:
292:
288:
284:
280:
276:
272:
268:
264:
260:
256:
252:
248:
244:
240:
236:
232:
228:
224:
220:
216:
212:
208:
204:
200:
196:
192:
188:
184:
180:
176:
172:
168:
164:
160:
156:
152:
148:
144:
140:
136:
132:
128:
124:
120:
116:
112:
108:
104:
100:
96:
92:
88:
84:
80:
1462:
BTW, this has gone on for almost 10 days, there's no way there's a consensus for deletion, so are we just waiting for an admin who wants to deal with 96 pages??
650:
It's valid data which reflects something that's covered every year in the news. Lack of sources doesn't concern me here, if sources are wanted, they do exist.
387:
1285:
536:
an indiscriminate collection of information, nor are we a historical TV Guide. Knowledge (XXG) is an encyclopedia, and these listings serve
1130:(or don't remember it correctly, causing blank search results), but can remember when they saw it ("What was that show that aired after
1584:
1560:
1546:
1525:
1501:
1486:
1466:
1454:
1433:
1415:
1385:
1368:
1335:
1258:
1244:
1225:
1209:
1186:
1172:
1154:
1109:
1099:
1081:
1041:
1031:
1021:
1008:
994:
962:
950:
907:
895:
877:
859:
849:
839:
819:
809:
783:
749:
711:
697:
685:
654:
645:
623:
596:
578:
563:
52:
1401:
with TV schedules. NOT#GUIDE states "Knowledge (XXG) is an encyclopedic reference, not an instruction manual, guidebook or textbook."
1356:
network programming grids certainly fall under the "historically significant programme lists and schedules" umbrella because even the
702:
These are hardly indiscriminate. American mass culture is pretty notable. Nor is this a directory - these are not loosely organized.
17:
942:
831:
801:
677:
615:
555:
703:
637:
589:
947:
836:
806:
682:
620:
560:
1361:
1074:
915:
these articles have been a huge source of information to me, and isn't that what wikipedia is, a source of information.
1599:
36:
1298:. Only a person who has never read a television encyclopedia could convince him/herself that network TV schedules are
1307:
1254:
as per the other supporters, these charts provide a history of how television shows have been scheduled in the past.
1071:
1281:
1598:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
937:
826:
796:
672:
610:
550:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1557:
1463:
1430:
1273:
1183:
1106:
1078:
1028:
1005:
959:
856:
816:
780:
694:
651:
769:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/1983-84 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning)
765:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/1985-86 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning)
1162:. These articles are a part of television history. The 70s and 80s network TV schedules can be found on
903:
and flesh out to give context and meaning in accordance with our general ideas of encyclopedic merit.
1277:
1534:
delete it," but to compile all this info in one place and then send it into oblivion is just wrong.
845:
I bet if you contacted some of the poeple who wrote the articles they'd find their sources for you.
1222:
1105:
It's like say, the election results by district. They're considered very useful, don't you think?
1539:
1051:
1382:
846:
708:
642:
593:
575:
736:
if anyone can actually be bothered to. The articles don't exist. This is raw data. And just as
1520:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1202:
892:
744:
1577:
1573:
1535:
1516:
1512:
1446:
1402:
1395:
1341:
1198:
1139:
987:
888:
737:
690:
668:
664:
660:
533:
1498:
605:
How is this stuff encyclopedic? It's an archive of unsourced data with zero context, not
49:
1315:
761:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles_for_deletion/1997-1998 United States network television schedule
1451:
1169:
904:
777:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/1982-83 United States network television schedule
773:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/2007-08 United States network television schedule
1237:
1481:
1410:
1363:
1348:! Such comparisons indicate an unfamiliarity with TV Guide (the place to go to check
1330:
1255:
1206:
1151:
977:
916:
1543:
1241:
1077:
that provides the very framework which the further content would exist around.
741:
1581:
1096:
1038:
1018:
991:
732:
48:, defaults to Keep. Any help untagging the 96 articles would be appreciated.
1340:
Before I forget: Someone above has made the argument that
Knowledge (XXG) is
1146:
be sourced, which is available since the information there now came from
874:
1048:
1360:
watched broadcast network series still attracts millions of viewers.
669:
Knowledge (XXG) is not an indiscriminate collection of information
1592:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
891:
and arguments above. Knowledge (XXG) is not a directory. --
1166:
659:
I didn't think I would have to link these, but here you go:
339:
United States network television schedule (Saturday morning)
1409:"historically significant programme lists and schedules".
1163:
740:
a phonebook or directory, it is also not a TV guide.
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1427:1989-90 United States network television schedule
1423:1991-92 United States network television schedule
1269:not a reason to delete these pages. Don't do it.
1602:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1197:Jim, unless my sarcasm detector is not working,
986:- or move to wikisource. My interpretation of
1310:does too. I think Newcomb is the only one that
496:
445:
394:
343:
1319:information. This isn't even a policy: it's a
759:per the previous discussions of this subject.
72:
8:
1017:listings, save for specials/1 time programs
636:Yeah, OK - they should probably be moved to
69:
704:List of shows that aired Tuesdays at 9:00
638:19XX-19XX United States television season
590:19XX-19XX United States television season
74:United States Network Television Schedule
499:
448:
397:
346:
1138:."); and (4) it is not in violation of
609:. Anyone remember the encyclopedia? --
665:Knowledge (XXG) is not a time capsule
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
924:Knowledge (XXG) is a collection of
59:The US network TV schedule articles
1346:local electronic programming guide
661:Knowledge (XXG) is not a directory
24:
1308:Guinness Television Encyclopedia
1344:a TV Guide...with a link to a
1013:Because these are the same as
1:
79:
1585:04:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
1561:03:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
1547:02:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
1526:01:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
1502:01:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
1487:00:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
1467:19:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
1455:19:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
1434:18:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
1416:18:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
1399:doesn't have anything to do
1386:14:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
1369:09:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
1336:09:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
1323:of what Knowledge (XXG) is.
1259:05:19, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
1245:02:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
53:04:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
1619:
1226:09:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
1210:19:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
1187:17:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
1173:16:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
1155:16:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
1110:17:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
1100:16:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
1082:01:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
1042:01:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
1032:22:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
1022:21:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
1009:21:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
995:21:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
963:21:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
951:19:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
919:14:32, 6 August 2007 (CST)
908:03:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
896:00:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
878:03:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
860:20:41, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
850:20:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
840:20:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
820:20:21, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
810:20:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
784:20:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
771:Including just last week.
750:20:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
712:20:21, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
698:20:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
686:20:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
655:20:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
646:20:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
624:20:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
597:20:21, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
579:19:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
564:18:45, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
64:OK... this AfD covers the
980:2104, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
1595:Please do not modify it.
990:includes these articles
32:Please do not modify it.
1538:quit possible, but not
1483:Firsfron of Ronchester
1412:Firsfron of Ronchester
1365:Firsfron of Ronchester
1332:Firsfron of Ronchester
534:Knowledge (XXG) Is Not
66:following 96 articles:
926:encyclopedia articles
607:encyclopedia articles
938:Jeffrey O. Gustafson
827:Jeffrey O. Gustafson
797:Jeffrey O. Gustafson
673:Jeffrey O. Gustafson
611:Jeffrey O. Gustafson
551:Jeffrey O. Gustafson
1580:that applies here.
932:is a collection of
1429:. Problem solved.
1421:See for example:
1266:KEEP - Absolutely!
1445:: In my opinion,
1290:
1276:comment added by
1199:assume good faith
522:
521:
495:
494:
444:
443:
393:
392:
330:
329:
1610:
1597:
1558:FrozenPurpleCube
1523:
1484:
1464:FrozenPurpleCube
1431:FrozenPurpleCube
1413:
1403:WP:NOT#DIRECTORY
1366:
1333:
1289:
1270:
1201:and please read
1184:FrozenPurpleCube
1107:FrozenPurpleCube
1079:FrozenPurpleCube
1029:FrozenPurpleCube
1006:FrozenPurpleCube
960:FrozenPurpleCube
857:FrozenPurpleCube
817:FrozenPurpleCube
781:FrozenPurpleCube
747:
695:FrozenPurpleCube
652:FrozenPurpleCube
497:
446:
395:
344:
70:
34:
1618:
1617:
1613:
1612:
1611:
1609:
1608:
1607:
1606:
1600:deletion review
1593:
1521:
1509:Strong Keep All
1482:
1411:
1364:
1331:
1278:Michaelcarraher
1271:
745:
62:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1616:
1614:
1605:
1604:
1588:
1587:
1566:
1565:
1564:
1563:
1550:
1549:
1528:
1505:
1504:
1491:
1490:
1489:
1470:
1469:
1457:
1439:
1438:
1437:
1436:
1418:
1389:
1388:
1374:
1373:
1372:
1371:
1350:local listings
1325:
1324:
1300:unencyclopedic
1292:
1291:
1262:
1261:
1248:
1247:
1229:
1228:
1215:
1214:
1213:
1212:
1192:
1191:
1190:
1189:
1176:
1175:
1157:
1123:
1122:
1121:
1120:
1119:
1118:
1117:
1116:
1115:
1114:
1113:
1112:
1068:
1067:
1066:
1065:
1064:
1063:
1062:
1061:
1060:
1059:
1058:
1057:
998:
997:
981:
970:
969:
968:
967:
966:
965:
921:
920:
910:
898:
881:
880:
868:
867:
866:
865:
864:
863:
862:
852:
787:
786:
753:
752:
723:
722:
721:
720:
719:
718:
717:
716:
715:
714:
700:
648:
629:
628:
627:
626:
600:
599:
582:
581:
520:
519:
503:
493:
492:
452:
442:
441:
401:
391:
390:
350:
342:
341:
328:
327:
295:
255:
215:
175:
135:
95:
77:
76:
61:
56:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1615:
1603:
1601:
1596:
1590:
1589:
1586:
1583:
1579:
1575:
1571:
1568:
1567:
1562:
1559:
1554:
1553:
1552:
1551:
1548:
1545:
1541:
1537:
1532:
1529:
1527:
1524:
1518:
1514:
1510:
1507:
1506:
1503:
1500:
1495:
1492:
1488:
1485:
1479:
1474:
1473:
1472:
1471:
1468:
1465:
1461:
1458:
1456:
1453:
1448:
1444:
1441:
1440:
1435:
1432:
1428:
1424:
1419:
1417:
1414:
1408:
1405:specifically
1404:
1400:
1397:
1393:
1392:
1391:
1390:
1387:
1384:
1383:Axem Titanium
1379:
1378:Strong delete
1376:
1375:
1370:
1367:
1362:
1359:
1355:
1351:
1347:
1343:
1339:
1338:
1337:
1334:
1327:
1326:
1322:
1317:
1313:
1309:
1305:
1301:
1297:
1294:
1293:
1287:
1283:
1279:
1275:
1267:
1264:
1263:
1260:
1257:
1253:
1250:
1249:
1246:
1243:
1239:
1238:verifiability
1234:
1231:
1230:
1227:
1224:
1220:
1217:
1216:
1211:
1208:
1204:
1200:
1196:
1195:
1194:
1193:
1188:
1185:
1180:
1179:
1178:
1177:
1174:
1171:
1167:
1164:
1161:
1158:
1156:
1153:
1149:
1145:
1141:
1137:
1133:
1128:
1125:
1124:
1111:
1108:
1103:
1102:
1101:
1098:
1094:
1093:
1092:
1091:
1090:
1089:
1088:
1087:
1086:
1085:
1084:
1083:
1080:
1075:
1072:
1055:
1052:
1049:
1047:whole. Like
1045:
1044:
1043:
1040:
1035:
1034:
1033:
1030:
1025:
1024:
1023:
1020:
1016:
1012:
1011:
1010:
1007:
1002:
1001:
1000:
999:
996:
993:
989:
985:
982:
979:
975:
972:
971:
964:
961:
956:
955:
954:
953:
952:
949:
945:
944:
939:
935:
931:
927:
923:
922:
918:
914:
911:
909:
906:
902:
899:
897:
894:
890:
886:
883:
882:
879:
876:
872:
869:
861:
858:
853:
851:
848:
847:Phil Sandifer
843:
842:
841:
838:
834:
833:
828:
823:
822:
821:
818:
813:
812:
811:
808:
804:
803:
798:
794:
789:
788:
785:
782:
778:
774:
770:
766:
762:
758:
755:
754:
751:
748:
743:
739:
735:
734:
731:transwiki to
728:
725:
724:
713:
710:
709:Phil Sandifer
705:
701:
699:
696:
692:
689:
688:
687:
684:
680:
679:
674:
670:
666:
662:
658:
657:
656:
653:
649:
647:
644:
643:Phil Sandifer
639:
635:
634:
633:
632:
631:
630:
625:
622:
618:
617:
612:
608:
604:
603:
602:
601:
598:
595:
594:Phil Sandifer
591:
587:
584:
583:
580:
577:
576:Phil Sandifer
573:
572:
568:
567:
566:
565:
562:
558:
557:
552:
548:
544:
539:
535:
529:
527:
518:
514:
510:
506:
502:
498:
491:
487:
483:
479:
475:
471:
467:
463:
459:
455:
451:
447:
440:
436:
432:
428:
424:
420:
416:
412:
408:
404:
400:
396:
389:
385:
381:
377:
373:
369:
365:
361:
357:
353:
349:
345:
340:
337:
336:
335:
334:
326:
322:
318:
314:
310:
306:
302:
298:
294:
290:
286:
282:
278:
274:
270:
266:
262:
258:
254:
250:
246:
242:
238:
234:
230:
226:
222:
218:
214:
210:
206:
202:
198:
194:
190:
186:
182:
178:
174:
170:
166:
162:
158:
154:
150:
146:
142:
138:
134:
130:
126:
122:
118:
114:
110:
106:
102:
98:
94:
90:
86:
82:
78:
75:
71:
68:
67:
60:
57:
55:
54:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1594:
1591:
1574:WP:NOT#GUIDE
1569:
1540:Internet:NOT
1530:
1522:NeutralHomer
1517:WP:NOT#GUIDE
1508:
1493:
1459:
1442:
1406:
1398:
1396:WP:NOT#GUIDE
1377:
1357:
1353:
1349:
1320:
1316:Five Pillars
1311:
1303:
1299:
1295:
1272:— Preceding
1265:
1251:
1232:
1218:
1159:
1147:
1143:
1140:WP:NOT#GUIDE
1132:Tracy Ullman
1131:
1127:Strong keep.
1126:
1069:
988:WP:NOT#GUIDE
983:
973:
941:
933:
929:
925:
912:
900:
884:
870:
830:
825:helpful. --
800:
793:encyclopedia
792:
756:
730:
726:
676:
614:
606:
585:
570:
569:
554:
546:
543:encyclopedia
542:
537:
530:
523:
500:
449:
398:
347:
338:
332:
331:
73:
65:
63:
58:
46:No consensus
45:
43:
31:
28:
1443:Strong Keep
1296:Strong keep
1252:Strong Keep
1219:Strong keep
1160:Strong Keep
934:information
913:Strong Keep
893:Wikipedical
691:WP:NOT#BURO
333:... and ...
1578:WP:NOT#DIR
1513:WP:NOT#DIR
1499:Balloonman
1394:Actually,
984:Delete all
948:<*: -->
930:Wikisource
885:Delete all
837:<*: -->
807:<*: -->
733:Wikisource
727:Delete all
683:<*: -->
621:<*: -->
561:<*: -->
547:Delete ALL
50:NawlinWiki
1556:option.
1354:broadcast
1170:Jim856796
1148:somewhere
905:Nach0king
1460:Question
1452:azumanga
1286:contribs
1274:unsigned
1256:Abstrakt
1223:musicpvm
1136:Oh, yeah
943:Shazaam!
871:KEEP all
832:Shazaam!
802:Shazaam!
678:Shazaam!
616:Shazaam!
556:Shazaam!
526:View log
501:Seasons:
450:Seasons:
399:Seasons:
348:Seasons:
1531:Comment
1478:1946-47
1312:doesn't
1207:Twigboy
1203:WP:COOL
1152:Twigboy
978:GABaker
917:Ppoi307
517:1969-70
513:1968-69
509:1967-68
505:1966-67
490:1979-80
486:1978-79
482:1977-78
478:1976-77
474:1975-76
470:1974-75
466:1973-74
462:1972-73
458:1971-72
454:1970-71
439:1989-90
435:1988-89
431:1987-88
427:1986-87
423:1985-86
419:1984-85
415:1983-84
411:1982-83
407:1981-82
403:1980-81
388:1999-00
384:1998-99
380:1997-98
376:1996-97
372:1995-96
368:1994-95
364:1993-94
360:1992-93
356:1991-92
352:1990-91
325:2007-08
321:2006-07
317:2005-06
313:2004-05
309:2003-04
305:2002-03
301:2001-02
297:2000-01
293:1999-00
289:1998-99
285:1997-98
281:1996-97
277:1995-96
273:1994-95
269:1993-94
265:1992-93
261:1991-92
257:1990-91
253:1989-90
249:1988-89
245:1987-88
241:1986-87
237:1985-86
233:1984-85
229:1983-84
225:1982-83
221:1981-82
217:1980-81
213:1979-80
209:1978-79
205:1977-78
201:1976-77
197:1975-76
193:1974-75
189:1973-74
185:1972-73
181:1971-72
177:1970-71
173:1969-70
169:1968-69
165:1967-68
161:1966-67
157:1965-66
153:1964-65
149:1963-64
145:1962-63
141:1961-62
137:1960-61
133:1959-60
129:1958-59
125:1957-58
121:1956-57
117:1955-56
113:1954-55
109:1953-54
105:1952-53
101:1951-52
97:1950-51
93:1949-50
89:1948-49
85:1947-48
81:1946-47
1544:JPG-GR
1536:WP:NOT
1447:WP:NOT
1407:allows
1321:pillar
1242:Dl2000
889:WP:NOT
746:(talk)
738:WP:NOT
667:, and
1582:dhett
1358:least
1097:Corpx
1039:Corpx
1019:Corpx
1015:these
992:Corpx
936:. --
671:. --
549:. --
16:<
1570:Keep
1515:and
1494:Keep
1425:and
1282:talk
1233:Keep
1144:must
974:Keep
901:Keep
887:per
757:Keep
586:Move
571:Keep
1576:or
1342:NOT
1304:all
1165:or
1073:or
1070:or
1053:or
1050:or
928:.
875:vmz
767:.
763:.
742:Mak
729:or
588:to
545:.
1542:.
1511:-
1302::
1288:)
1284:•
1240:.
1205:.—
1150:.—
1134:?
946:-
940:-
835:-
829:-
805:-
799:-
775:.
681:-
675:-
663:,
619:-
613:-
559:-
553:-
538:no
528:)
515:-
511:-
507:-
488:-
484:-
480:-
476:-
472:-
468:-
464:-
460:-
456:-
437:-
433:-
429:-
425:-
421:-
417:-
413:-
409:-
405:-
386:-
382:-
378:-
374:-
370:-
366:-
362:-
358:-
354:-
323:•
319:•
315:•
311:•
307:•
303:•
299:•
291:•
287:•
283:•
279:•
275:•
271:•
267:•
263:•
259:•
251:•
247:•
243:•
239:•
235:•
231:•
227:•
223:•
219:•
211:•
207:•
203:•
199:•
195:•
191:•
187:•
183:•
179:•
171:•
167:•
163:•
159:•
155:•
151:•
147:•
143:•
139:•
131:•
127:•
123:•
119:•
115:•
111:•
107:•
103:•
99:•
91:•
87:•
83:•
1280:(
1056:.
524:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.