1288:, especially if some more of the articles already found are added to the article. There's been a lot of debate about track listings and B-sides and all, but the fact is that in the case of AKB/NMB/SKE/HKT, the issuing of multiple versions of the same single, with shifting groups of singers, is the core of their now notorious marketing strategy. Listing this information is in this case not fancruft, but a record of what is very much a notable (and controversial) business plan (there are even books written about
1289:
621:. And all I have to understand about the nomination is that it's been flawed from the start. You claim the subject isn't notable solely because the article is in a shit state, ignoring the claims that it was a chart topper and best seller. The article's set up horribly but the language barrier and the fact that every single review of this single is probably going to be in a newspaper that has no digital copy, is going to screw everything up.—
582:), at one of the "news stories" you mention (it goes to a DVD article, but it's the principle that counts), well, if you want to call what I just linked a review you're being very generous: it does nothing more than list some details, larded with ads that take up the right 1/3 of the screen, a half dozen amazon.jp links at the bottom for the various versions, and a tracklist out the wazoo. So no, I wouldn't call that a reliable
738:" and some other articles looked like before yesterday. All the 16 members who sang the title track are listed, all the covers are equally presented, all the tracklists are present, all the videos are linked. Therefore, there's no imbalance there, all the information is necessary. It's not Knowledge (XXG) editors' fault that there are so many members and so many tracks. If there are, they should be all listed. --
593:: it's nothing but a collection of facts that are by themselves of no encyclopedic value. You said something about "discuss its existence as a single": the article in its current state doesn't discuss anything at all. It has barely any prose. It is overwhelmed by what appears, given the absence of prose, purely trivial information. It can hardly be called an article in the first place.
786:
because people care for the girls. They buy singles to support the members they like, because the CDs come with voting tickets, with tickets for "handshake meetings" where they get 3-5 seconds per girl to shake hands with them. If some girl didn't appear on the single, its sales would be different. It is very, very important who sings what.
1064:
articles. I've lost. That means I can't swoop down on an article about a genre that isn't well represented on
English Knowledge (XXG) and demand that they be deleted when they are essentially the same as articles about every other single we have. If we want to do the right thing and get rid of this, we need to get rid of a lot more.—
539:", then it's good enough for NMB48's "Virginity". And the nature of the 48 member group means that not every member performs vocals on every song, so it is worth noting who are the personnel (vocalists) for each track. Either way, it topped charts, was one of the best selling singles of the year, etc. It passes
665:
be considered "internal ads" cause they are internal links to some promotional campains on the
Natalie website itself. There are also links to the release (discussed in the article) on Amazon, but Natalie wants to earn money somehow, so they give readers the possibility to easily buy the DVD if they like it. --
1063:
I fully agree that this song doesn't warrant an article, but at the same time, 99% of the articles we have on singles shouldn't exist. I've long fought for having a nugget of actual information covered under parent albums and groups as opposed to these bloated infobox+table things that masquerade as
664:
As
Ryulong said, the long column of "ads" you see on the right are not ads. Those are links to featured inteviews with artists. Only the two bigger ones that are located separately at the very top and the very bottom are advertisements. There are also two banners (they are grouped together) that can
518:
song from every CD and DVD that includes the subject song or listing every B side. I will be happy to change my !vote if someone can produce 2-3 sources that discuss the song with any depth beyond just a listing on a chart. I assume these exist, but I don't read
Japanese, so I can't find them on my
197:
This is not an article. The verified information in the article boils down to two things: it was the band's fifth single, and it sold almost 400,000 copies. Great! But WP:SINGLE doesn't tell us that such a song needs an article, only that it may. In fact, "A separate article is only appropriate when
770:
But the part of the page you cited before doesn't say anything definite. The info is not "everything", it is very important. The article is just a stub. There are many unimportant things we can add to it. We can list every time it was performed, for example. What it has now is the absolute minimum.
608:
Drmies, it seems that every complaint you have about sources or external links has to do with the fact that there's some form of advertisement or shopping cart somewhere. Natalie.mu needs revenue like any other website (also the "advertisements" you are complaining about are links to interviews the
1029:
There is another problem. At present, songs sometimes aren't released physically. They are released on iTunes, Rekochoku (for Japan), etc. and are called "digital singles". If such a single contains only one track, it is the same as a song. The Korean music industry calls digitally released songs
509:
is not just about meeting one of the three minimum criteria. The very first sentence states: "Notability aside, a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article..." In my mind, this does not include listing every band member for every
785:
You should watch some
Japanese idol videos on YouTube and read comments. Most comments are about someone liking a girl, about how cute the girls are, about "who is the girl at ...". It is the same as liking an American solo singer, but 100 times multiplied. The releases by AKB48, etc., sell well
262:
and the rest of the content is overly detailed, tangential and duplicates the content in the artist article. It does appear that the single charted (8 out of the top 20), but there's not evidence that the article could every be expanded beyond a stub once the extraneous content is removed. As an
812:
was more important than writing words that conveyed information, those people don't know what an encyclopedia is and should shift their activities to a fan site. And fo shizzle, "this is the absolute minimum"? That's crazy talk. The absolute minimum is the one sentence I proposed, which can now
1306:
Thanks for the explanation. Your point about NSONG is well taken and the information on these commercial strategies is very enlightening. As an editor, let me add one note, though: even if one doesn't call this fancruft, but "a record of what is etc.", that still doesn't mean we have to
808:. If you can't see how such information is excessive, esp. in comparison to a sentence of prose, then I can't help you. Whoever these people were who felt it essential to list, for dozens or hundreds of lines, who sang in which version and what b-sides there were, those people who felt
679:
There's also a third ad, the long banner at the very top. It mostly advertises something musical, something important. Now it links to the website of a
Japanese Pop Culture Festival called "Kawaii Matsuri". The Natalie website as a whole is really nothing to be irritated about.
1280:. I can sympathize with those who complain that Knowledge (XXG) is being turned into a music database, where seemingly every single/album by any notable artist has to have an article (the same can be said about films, TV shows, seiyu, etc.). Part of the problem is
569:
Ryulong, NSONG doesn't mandate a song or single have an article given some criterion or other being met: it says it may. I cited above what led me to nominate this article. You can compare with the track list of "Enter
Sandman" all you want, but that article has a
531:"Virginity" was a single and that single had multiple editions each with different B-sides and some that came with DVDs. How else are you going to discuss its existence as a single without mentioning its various B-sides? If it's good enough for Lady Gaga's "
1177:
sources. V is a need for verifiability. Track lists are verifiable, but (of course) primary. It's the lack of independent sources that makes notability questionable. (You'll notice that I'm neither arguing for keeping or deletion for this article.)
198:
there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article". Now, that is not the case here: we have 13,000 bytes of alternate B-sides and a truly bizarre exhibition of "member lists". For the sake of redundancy, I'll throw in
701:. Techinsight is a reliable news provider, Excite News is one of the portals that use their articles. The song's music and lyrics are described there. Unfortunately, Japanese magazines don't seem to like putting their articles on the Internet.
643:
you). I proved, I think pretty clearly, that at least one of the things you pointed at doesn't even come close to what most people would call a news story. (What you gave was an ad, with ads on the side.) As for
Natalie etc--the things that
397:
easily, IMHO. I'm not sure where you got the 8 out of 20 number you mentioned, but the song was no. 1 on the daily and weekly Oricon charts, no. 2 on the monthly Oricon chart, and no. 1 on the weekly
Billboard Japan chart.
1030:"singles" and physical CD singles "single albums". There's a lot of confusion. I'm not sure if anything can be done about it. (By the way, stricly speaking, I think a CD single with more than two tracks on it is called a "
202:, which says that "An encyclopedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details." And that seems to be what we have here. Without that detail, there isn't anything left one could call an article.
166:
588:
Ryulong, I don't know if you misunderstand this nomination or what: it's not that "this article should go cause it's got long 'member' lists", which is how some have been portraying my recent edits. It's that
579:
871:
noted above, I would really like to see someone actually add some in-depth third-party coverage and commentary, rather than just padding it out with fancruft, to truly comply with the spirit of
295:
It looks like you didn't read the article. I don't understand your comment. Maybe it's humorous, but 1) The single ranked no. 1, not 8; 2) The content is necessary and doesn't duplicate the
219:
574:
of decent, encyclopedic, verified text to offset a bit of track information (which still doesn't even compare to what our current article has (which is 30 lines). In fact, it's a GA.
892:- The article title says "song" while the article seems to be about the entire "single". If the article is kept, either the focus or the title should be adjusted to make them match.
160:
119:
341:
music to notice. The genre has its own specifics, so it's hard to comprehend what is important in such an article and what is not for a person not familiar with it. --
363:
337:
and in "Virginity". Cause they aren't the same. The necessary info about members and rankings was there, but you need to have some training in listening to
1240:
We like to pretend that N and V are entirely separate things, but really they are interdependent, and I think that's part of what we're running into here.
1078:
So you're basically wanting this to be deleted so it sets a precedent that will eliminate every article on songs unless they've been critically reviewed?—
126:
771:
The people who worked on it left only one sentence in it while listing all the members exactly because they felt that the information is essential. --
548:
961:
92:
87:
1210:
on independent, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. An article that is based on primary sources fails
96:
1155:. Try to get an article deleted because it is based on primary sources, though. Won't work if there's any secondary sources mentioned.—
578:
is an entertainment news site, and you'll forgive me, no doubt, if it's not much help to me. But when I do follow your link and look,
1104:
If I thought it could set such a precedent, I'd be in favor of deletion. Since it can't set such a precedent, we probably shouldn't.—
17:
547:. The only reason it's being argued for deletion is because the article is not the best which boils down to the authors. I can find
79:
181:
639:
No, what I'm saying is that you claim to have uncovered a bunch of things you suggested were notable and were "news stories" (I'm
148:
863:. While having reached the Number 1 position in the charts may be just sufficient to satisfy the minimum notability criteria at
416:
The 8 out of 20 came from the only source in the article, but I may have misread it or the translation may have been faulty. -
917:
Another long standing argument: making this article right would also make it inconsistent with most other music articles.—
1222:
certainly permits the use of primary sources within an article, but doesn't permit entire articles to be based on them.—
1341:
40:
964:. Someone decided that for consistency all articles about songs and singles should be disambiguated using "(song)". --
142:
648:
read for "news stories" aren't overwhelmed by advertising. Just saying that you're not really reading quality there.
1039:
1020:
986:
Ugh. That would make sense if "single" consistently meant one song. Since that's not the case, that is a bad rule.
969:
795:
776:
743:
713:
685:
670:
493:
448:
346:
304:
805:
753:
199:
138:
1320:
1301:
1256:
1231:
1194:
1164:
1142:
1113:
1091:
1073:
1043:
1024:
1002:
973:
955:
926:
908:
884:
855:
822:
799:
780:
765:
747:
717:
689:
674:
657:
634:
602:
564:
526:
497:
477:
452:
423:
407:
382:
350:
328:
308:
290:
276:
238:
211:
61:
1250:
1188:
1136:
1008:
996:
949:
902:
735:
376:
232:
188:
935:
Let me make sure I have this straight, as this isn't an area I work in a whole lot: renaming this article
532:
1337:
1035:
1016:
1012:
965:
936:
791:
772:
739:
709:
681:
666:
489:
444:
342:
300:
83:
57:
36:
699:
848:
403:
1297:
174:
154:
1284:, which is a bit vague on what "reasonably detailed" means. That said, I still think this passes
1242:
1180:
1128:
988:
941:
894:
368:
224:
1285:
1281:
872:
864:
544:
506:
461:
440:
394:
259:
617:). I never said it was a review. All I said was that it was a news site that I use for meeting
1085:
728:
628:
558:
471:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1336:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1015:. So when you open an article, you can tell what it is about by the color of the template. --
321:
I read all 10 words. The rest were mere listings of other songs, band members and B sides. -
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1316:
818:
761:
653:
598:
286:
207:
75:
67:
53:
868:
837:
540:
841:
788:
And by the way, the liner notes don't look long in
Japanese. They are actually very short.
399:
939:
to reflect its contents would be inconsistent with most of how these articles are named?
1293:
880:
439:
The single ranked number 1 on Oricon and Billboard Japan Hot 100. Therefore, it passes
1219:
1215:
1211:
1203:
1152:
1123:
618:
1227:
1160:
1109:
1069:
922:
536:
523:
420:
338:
325:
273:
1079:
622:
614:
552:
465:
113:
1312:
1122:
Isn't the existence of secondary, independent sources the fundamental notion of
1031:
814:
757:
649:
594:
282:
203:
813:
become twice as long since a chart position was indicated. That's the minimum.
575:
249:- Sources provided below to demonstrate notability. 14:08, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
876:
706:
610:
486:
1223:
1156:
1105:
1065:
918:
520:
417:
322:
270:
705:
does, but there's no review for this particular single on their site:
732:
334:
296:
255:
464:
as it has charted on a national chart, it is a number 1 at that.—
1330:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
263:
aside, the Japanese to English translation of the song title is
962:
Knowledge (XXG):Naming conventions (music)#Disambiguation_2
586:, if "review" means something that helps us generate text.
393:
It may or may not merit an article, but the single passes
698:
I did a quick search. Here is an article by Techinsight:
485:: It is the 13th best-selling single of 2012 in Japan:
109:
105:
101:
173:
734:. As Drmies may see, it is very reminiscent of what "
220:
list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions
1007:
Singles and songs have different infoboxes, though:
551:
on the website where I go for Japanese music news.—
187:
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1344:). No further edits should be made to this page.
333:I meant you hadn't compared the member lists in
549:six different news stories mentioning this song
804:What you're offering is a visual variation of
591:this is not, in its current state, an article
8:
1311:every detail of such a strategy. Thank you,
362:Note: This debate has been included in the
218:Note: This debate has been included in the
731:I've found this article about "Virginity":
281:I'll have a glass of that, iced of course.
364:list of Japan-related deletion discussions
361:
217:
52:. But expansion would be really nice —
609:site conducts with musicians, such as
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
24:
299:article; 3) Google Translate? --
1:
580:courtesy of Google translate
1151:Actually, it's the core of
505:- Please bear in mind that
1361:
1321:20:31, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
1302:12:14, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
1257:03:26, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
1232:03:12, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
1206:calls for articles to be
1195:03:02, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
1165:23:53, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
1143:23:09, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
1114:14:54, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
1092:08:36, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
1074:04:29, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
1044:07:27, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
1025:07:04, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
1003:06:50, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
974:05:31, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
956:04:41, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
927:04:29, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
909:04:00, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
885:01:14, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
856:18:40, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
823:00:25, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
800:18:59, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
781:18:59, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
766:17:58, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
748:13:48, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
718:13:48, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
690:09:17, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
675:09:08, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
658:01:38, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
635:08:34, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
603:17:57, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
565:13:02, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
527:12:57, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
498:10:31, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
478:09:23, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
453:08:55, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
424:12:57, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
408:08:31, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
383:04:54, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
351:14:03, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
329:12:57, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
309:09:01, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
291:05:14, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
277:04:53, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
239:04:50, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
212:04:27, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
62:05:20, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
1333:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
1009:Template:Infobox single
756:, for the love of God.
736:Manatsu no Sounds Good!
1061:A plea for consistency
960:Yes, because of this:
267:, according to Google.
258:. Fails notability of
1013:Template:Infobox song
441:Knowledge (XXG):NSONG
937:Virginity (single)
535:" or Metallica's "
48:The result was
1036:Moscow Connection
1017:Moscow Connection
966:Moscow Connection
792:Moscow Connection
789:
773:Moscow Connection
740:Moscow Connection
710:Moscow Connection
682:Moscow Connection
667:Moscow Connection
490:Moscow Connection
445:Moscow Connection
385:
343:Moscow Connection
301:Moscow Connection
241:
1352:
1335:
1255:
1253:
1249:
1245:
1193:
1191:
1187:
1183:
1141:
1139:
1135:
1131:
1088:
1082:
1001:
999:
995:
991:
954:
952:
948:
944:
907:
905:
901:
897:
806:WP:DIDNTHEARTHAT
787:
754:WP:NOTEVERYTHING
631:
625:
561:
555:
514:, listing every
474:
468:
381:
379:
375:
371:
237:
235:
231:
227:
200:WP:NOTEVERYTHING
192:
191:
177:
129:
117:
99:
76:Virginity (song)
68:Virginity (song)
34:
1360:
1359:
1355:
1354:
1353:
1351:
1350:
1349:
1348:
1342:deletion review
1331:
1251:
1247:
1243:
1241:
1189:
1185:
1181:
1179:
1137:
1133:
1129:
1127:
1086:
1080:
997:
993:
989:
987:
950:
946:
942:
940:
903:
899:
895:
893:
727:By the way, on
629:
623:
559:
553:
472:
466:
377:
373:
369:
367:
265:Vernon Gini Tea
254:or redirect to
233:
229:
225:
223:
134:
125:
90:
74:
71:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1358:
1356:
1347:
1346:
1326:
1325:
1324:
1323:
1274:
1273:
1272:
1271:
1270:
1269:
1268:
1267:
1266:
1265:
1264:
1263:
1262:
1261:
1260:
1259:
1235:
1234:
1198:
1197:
1168:
1167:
1146:
1145:
1117:
1116:
1097:
1096:
1095:
1094:
1057:
1056:
1055:
1054:
1053:
1052:
1051:
1050:
1049:
1048:
1047:
1046:
1027:
979:
978:
977:
976:
930:
929:
912:
911:
887:
858:
831:
830:
829:
828:
827:
826:
825:
783:
722:
721:
720:
696:
695:
694:
693:
692:
677:
662:
661:
660:
611:this interview
500:
480:
455:
433:
432:
431:
430:
429:
428:
427:
426:
411:
410:
359:
358:
357:
356:
355:
354:
353:
314:
313:
312:
311:
293:
243:
242:
195:
194:
131:
70:
65:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1357:
1345:
1343:
1339:
1334:
1328:
1327:
1322:
1318:
1314:
1310:
1305:
1304:
1303:
1299:
1295:
1291:
1287:
1283:
1279:
1276:
1275:
1258:
1254:
1246:
1239:
1238:
1237:
1236:
1233:
1229:
1225:
1221:
1217:
1213:
1209:
1205:
1202:
1201:
1200:
1199:
1196:
1192:
1184:
1176:
1172:
1171:
1170:
1169:
1166:
1162:
1158:
1154:
1150:
1149:
1148:
1147:
1144:
1140:
1132:
1125:
1121:
1120:
1119:
1118:
1115:
1111:
1107:
1103:
1102:
1101:
1100:
1099:
1098:
1093:
1089:
1083:
1077:
1076:
1075:
1071:
1067:
1062:
1059:
1058:
1045:
1041:
1037:
1033:
1028:
1026:
1022:
1018:
1014:
1010:
1006:
1005:
1004:
1000:
992:
985:
984:
983:
982:
981:
980:
975:
971:
967:
963:
959:
958:
957:
953:
945:
938:
934:
933:
932:
931:
928:
924:
920:
916:
915:
914:
913:
910:
906:
898:
891:
888:
886:
882:
878:
874:
870:
866:
862:
859:
857:
854:
853:
852:
847:
846:
845:
839:
835:
832:
824:
820:
816:
811:
807:
803:
802:
801:
797:
793:
784:
782:
778:
774:
769:
768:
767:
763:
759:
755:
751:
750:
749:
745:
741:
737:
733:
730:
726:
723:
719:
715:
711:
707:
704:
700:
697:
691:
687:
683:
678:
676:
672:
668:
663:
659:
655:
651:
647:
642:
638:
637:
636:
632:
626:
620:
616:
612:
607:
606:
605:
604:
600:
596:
592:
585:
581:
577:
573:
568:
567:
566:
562:
556:
550:
546:
542:
538:
537:Enter Sandman
534:
530:
529:
528:
525:
522:
517:
513:
508:
504:
501:
499:
495:
491:
487:
484:
481:
479:
475:
469:
463:
459:
456:
454:
450:
446:
442:
438:
435:
434:
425:
422:
419:
415:
414:
413:
412:
409:
405:
401:
396:
392:
389:
388:
387:
386:
384:
380:
372:
365:
360:
352:
348:
344:
340:
339:Japanese idol
336:
332:
331:
330:
327:
324:
320:
319:
318:
317:
316:
315:
310:
306:
302:
298:
294:
292:
288:
284:
280:
279:
278:
275:
272:
268:
266:
261:
257:
253:
248:
245:
244:
240:
236:
228:
221:
216:
215:
214:
213:
209:
205:
201:
190:
186:
183:
180:
176:
172:
168:
165:
162:
159:
156:
153:
150:
147:
144:
140:
137:
136:Find sources:
132:
128:
124:
121:
115:
111:
107:
103:
98:
94:
89:
85:
81:
77:
73:
72:
69:
66:
64:
63:
59:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1332:
1329:
1308:
1277:
1207:
1174:
1173:N calls for
1060:
889:
860:
850:
849:
843:
842:
833:
809:
724:
702:
645:
640:
615:Denki Groove
590:
587:
583:
571:
515:
511:
510:song on the
502:
482:
457:
436:
390:
264:
251:
250:
246:
196:
184:
178:
170:
163:
157:
151:
145:
135:
122:
49:
47:
31:
28:
1214:as well as
1175:independent
1032:maxi single
161:free images
54:Crisco 1492
703:Hotexpress
576:Natalie.mu
400:Cckerberos
1338:talk page
1294:Michitaro
1278:Weak Keep
867:, as per
861:Weak Keep
460:: Passes
37:talk page
1340:or in a
1286:WP:NSONG
1282:WP:NSONG
873:WP:NSONG
865:WP:NSONG
836:Pending
545:WP:NSONG
507:WP:NSONG
462:WP:NSONG
395:WP:NSONG
260:WP:NSONG
120:View log
39:or in a
1309:include
1252:Shalott
1190:Shalott
1138:Shalott
1081:Ryulong
998:Shalott
951:Shalott
904:Shalott
890:Comment
729:Natalie
725:Comment
641:quoting
624:Ryulong
554:Ryulong
519:own. -
503:Comment
483:Comment
467:Ryulong
391:Comment
378:Shalott
234:Shalott
167:WP refs
155:scholar
93:protect
88:history
1313:Drmies
1034:".) --
869:WP:HEY
838:WP:HEY
834:Delete
815:Drmies
758:Drmies
650:Drmies
595:Drmies
584:review
541:WP:GNG
283:Drmies
252:Delete
204:Drmies
139:Google
97:delete
1208:based
851:Vesey
752:Read
613:with
533:Judas
516:other
512:album
335:NMB48
297:NMB48
256:NMB48
182:JSTOR
143:books
127:Stats
114:views
106:watch
102:links
16:<
1317:talk
1298:talk
1290:this
1244:Lady
1228:talk
1220:WP:V
1216:WP:N
1212:WP:V
1204:WP:V
1182:Lady
1161:talk
1153:WP:V
1130:Lady
1124:WP:N
1110:talk
1070:talk
1040:talk
1021:talk
1011:and
990:Lady
970:talk
943:Lady
923:talk
896:Lady
881:talk
877:DAJF
875:. --
844:Ryan
819:talk
810:that
796:talk
777:talk
762:talk
744:talk
714:talk
708:. --
686:talk
671:talk
654:talk
619:WP:V
599:talk
543:and
494:talk
488:. --
458:Keep
449:talk
443:. --
437:Keep
404:talk
370:Lady
347:talk
305:talk
287:talk
247:Keep
226:Lady
208:talk
175:FENS
149:news
110:logs
84:talk
80:edit
58:talk
50:keep
1292:).
1224:Kww
1157:Kww
1106:Kww
1066:Kww
919:Kww
572:ton
189:TWL
118:– (
1319:)
1300:)
1248:of
1230:)
1218:.
1186:of
1163:)
1134:of
1126:?
1112:)
1090:)
1087:琉竜
1072:)
1042:)
1023:)
994:of
972:)
947:of
925:)
900:of
883:)
840:.
821:)
798:)
790:--
779:)
764:)
746:)
716:)
688:)
680:--
673:)
656:)
633:)
630:琉竜
601:)
563:)
560:琉竜
521:Mr
496:)
476:)
473:琉竜
451:)
418:Mr
406:)
374:of
366:.
349:)
323:Mr
307:)
289:)
271:Mr
269:-
230:of
222:.
210:)
169:)
112:|
108:|
104:|
100:|
95:|
91:|
86:|
82:|
60:)
1315:(
1296:(
1226:(
1159:(
1108:(
1084:(
1068:(
1038:(
1019:(
968:(
921:(
879:(
817:(
794:(
775:(
760:(
742:(
712:(
684:(
669:(
652:(
646:I
627:(
597:(
557:(
524:X
492:(
470:(
447:(
421:X
402:(
345:(
326:X
303:(
285:(
274:X
206:(
193:)
185:·
179:·
171:·
164:·
158:·
152:·
146:·
141:(
133:(
130:)
123:·
116:)
78:(
56:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.