1243:. There are no hits under a google books' search for the term "visible penis line." There are also no hits under a google news archive search. There is one hit under google scholar, which is the 2010 Journal of Gender Studies article already cited. ("mscljocko's fisted hand presses down on his groin, emphasizes his genitals, and invokes the process of masturbating. In other underwear listings, he flexes his well-muscled body and tilts his hips out in order to display a visible penis line (2007a)"). This lack of citation harms the claim that this term is a "common colloquial term." In fact, it appears to be internet slang that hasn't risen to the notability level of other slang. To the extent the concept is noted in sources, it can be noted in other appropriate articles.--
619:) mention the tight clothes of mid-18th C. peasantry and even, to some extent, the upper class, as opposed to that of the era's middle-class Puritans; and, indeed, the style of male dress is on a pendulum from tight to loose, back and forth (skinny jeans, low-riding jeans, etc.) from generation to generation. To combine this concept with female attire only needlessly complicates it. Let's not be so wary of possible male-female inequality that we disallow an appropriate treatment for a topic that is more usually noted among women (well, at least--as I noted above--within our current times; at one time it was men who wore tight breeches and women who never did).--
652:
in the wintertime. upper garment was cut full in the chest and shoulders, with broad seems that ran horizontally across the front and back, and was drawn or "cinched" tightly at the waist. The effect was to enlarge the shoulders and the chest. Much as female costume created an exceptionally strong sense of femininity, male dress in the backcountry put equally heavy stress on masculinity. The dress ways of the backcountry were designed to magnify sexual differences. The men of the backcountry wore loose, flowing trousers or "drawers".... The lower legs were sometimes sheathed in gaiters called "leather stockings."
582:
papers about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term. An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs, books, and articles that use the term rather than are about the term) are insufficient to support articles on neologisms because this may require analysis and synthesis of primary source material to advance a position, which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy.
575:, although I don't know what that might be. The difference between an encylopedia and a mere lexicon is depth of coverage and grouping overlapping entries, I beleive, would help in this regard, if an appropriately descriptive term could be formed for it. (On this note, note the last graf at the guideline on neologisms):
655:
However, a century or so just-previous, the style throughout Europe was for men to wear tight-legged (or was it just thin-material?) trousers with a cod-piece on top so it's entirely possible that Davy
Crockett's, et al's, buckskin or linen breeches (depending on the weather) were somewhat revealing,
452:
The problem is that all of these thousands of hits don't give you any facts, let alone insight, other than the definition of the term. Some slang terms have colorful, interesting histories which shed light on society in all sorts of ways. You can recognized them by the fact that reliable sources have
1048:
Your arguments keep wandering further and further from the original subject. I'm not going to waste time trying to refute this new question you've brought up about
Anthony Weiner because the connection just isn't there. There is no need for a Knowledge article that collects together ever single book
899:
section in my view provides a pretty straightforward rebuttal. "For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort. If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself...." IAC, I've added a citation to the 18th C.
651:
backcountry women dressed in...a full bodice with deep decolletage, tight-fitting waist, short, full skirt and a hem worn high above the ankle homespun linsey-woolsey garments, often of exquisite beauty and refinement. ... Male backsettlers...commonly wore shirts of linen in the summer and deerskin
590:
In a few cases, there will be notable topics which are well-documented in reliable sources, but for which no accepted short-hand term exists. It can be tempting to employ a neologism in such a case. Instead, it is preferable to use a title that is a descriptive phrase in plain
English if possible,
581:
Some neologisms can be in frequent use, and it may be possible to pull together many facts about a particular term and show evidence of its usage on the
Internet or in larger society. To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and
585:
Neologisms that are in wide use but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources are not yet ready for use and coverage in
Knowledge. The term does not need to be in Knowledge in order to be a "true" term, and when secondary sources become available, it will be appropriate to create an
947:
Your contention that, eg, dandies' style of dress did not accentuate the genitalia is unsupportable. However, Brummell--whose fashion sense, by the way, is the reason (according to fashion scholars) that modern men wear a suit and tie--did in fact popularize this style. Full stop. See
1103:
You've got two AFD pages going on this, and you've added the OR noticeboard. And you want to add ANI. That's called forum shopping. It looks like an attempt to filibuster. It walks like a filibuster. It talks like a filibuster. It smells like a filibuster. Could it be a filibuster?
815:
Not taking the current title as a common term but considering instead the topic of men's dress where the outline of mens' penises are visible, is it possible that applicable references could likely be found by such means as, say, doing an
Internet search of the exact phrase
1022:'s lede about a crotch bulge that reads, "First came the crotch photos. Then came the lying and denial. Now, Rep. Anthony Weiner is seeking treatment...." --you believe may or may not refer to the Representative's visible penis and to believe it refers to one is but a
1168:. An article is not just its name. The question here is, is this a real phenomenon, and is there some other article which already covers the topic? Obviously this article and Moose Knuckle should be merged. But the topic is separate enough as an intentional effect (
520:
Since it isn't a vote, I'd expect that opinions based on counting Google hits will be ignored, since even millions of hits fail to change a dictionary definition into an encyclopedia article, and no number of self-published sources is equal to one reliable source.
1172:) that is should not be shoehorned into Cameltoe. Complaining that when authors describe the phenomenon they don't necessarily use the word we have chosen for the article title is merely saying what we really need to do is change the name of the article to
1278:. I am pretty sure this must be a notable topic with significant coverage including technical information for fashion designers. I just don't know how and where to look for it. As a first measure this article should probably be merged with
505:
Sure, give us a full first, middle and last name and if in quotes they generate more than the same for the three words visible penis line I will change my vote. But sophistical comparisons of one apple to three oranges hardly helps here.
821:
613:- Don't think of the title as a neologism. Think of the title as a straightforward description of the style of dress being covered. Historical treatises (eg, I recall an entire section on the subject in the award-winning
1059:. The fact is, the more third opinions you solicit, the more editors line up to delete the article. And their comments indicate a growing frustration with wasting time on this. Have you not noticed that? Please stop. --
149:
929:. You cite sources that merely mention men wearing tight pants, and then you pretend they're talking about visible penis lines. You should not be putting words into the mouth of your sources this way. Please stop. --
1080:
Sir, please wp:AGF. Do you personalize debates whereever you comment throughout the project or is this an isolated case? IAC we're all encouraged to avoid accusing each other such things as "tendentious editing"
673:
829:
453:
lots to say about them. Other slang terms just exist: you got the term, and you got the definition, end of discussion. And there is a perfect job for a dictionary, not an encyclopedia. Read all of
48:. Keep arguments havn't actually found any sources that discuss this particular terms so the delete argument that this is already covered in wiktionary and fails as a dicdef hasn't been refuted,
1094:
1039:
964:
916:
853:
264:
1298:
So far I haven't had any success with fashion books, but I found "The Book of the Penis" in Google Books. The chapter "The penis in fashion" has 14 pages and begins with descriptions of the
628:
604:
1222:
Your command of the
English language is exquisite. Yet without specificity youyr claims ring hollow. What lies? What original research? Please be as specific as you can be offensive.
364:
We've got google scholar and 50,000 hits all meaning the same thing - what is the rationale for deltion? Has camel toe been deleted? Odd that we are more afraid of men's than woman's
235:
1302:
and the codpiece. As far as I can tell we have no general article on this notable topic yet, and widening this one or the "moose knuckle" article would be the obvious solution.
871:
143:
110:
204:
765:
there are multiple historical references available to the visible effect of thisstyle of dress. I'm not sur,e however, what is the best term for the heading.
405:
1117:
1090:
1068:
1035:
1027:
994:
960:
938:
912:
883:
849:
669:
624:
600:
242:(for "Listing eBay masculinity: erotic exchanges and regulation in 'gay'and 'gay interest'underwear and swimwear auctions"). Naturally, there are some
239:
949:
454:
184:
187:. Even the refs here are primarily non-RS, and nothing more than a definition is offered, with most of the article being completely unsourced.
83:
78:
1086:
1031:
956:
908:
845:
665:
620:
596:
87:
70:
180:
If this deserves coverage at all (which is an open question), it is solely as a wiktionary definition, where it is already covered.
1055:
There comes a time when one must listen to other editors. A number of editors have tried to get through to you here, but apparently
710:
862:
We don't keep articles because one editor thinks it might be possible to find encyclopedic material. We keep articles when editors
477:: my personal name, in quotes, has 3x as many google hits as this term. I can create an article now? The answer is no, because the
1153:
164:
231:
1157:
131:
17:
382:
Camel toe has plenty of available references. A single Google
Scholar result doesn't indicate a depth of coverage, and again,
926:
793:
are not relevant. That only proves the term exists, and existence is not the issue. We are looking for encyclopedic content,
290:
I agree with the nomination, It doesn't seem that there are any reliable 3rd party sources of information for this subject.
324:
There are 51,000 hits for the contiguous phrase "visible penis line" on Google - but I am not opposed to merging this into
641:
1149:
125:
1324:
1193:- Why the FUCK wasn't this speedied??? Original research, for starters. Contains false information, for seconds.
1113:
1064:
990:
934:
879:
802:
526:
462:
413:
312:
36:
1309:
1289:
1252:
1231:
1212:
1185:
806:
776:
757:
740:
717:
530:
515:
500:
466:
447:
417:
395:
377:
359:
337:
316:
299:
279:
255:
219:
196:
52:
1323:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1056:
121:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1148:
There are thousands of articles about topics the title of which does not necessarily match any actual source:
1026:
unsupported in this source?) I've opened a discussion of this question of import on the OR Noticeboard, here:
74:
1262:. The topic is probably legitimate and notable once it has been widened a bit to include phenomena such as
171:
1050:
704:
295:
66:
58:
955:
page 121: "...tight pale breeches, such as those pioneered by George
Brummell, accented the crotch."--
985:, whatever you want to call it. Knowledge is not the venue for you to publish these ideas of yours. --
689:
but really don't go into this so-called topic in remotely enough detail to satisfy our requirement of
1306:
1303:
1286:
1283:
1109:
1085:
but rather are encouraged to put our money where our mouth is and raise such accusations at wp:ANI.--
1060:
1015:
986:
930:
875:
798:
753:
522:
458:
435:
409:
383:
347:
308:
215:
192:
973:
The source mentions the "crotch", and your imagination supplies the "penis" and the "line". That is
1173:
157:
736:
431:
137:
1208:
1198:
982:
786:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1271:
1227:
1181:
726:
699:
690:
511:
496:
443:
391:
373:
355:
333:
291:
275:
251:
1105:
1023:
1006:- Dennis Bratland, how I understand your argument is that you believe an assumption that
978:
896:
749:
230:. Perhaps I've researched this in the past, or perhaps I had to prove this, but there are
211:
188:
615:
1169:
1279:
1245:
901:
772:
731:
686:
566:
561:
474:
325:
797:
the term. In other words, something more than what you would find at
Wiktionary. --
457:
and you can't escape the conclusion that slang pages like this should be deleted. --
1204:
1194:
1011:
974:
487:
365:
49:
104:
1223:
1177:
892:
870:. It is not constructive to drag this discussion out longer if you don't have a
507:
492:
482:
439:
387:
369:
351:
329:
271:
247:
1299:
661:
572:
1275:
1263:
767:
725:- agree that this is really more like a dictionary entry. Does not meet
1049:
or news article that mentions of a man's crotch area, and if there was,
473:
If you are rejecting it in terms of not being a guideline, I'll invoke
1267:
657:
748:. At this point, this would seem to qualify for a Snow delete.--
1317:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
648:
and it doesn't get into a discussion of the crotch area at all.
1028:
Knowledge:No original research/Noticeboard#visible penis line
586:
article on the topic, or use the term within other articles.
265:
list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions
591:
even if this makes for a somewhat long or awkward title.
904:
243:
100:
96:
92:
660:'" thigh-hugging style was (as in the iconic image of
156:
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1327:). No further edits should be made to this page.
785:Could you cite these references please? As per
406:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Moose knuckle
307:Nobody should waste any more time on this. --
170:
8:
426:Google hits is a minor part of a non-policy
263:Note: This debate has been included in the
205:list of Fashion-related deletion discussions
203:Note: This debate has been included in the
262:
202:
346:So your argument for keeping it is that
1010:in relation to a man, means "penis" is
571:a catch-all that would include somehow
491:sources to meet notability guidelines.
455:Knowledge:Knowledge is not a dictionary
185:Knowledge:Knowledge is not a dictionary
1160:. We don't delete them because they
7:
656:by Puritan standards--just as the "
328:which has four times as many hits.
1014:, is that correct? (That is, the
24:
1083:on article talkpages or on an AfD
384:counting hits is specious at best
1154:State church of the Roman Empire
685:The sources listed are not only
1158:Technology of the Dune universe
1087:Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden
1032:Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden
957:Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden
909:Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden
846:Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden
666:Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden
664:) of a later era's tailoring.--
621:Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden
597:Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
927:Knowledge:No original research
789:, instances of the term being
1:
925:Your edits are violations of
712:person of reasonable firmness
693:. Plus it's a stupid article
485:, and there are insufficient
1201:) 03:39, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
832:) but then add in the word
1150:New Jersey English dialects
240:only one Google Scholar hit
1344:
1053:would not be that article.
1310:17:12, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
1290:17:03, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
1253:15:36, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
1232:03:51, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
1213:03:40, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
1186:21:32, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
1118:17:14, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
1095:17:07, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
1069:16:51, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
1040:16:38, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
995:21:43, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
965:21:10, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
939:20:45, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
917:20:34, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
884:19:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
866:encyclopedic sources and
854:19:38, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
807:19:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
777:16:58, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
758:05:47, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
741:03:08, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
53:17:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
1320:Please do not modify it.
718:07:31, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
674:00:26, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
629:23:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
605:23:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
531:15:10, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
516:00:07, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
501:22:57, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
467:22:54, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
448:22:45, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
418:22:22, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
396:22:41, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
378:22:35, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
360:21:50, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
338:21:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
317:21:33, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
300:21:08, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
280:20:45, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
256:20:43, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
220:20:42, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
197:19:59, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
32:Please do not modify it.
654:
594:
236:zero google books hits
649:
576:
232:zero google news hits
1270:, and possibly also
727:significant coverage
691:significant coverage
830:GOOGLE NEWS ARCHIVE
822:GOOGLE NEWS ARCHIVE
1051:Visible penis line
348:it has google hits
67:Visible penis line
59:Visible penis line
44:The result was
1251:
1215:
1176:, not delete it.
1057:it is not working
1020:newspaper article
282:
268:
222:
208:
1335:
1322:
1272:tanga (clothing)
1250:
1202:
739:
734:
716:
713:
707:
702:
696:
557:Delete and merge
269:
209:
175:
174:
160:
108:
90:
34:
1343:
1342:
1338:
1337:
1336:
1334:
1333:
1332:
1331:
1325:deletion review
1318:
1110:Dennis Bratland
1061:Dennis Bratland
987:Dennis Bratland
950:the biography,
931:Dennis Bratland
876:Dennis Bratland
799:Dennis Bratland
732:
730:
711:
705:
700:
697:
694:
523:Dennis Bratland
459:Dennis Bratland
430:. Why not try
410:Dennis Bratland
309:Dennis Bratland
117:
81:
65:
62:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1341:
1339:
1330:
1329:
1314:
1313:
1312:
1293:
1292:
1256:
1255:
1237:
1236:
1235:
1234:
1217:
1216:
1188:
1170:Sticky Fingers
1145:
1144:
1143:
1142:
1141:
1140:
1139:
1138:
1137:
1136:
1135:
1134:
1133:
1132:
1131:
1130:
1129:
1128:
1127:
1126:
1125:
1124:
1123:
1122:
1121:
1120:
1098:
1097:
1073:
1072:
1043:
1042:
998:
997:
968:
967:
942:
941:
920:
919:
887:
886:
857:
856:
810:
809:
780:
779:
760:
743:
720:
687:self-published
679:
678:
677:
676:
642:looked up the
632:
631:
607:
552:
551:
550:
549:
548:
547:
546:
545:
544:
543:
542:
541:
540:
539:
538:
537:
536:
535:
534:
533:
402:
401:
400:
399:
398:
341:
340:
319:
302:
284:
283:
259:
258:
224:
223:
178:
177:
114:
61:
56:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1340:
1328:
1326:
1321:
1315:
1311:
1308:
1305:
1301:
1297:
1296:
1295:
1294:
1291:
1288:
1285:
1281:
1280:moose knuckle
1277:
1273:
1269:
1265:
1261:
1258:
1257:
1254:
1248:
1247:
1242:
1239:
1238:
1233:
1229:
1225:
1221:
1220:
1219:
1218:
1214:
1210:
1206:
1200:
1196:
1192:
1189:
1187:
1183:
1179:
1175:
1174:visible bulge
1171:
1167:
1163:
1162:deal uniquely
1159:
1155:
1151:
1147:
1146:
1119:
1115:
1111:
1107:
1102:
1101:
1100:
1099:
1096:
1092:
1088:
1084:
1079:
1078:
1077:
1076:
1075:
1074:
1071:
1070:
1066:
1062:
1058:
1052:
1047:
1046:
1045:
1044:
1041:
1037:
1033:
1029:
1025:
1021:
1019:
1013:
1009:
1005:
1002:
1001:
1000:
999:
996:
992:
988:
984:
980:
976:
972:
971:
970:
969:
966:
962:
958:
954:
953:
952:Beau Brummell
946:
945:
944:
943:
940:
936:
932:
928:
924:
923:
922:
921:
918:
914:
910:
906:
903:
902:Geo. Brummell
898:
894:
891:
890:
889:
888:
885:
881:
877:
873:
872:good argument
869:
865:
864:actually find
861:
860:
859:
858:
855:
851:
847:
843:
839:
835:
831:
827:
826:visible penis
823:
819:
818:penis visible
814:
813:
812:
811:
808:
804:
800:
796:
792:
788:
784:
783:
782:
781:
778:
774:
770:
769:
764:
761:
759:
755:
751:
747:
744:
742:
738:
735:
728:
724:
721:
719:
714:
708:
703:
692:
688:
684:
683:Strong delete
681:
680:
675:
671:
667:
663:
659:
653:
647:
645:
639:
636:
635:
634:
633:
630:
626:
622:
618:
617:
616:Albion's Seed
612:
608:
606:
602:
598:
593:
592:
587:
583:
579:
574:
570:
568:
567:Moose knuckle
563:
559:
558:
554:
553:
532:
528:
524:
519:
518:
517:
513:
509:
504:
503:
502:
498:
494:
490:
489:
484:
480:
476:
472:
471:
470:
469:
468:
464:
460:
456:
451:
450:
449:
445:
441:
437:
436:WP:NODEADLINE
433:
429:
425:
424:
423:
422:
421:
420:
419:
415:
411:
407:
403:
397:
393:
389:
385:
381:
380:
379:
375:
371:
367:
363:
362:
361:
357:
353:
349:
345:
344:
343:
342:
339:
335:
331:
327:
326:Moose knuckle
323:
320:
318:
314:
310:
306:
305:Speedy delete
303:
301:
297:
293:
289:
286:
285:
281:
277:
273:
266:
261:
260:
257:
253:
249:
245:
241:
237:
233:
229:
226:
225:
221:
217:
213:
206:
201:
200:
199:
198:
194:
190:
186:
183:
173:
169:
166:
163:
159:
155:
151:
148:
145:
142:
139:
136:
133:
130:
127:
123:
120:
119:Find sources:
115:
112:
106:
102:
98:
94:
89:
85:
80:
76:
72:
68:
64:
63:
60:
57:
55:
54:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1319:
1316:
1259:
1244:
1240:
1190:
1165:
1161:
1082:
1054:
1017:
1007:
1003:
951:
867:
863:
841:
837:
833:
825:
817:
794:
790:
766:
762:
745:
722:
682:
650:
643:
637:
614:
610:
589:
588:
584:
580:
578:... ... ...
577:
569:or even with
565:
556:
555:
486:
478:
427:
366:naughty bits
321:
304:
287:
227:
181:
179:
167:
161:
153:
146:
140:
134:
128:
118:
45:
43:
31:
28:
1203:Last edit:
733:jsfouche ☽☾
644:Albion Seed
432:WP:NOTPAPER
292:TehGrauniad
144:free images
1166:real topic
983:WP:FRANKIE
787:WP:NOTDICT
750:Epeefleche
609:!Re-vote:
483:notability
404:See also:
212:Epeefleche
189:Epeefleche
1300:kynodesme
1024:synthesis
900:designer
868:cite them
662:Uncle Sam
640:- I just
573:camel toe
479:guideline
1276:cameltoe
1264:codpiece
1246:Milowent
1106:WP:QUACK
1018:Politico
1016:current
979:WP:SYNTH
897:wp:FAILN
701:Treasury
488:reliable
182:See also
111:View log
1260:Comment
1205:Carrite
1195:Carrite
1164:with a
1008:crotch,
1004:Comment
834:fashion
746:Comment
658:dandies
638:Comment
564:) with
244:Rule 34
150:WP refs
138:scholar
84:protect
79:history
50:Spartaz
1268:koteka
1241:Delete
1224:μηδείς
1191:Delete
1178:μηδείς
842:dress?
723:Delete
562:wp:NEO
508:μηδείς
493:tedder
475:WP:OSE
440:μηδείς
388:tedder
370:μηδείς
352:tedder
330:μηδείς
288:Delete
272:tedder
248:tedder
246:hits.
238:, and
228:Delete
122:Google
88:delete
46:delete
1307:Adler
1287:Adler
1012:wp:OR
975:WP:OR
838:style
824:) or
795:about
773:talk
646:quote
560:(per
428:essay
165:JSTOR
126:books
105:views
97:watch
93:links
16:<
1304:Hans
1284:Hans
1274:and
1228:talk
1209:talk
1199:talk
1182:talk
1114:talk
1108:? --
1091:talk
1065:talk
1036:talk
991:talk
961:talk
935:talk
913:talk
905:here
893:wp:N
880:talk
850:talk
803:talk
791:used
763:Keep
754:talk
737:Talk
670:talk
625:talk
611:Keep
601:talk
527:talk
512:talk
497:talk
463:talk
444:talk
434:and
414:talk
408:. --
392:talk
374:talk
356:talk
334:talk
322:Keep
313:talk
296:talk
276:talk
252:talk
216:talk
193:talk
158:FENS
132:news
101:logs
75:talk
71:edit
1030:.--
907:.--
895:'s
874:.--
840:or
836:or
768:DGG
706:Tag
481:is
172:TWL
109:– (
1282:.
1266:,
1249:•
1230:)
1211:)
1184:)
1156:.
1116:)
1093:)
1067:)
1038:)
993:)
981:,
977:,
963:)
937:)
915:)
882:)
852:)
844:--
805:)
775:)
756:)
729:.
715:─╢
698:╟─
695::P
672:)
627:)
603:)
595:--
529:)
521:--
514:)
499:)
465:)
446:)
438:.
416:)
394:)
386:.
376:)
368:.
358:)
350:?
336:)
315:)
298:)
278:)
270:—
267:.
254:)
234:,
218:)
207:.
195:)
152:)
103:|
99:|
95:|
91:|
86:|
82:|
77:|
73:|
1226:(
1207:(
1197:(
1180:(
1152:,
1112:(
1089:(
1063:(
1034:(
989:(
959:(
933:(
911:(
878:(
848:(
828:(
820:(
801:(
771:(
752:(
709:►
668:(
623:(
599:(
525:(
510:(
495:(
461:(
442:(
412:(
390:(
372:(
354:(
332:(
311:(
294:(
274:(
250:(
214:(
210:—
191:(
176:)
168:·
162:·
154:·
147:·
141:·
135:·
129:·
124:(
116:(
113:)
107:)
69:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.