806:. No, your extrapolation to rejection of all info in the original plot synopsis is not correct. Per WP:NOR, balance is what matters. An article can’t be all plot, but a proportion of the article as plot summary is appropriate. The problem of the spinout is that it is too great a concentration of plot, and the concentration is an act of SYNTH. Where is one secondary source describing the topic generally? That’s what’s needed. My advice to you is to look to add sourced information on holography to the article
315:
incorrect. With the recent state of the union speech, I simply read the transcript and paraphrased it. No bias, no WP:OR. Similarly, when someone watches a movie with a hologram and includes that detail in the synopsis, that's not WP:OR. We rely on the people who consumed the content to write about it. I don't see any alternative short of including quotes and getting into copyvio territory.
1012:. "appears widely in science fiction" is a ghit type argument that carries no weight in terms of Knowledge (XXG)-notability. The two arguments are of very dissimilar strengths. Notability was a central point of the nominator, repeated in support by K.e.coffman, contested dubiously by TimTempleton. No one explicitly argued OR, but WP:NOR underlies the notability challenges. --
600:- The nominator and SmokeyJoe are correct. There is a definite consensus against this spinout article. Although in theory a non-consensus close should not be an obstacle to a later redirect discussion, in practice it usually is, so I think it's better to acknowledge the redirect consensus here than trying to re-establish it later.
740:. The problem with spinning the article as a navigation aiding list article is that it links to article that make no explicit mention of holography as a plot device. What would be needed to justify this article is a reliable source that has previously cross-referenced works of fiction by use of holography as a plot device.
228:. Zxcvbnm argues both there and above that redirect !votes are functionally equivalent to delete !votes, which is just fundamentally incorrect. As the IP user above points out, if Zx thinks that redirection is the ideal outcome (as s/he suggests on my talk page), then AfD/DRV isn't the appropriate forum to achieve that.
988:
the AfD basically consisted of one side saying the article is indiscriminate cruft and the other side saying that the topic appears widely in science fiction. Those arguments are about as strong as each other, to be honest, and the notability argument (which might have carried more weight) was barely
545:
I this count 4 justified positions opposing the existence of the spinout (delete or redirect, with no argument "delete and do not redirect", with one "redirect do not delete" proponent), one policy-inconsistent "keep" argument, and one rationale-void "keep. Both "keeps" should be discounted, leaving
1208:
The main objection was hardly answered: that real holography has essentially no presence in fiction, and that instead it's a trope-name for anything involving three-dimensional images, even those which are not utterly visual. That's a short paragraph in the main article. Nobody really addressed this
1082:
I don't agree with that. INDISCRIMINATE is a valid argument, and I would be happy to endorse a Delete close if enough people had agreed with it. However it's also a very subjective argument and it's very hard to close an AfD as Delete based on strength of argument if that argument is INDISCRIMINATE.
669:
I think you are confusing a
Deletion review with an AfD. The AfD has already been decided, the issue is whether it's the admin's reading of it that was incorrect. You already registered your keep vote in the AfD, although it doesn't hold any water, as you have presented no proof that the article is
508:
4. TimTempleton "Keep". Discount because his rationale displays a strong misconcentpion of notability. "has been used throughout" ... "long list of well-known titles here" ... "are Wiki-linked" ... "suggests that this is a notable thing" - this is completely wrong, none of these things suggest
206:
If this is not kept as a separate article then I would have though that it was pretty obvious that this title should be redirected, with merging of anything that can be reliably sourced, none of which is precluded by a "no consensus" close. This should be dealt with on the article talk pages, not
623:
but I honestly think redirect would have been a better reading of the consensus. I agree that redirect !votes can't be read as "delete", but delete !votes are almost certainly happier with a redirect than something that keeps the article. That said, it's probably within discretion as that call
1102:
and your point correctly, you are saying that unless the subject of holography in fiction is covered in general, that it isn't a notable concept and doesn't warrant an article. A quick Google search for holography in fiction yields these articles that all mention holograpy in science fiction.
314:
Anytime someone describes a plot (or speech), and includes every detail, then as long as there's no personal interpretation, I don't see how that can be WP:OR. I think what you're more worried about is if I selectively describe elements and give them my personal interpretation, and that it's
1033:
does say that
Knowledge (XXG) is not an indiscriminate collection of information. That isn't an objective standard though and determining which pieces of content fall foul of this is very much left up to editorial judgement. The Keep people here were saying that they think this material is
434:😎 That’s ok, I’m not demanding you return your closing fee. If pushed to take a more critical read of the keep !votes, can you see how another might see a rough consensus? (Normally, I would agree with DGG, but an AfD no consensus to not spin out is procedurally hard to re-argue.). —
546:
a unanimity supporting "redirect" with quibbles support and opposing clean deletion. "No consensus" was not a reasonable summary of the discussion. "Delete" would have been a stretch, with "redirect" fully and squarely consistent with a policy-weighted reading of the discussion. --
1053:
And "indiscriminate" is almost always used in diametric opposition to what denotes: An indiscriminate set would be 12, beta, Spiro Agnew, and
Aspartame. What people usually mean by INDISCRIMINATE is actually "overly discriminate", which isn't actually covered in NOT at all.
1246:. Close was reasonable. Only one !voter did not indicate that they would support a merger of at least some content back to the parent article. Given the varied positions, a NC close is reasonable, and merging/redirecting does not require an open AFD. ----
181:
The discussion was closed as "no consensus", however, there was a clear consensus that it should not continue to exist as an article, regardless of whether it was deleted or redirected. The arguments to the contrary were essentially along the lines of
742:
There is no question of uncited plots being banned; firstly they are citeable to the primary source, secondly they are well accepting components of the coverage of a work of fiction. What you can't do is spin out plot into stand alone articles.
1034:
encyclopedic. While the nominator did bring up notability s/he concentrated on the notability of individual list entries. I suspect that might be using "notable" in the plain language sense rather than the
Knowledge (XXG) guideline sense, as the
901:
deletion, and there's really not nearly so much of that on
Knowledge (XXG) as people seem to think. What's really needed in many cases, including this one, is actual editing--that is improving what's there by sourcing, rewriting, focusing, etc.
78:
Opinions are divided, with a slight majority endorsing the "no consensus" closure. This means that, in the absence of a consensus to overturn the closure, it is maintained by default. Of course, this means that an AfD renomination is possible. –
186:
and not a convincing argument for notability, it was not proven that the material in the article was encyclopedic. Despite the Keep voters' statements, most of the content in here is 100% original research, what isn't is fully ref'd in the main
417:
I agree that my closing statement was too terse. Admins don't write out extensive closing statements for uncontroversial/unexceptional AfDs (if we did, we'd need a lot more admins) and in my defense, I thought that's exactly what this AfD was.
646:- the original objection I remember was that this was fancruft. I don't think it is - holography is a plot device that is very common in fiction, as evidenced by the numerous works where it appears. The other argument against, that this is
989:
mentioned at all. Nobody argued that the article was or wasn't original research, so I don't think you could have used that as a reason to delete it. I don't agree that a merge !vote is functionally equivalent to a delete one in this case.
1152:
No, I'm not saying that the subject isn't notable. That's a question for AfD. What I'm saying is that a notability argument, if properly made and not rebutted, would have been stronger than the arguments made for deletion in the AfD.
1187:
and I will argue for keep if it renominated. Most of the mentions are inappropriate, but there is enough left, and there's an extenssve iterature to search for 3rd party sources. As a start, there are reviews for most of the films.
300:
Nope. I haven't read it, but if your synopsis is based on what YOU, timtempleton, think is worth highlighting, then yeah, it's OR; if your synopsis is based on what the preponderance of reliable sources think is worth highlight, no.
336:
In my opinion, there's never any point in bringing a non-consensus close to
Deletion Review. If your arguments were not persuasive enough for a clear cut result, either look for a compromise or wait a month and bring another AfD.
769:, as I read it, also doesn't apply - there are no conclusions being drawn here. I'm simply describing what happened. To illustrate both of these points, I just added info about the 3D holography scene in Prometheus
566:
argues below. As you yourself point out, MBisanz found that the discussion had not achieved consensus either, and the only argument that followed that assessment was not exactly
Lincoln-Douglas material.
775:] If you reject the new info as OR and SYNTH, you have to reject the info in the original plot synopsis, to be consistent. Then that calls all plot summaries into question, which was my original point.
702:] so we both have good judgement. I'm just more of an inclusionist than you are. And in this case the delete or redirect arguments didn't seem to resonate. If it was vote counting, a bot could do this.
480:, where I attempt to explain things to him but which looks like an AfD2 discussion, and due to A_Train's holding of his original opinion, I will explain here more fully my reasons for arguing "overturn":
955:
has some coverage and there seem to be a fair number of books that cover the intersection. Doesn't mean we should have such a list, but certainly this has been discussed in reliable sources.
505:
3 K.e.coffman Says " indiscriminate collection of information" which implies delete, but then says "fails WP:LISTN" which is consistent with reversing the spinout, consistent with "redirect".
1068:
Yes, you are both right there. INDISCRIMINATE is just a VAGUEWAVE. K.e.coffman’s Delete argument is therefore to be discounted, leaving only his LISTN that supports merge and redirect. —
164:
1111:] The gist is that since 3D holography doesn't exist yet, the only way people will experience it is through fiction. Does that change your opinion of the merits of this compilation?
530:
7. Mangoe "exile to TV Tropes, er, delete". "a stock device". "visual gee-whiz and directorial laziness". Clearly in the camp of the consensus opinion that the spin-out is not OK.
971:
Overturn to redirect may more closely represent consensus based on policy, but an alternative would be to accept the AFD closure and look at whether the list entries are verifiable.
509:
wikipedia-notability. "The sourcing in my opinion doesn't need to be more than linking to each work's main article" - this opinion is diametrically inconsistent with
48:
34:
732:, noting the topic is "holography in fiction". Being a common plot device is not a justification for a stand alone article. It is a reason for better mention in
43:
678:, or can fit there without requiring an article spin-off. And no, an uncited plot synopsis is not the same as an entire uncited article with a list of trivia.
152:
897:
Bingo. AND, if some of the content could be sourced and reinserted from the article history, so much the better. Deletion is for things that need
883:
Yes, but that, and redirection, don't need an admin to hit the "delete" button, so can be achieved without all this faffing around at AfD and DRV.
173:
794:. I do reject your new points as just more WP:SYNTH. When reading WP:SYNTH, I suspect you don’t properly appreciate the differences between
39:
884:
399:
Also note that the closing statement was completely inadequate, giving no indication of the consideration of strengths of arguments. --
208:
1252:
1230:
with a scope of selective merge would have been the best closure, I don't find much wrong with the NC close to support overturning it.
1119:
1083:
LISTN is a more substantial argument and if that had been the main argument for deletion I think the article would have been deleted.
783:
710:
658:
520:
5. L3X1 "Keep per Tim". Tim's rationale was hollow, incosistent with all notability practice, and L3X1's rationale adds no argument.
386:. I agree with the nominator here, I read a consensus that the spinout is disapproved, with two definitely discountable keep !votes. —
357:
The argument isn't whether there was a consensus, it's whether there was a consensus that was wrongly interpreted as a "no consensus".
323:
293:
247:. I might have closed this as delete, but the NC close is not unreasonable. The thing that bothers me most about the discussion is
765:
doesn't apply when you simply take a plot summary element and combine it with other similar plot elements. Per the comment below,
513:. "We just have to rely on people who have read the books or watched the shows/films to police this" - completely at odds with
21:
282:
671:
1267:
263:, but I don't see anything in that article which talks about holograms. That's not a reason to delete, of course. --
102:
17:
700:
Thank you - I'll strikethrough. Haven't ever participated in one of these before. We both have pretty good AfD stats
523:
6. Relist MBisanz. An expert closer, his relist implies that he judged the above not sufficient to read a consensus.
122:
650:, also doesn't apply, or else all uncited plot synopses would be banned. See my argument elsewhere on this page.
183:
857:"Improving" in this case implies deleting the vast majority of the article's content. As it is almost entirely
888:
212:
496:
1256:
1238:
1218:
1199:
1163:
1147:
1121:
1117:
1093:
1077:
1063:
1048:
1021:
999:
980:
964:
944:
911:
892:
874:
848:
819:
785:
781:
752:
712:
708:
691:
660:
656:
633:
615:
578:
555:
459:
443:
429:
408:
395:
370:
348:
325:
321:
309:
295:
291:
270:
239:
216:
200:
91:
1131:
976:
118:
70:
1231:
1143:
1073:
1017:
815:
748:
551:
439:
404:
391:
562:
I think you are crediting the delete arguments with considerably more weight than they earned, as
1059:
907:
844:
267:
1099:
932:
766:
510:
253:
We just have to rely on people who have read the books or watched the shows/films to police this
1247:
1112:
868:
776:
721:
703:
685:
651:
477:
364:
316:
286:
248:
194:
729:
1214:
972:
940:
799:
306:
260:
1030:
1009:
836:
803:
514:
960:
629:
858:
762:
725:
647:
278:
256:
950:
259:
to me. There's some cleanup that needs to be done here; for example, there's a link of
1139:
1069:
1013:
811:
795:
744:
608:
547:
435:
400:
387:
82:
1035:
1195:
1055:
903:
840:
344:
264:
1156:
1086:
1041:
992:
949:
Hi Stifle. I don't think it's true that no sources talk about this intersection.
864:
681:
568:
563:
524:
449:
419:
360:
229:
190:
953:
1210:
1135:
936:
807:
733:
302:
1127:
956:
928:
773:] I then added Prometheus to this article, with almost identical information.
737:
675:
625:
499:, which is about when a spinout is justified. Notability explicity mentioned.
383:
835:
an NC close (which was obviously reasonable) is an opportunity to implement
601:
1190:
339:
517:, content must be based on sources, not on what editors think they know.
674:. As I said, any non-crufty material is already in the main article at
1209:
or the parallel objection that it is too common to be remarked upon.
1038:
of individual list entries hasn't got anything to do with the issue.
527:, did you read the discussion critically at the time of relisting?
839:
options to improve the material's presentation... so take it.
935:
applies – no sources talk about this specific intersection.
448:
I can see
Zxcvbnm's point of view, I just disagree with it.
226:
the pre-DRV discussion between
Zxcvbnm and I on my talk page
1008:"indiscriminate cruft" is a paraphrasing from the policy
285:? It's either OR or COPYVIO - there's no third option.
225:
159:
145:
137:
129:
802:material. There is also a skirting of adherence to
277:Isn't every single plot summary on Knowledge (XXG)
8:
101:The following is an archived debate of the
63:
1126:I think those are all great sources, for
476:Due to my extended discussion below with
952:would be one such reliable source.
495:1. Nominator ZXCVBNM. No spinout.
7:
761:I'm just not getting your argument.
1270:of the page listed in the heading.
502:2. Merge back Jclemens redirect
771:]. You can see a weak source here.
224:. Probably worth having a look at
28:
728:definitely applies, specifically
1266:The above is an archive of the
283:2016 State of the Union Address
281:? How about my synopsis of the
18:Knowledge (XXG):Deletion review
1:
1257:02:00, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
1239:14:28, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
1219:20:43, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
1200:00:49, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
1164:07:38, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
1148:21:59, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
1122:21:13, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
1094:18:57, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
1078:10:14, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
1064:07:46, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
1049:07:38, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
1022:04:46, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
1000:22:22, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
981:20:41, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
965:18:16, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
945:17:03, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
912:07:46, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
893:09:36, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
875:00:54, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
849:00:30, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
820:21:56, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
786:17:49, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
753:23:09, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
713:23:02, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
692:22:40, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
661:22:21, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
634:20:41, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
616:09:56, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
579:11:35, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
556:04:30, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
460:10:11, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
444:09:18, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
430:08:35, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
409:00:55, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
396:09:32, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
371:18:45, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
349:04:47, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
326:22:14, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
310:03:38, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
296:00:59, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
271:00:31, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
240:21:15, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
217:20:34, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
201:19:53, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
92:13:59, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
1134:. None of the four discuss
1293:
1273:Please do not modify it.
927:and perhaps redirect to
108:Please do not modify it.
40:Deletion review archives
1234:Winged Blades of Godric
1128:Holography#Applications
644:endorse admin NC close
624:isn't always obvious.
1132:Holography in fiction
676:Holography#In fiction
222:Closing admin comment
119:Holography in fiction
71:Holography in fiction
670:not fancruft beyond
255:. That sounds like
736:, and a mention in
672:WP:SOURCESMUSTEXIST
380:Overturn (redirect)
105:of the page above.
1206:overturn to delete
1280:
1279:
872:
722:User:timtempleton
689:
478:User:timtempleton
368:
198:
90:
1284:
1275:
1236:
1159:
1098:If I understand
1089:
1044:
995:
863:
800:secondary source
680:
606:
576:
572:
457:
453:
427:
423:
359:
261:Forbidden Planet
237:
233:
207:here or at AfD.
189:
184:WP:MUSTBESOURCES
176:
171:
162:
148:
140:
132:
110:
89:
87:
80:
64:
53:
33:
1292:
1291:
1287:
1286:
1285:
1283:
1282:
1281:
1271:
1268:deletion review
1255:
1232:
1157:
1087:
1042:
993:
873:
690:
612:
602:
574:
570:
455:
451:
425:
421:
369:
235:
231:
199:
172:
170:
167:
158:
157:
151:
144:
143:
136:
135:
128:
127:
106:
103:deletion review
83:
81:
62:
59:29 October 2017
55:
54:
51:
49:2017 October 30
46:
37:
35:2017 October 28
31:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
1290:
1288:
1278:
1277:
1262:
1261:
1260:
1259:
1251:
1241:
1226:--Whilst IMO,
1221:
1203:
1181:
1180:
1179:
1178:
1177:
1176:
1175:
1174:
1173:
1172:
1171:
1170:
1169:
1168:
1167:
1166:
1150:
1130:, but not for
1025:
1024:
1003:
1002:
983:
969:
968:
967:
921:
920:
919:
918:
917:
916:
915:
914:
878:
877:
862:
852:
851:
829:
828:
827:
826:
825:
824:
823:
822:
796:primary source
789:
788:
756:
755:
741:
718:
717:
716:
715:
695:
694:
679:
664:
663:
636:
618:
610:
590:
589:
588:
587:
586:
585:
584:
583:
582:
581:
538:
537:
536:
535:
534:
533:
532:
531:
528:
521:
518:
506:
503:
500:
486:
485:
484:
483:
482:
481:
469:
468:
467:
466:
465:
464:
463:
462:
412:
411:
398:
376:
375:
374:
373:
358:
352:
351:
333:
332:
331:
330:
329:
328:
274:
273:
242:
219:
188:
179:
178:
168:
155:
149:
141:
133:
125:
113:
112:
97:
96:
95:
94:
61:
56:
47:
38:
30:
29:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1289:
1276:
1274:
1269:
1264:
1263:
1258:
1254:
1253:contributions
1249:
1245:
1242:
1240:
1237:
1235:
1229:
1225:
1222:
1220:
1216:
1212:
1207:
1204:
1201:
1197:
1193:
1192:
1186:
1183:
1182:
1165:
1162:
1161:
1160:
1151:
1149:
1145:
1141:
1137:
1133:
1129:
1125:
1124:
1123:
1120:
1118:
1116:
1115:
1110:
1108:
1106:
1104:
1101:
1097:
1096:
1095:
1092:
1091:
1090:
1081:
1080:
1079:
1075:
1071:
1067:
1066:
1065:
1061:
1057:
1052:
1051:
1050:
1047:
1046:
1045:
1037:
1032:
1029:
1028:
1027:
1026:
1023:
1019:
1015:
1011:
1007:
1006:
1005:
1004:
1001:
998:
997:
996:
987:
984:
982:
978:
974:
970:
966:
962:
958:
954:
951:
948:
947:
946:
942:
938:
934:
931:, or relist.
930:
926:
923:
922:
913:
909:
905:
900:
896:
895:
894:
890:
886:
885:86.17.222.157
882:
881:
880:
879:
876:
870:
866:
860:
856:
855:
854:
853:
850:
846:
842:
838:
834:
831:
830:
821:
817:
813:
809:
805:
801:
797:
793:
792:
791:
790:
787:
784:
782:
780:
779:
774:
772:
770:
768:
764:
760:
759:
758:
757:
754:
750:
746:
739:
735:
731:
727:
723:
720:
719:
714:
711:
709:
707:
706:
701:
699:
698:
697:
696:
693:
687:
683:
677:
673:
668:
667:
666:
665:
662:
659:
657:
655:
654:
649:
645:
642:
641:
637:
635:
631:
627:
622:
619:
617:
614:
613:
607:
605:
599:
595:
594:Weak overturn
592:
591:
580:
577:
573:
565:
561:
560:
559:
558:
557:
553:
549:
544:
543:
542:
541:
540:
539:
529:
526:
522:
519:
516:
512:
507:
504:
501:
498:
497:WP:POPCULTURE
494:
493:
492:
491:
490:
489:
488:
487:
479:
475:
474:
473:
472:
471:
470:
461:
458:
454:
447:
446:
445:
441:
437:
433:
432:
431:
428:
424:
416:
415:
414:
413:
410:
406:
402:
397:
393:
389:
385:
381:
378:
377:
372:
366:
362:
356:
355:
354:
353:
350:
346:
342:
341:
335:
334:
327:
324:
322:
320:
319:
313:
312:
311:
308:
304:
299:
298:
297:
294:
292:
290:
289:
284:
280:
276:
275:
272:
269:
266:
262:
258:
254:
250:
246:
243:
241:
238:
234:
227:
223:
220:
218:
214:
210:
209:86.17.222.157
205:
204:
203:
202:
196:
192:
185:
175:
166:
161:
154:
147:
139:
131:
124:
120:
117:
116:
115:
114:
111:
109:
104:
99:
98:
93:
88:
86:
77:
76:No consensus.
73:
72:
68:
67:
66:
65:
60:
57:
50:
45:
41:
36:
23:
19:
1272:
1265:
1248:Patar knight
1243:
1233:
1227:
1224:Weak Endorse
1223:
1205:
1189:
1184:
1155:
1154:
1136:plot devices
1114:TimTempleton
1113:
1085:
1084:
1040:
1039:
991:
990:
985:
924:
898:
832:
778:TimTempleton
777:
705:TimTempleton
704:
653:TimTempleton
652:
643:
639:
638:
621:weak endorse
620:
609:
603:
597:
593:
569:
525:User:MBisanz
450:
420:
379:
338:
318:TimTempleton
317:
288:TimTempleton
287:
252:
251:'s comment,
249:Timtempleton
244:
230:
221:
180:
107:
100:
84:
75:
69:
58:
44:2017 October
973:Peter James
808:plot device
734:Plot device
245:Endorse-ish
1036:notability
929:Holography
738:holography
384:Holography
85:Sandstein
1140:SmokeyJoe
1070:SmokeyJoe
1014:SmokeyJoe
812:SmokeyJoe
745:SmokeyJoe
548:SmokeyJoe
436:SmokeyJoe
401:SmokeyJoe
388:SmokeyJoe
1228:redirect
1100:WP:LISTN
1056:Jclemens
933:WP:SYNTH
925:Overturn
904:Jclemens
841:Jclemens
767:WP:SYNTH
598:redirect
511:WP:LISTN
265:RoySmith
187:article.
20: |
1244:Endorse
1185:Endorse
1158:Hut 8.5
1088:Hut 8.5
1043:Hut 8.5
994:Hut 8.5
986:Endorse
865:ZXCVBNM
833:Endorse
730:WP:PSTS
682:ZXCVBNM
564:Hut 8.5
361:ZXCVBNM
191:ZXCVBNM
174:restore
138:history
1211:Mangoe
1031:WP:NOT
1010:WP:NOT
937:Stifle
837:WP:ATD
804:WP:WAF
515:WP:NOR
303:Calton
268:(talk)
1196:talk
957:Hobit
859:WP:OR
763:WP:OR
726:WP:OR
648:WP:OR
626:Hobit
575:Train
456:Train
426:Train
345:talk
279:WP:OR
257:WP:OR
236:Train
160:watch
153:links
52:: -->
16:<
1215:talk
1144:talk
1074:talk
1060:talk
1018:talk
977:talk
961:talk
941:talk
908:talk
899:only
889:talk
869:TALK
845:talk
816:talk
798:and
749:talk
686:TALK
640:Keep
630:talk
604:Reyk
552:talk
440:talk
405:talk
392:talk
365:TALK
307:Talk
213:talk
195:TALK
146:logs
130:edit
123:talk
32:<
1250:- /
1191:DGG
1138:. —
810:. —
724:.
611:YO!
596:to
382:to
340:DGG
165:XfD
163:) (
22:Log
1217:)
1198:)
1146:)
1109:]
1107:]
1105:]
1076:)
1062:)
1020:)
979:)
963:)
943:)
910:)
891:)
847:)
818:)
751:)
743:--
632:)
554:)
442:)
407:)
394:)
347:)
305:|
301:--
215:)
74:–
42::
1213:(
1202:`
1194:(
1142:(
1072:(
1058:(
1016:(
975:(
959:(
939:(
906:(
887:(
871:)
867:(
861:.
843:(
814:(
747:(
688:)
684:(
628:(
571:A
550:(
452:A
438:(
422:A
403:(
390:(
367:)
363:(
343:(
232:A
211:(
197:)
193:(
177:)
169:|
156:|
150:|
142:|
134:|
126:|
121:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.