979:. If you can find translated interviews from Japanese magazines (which is about as reliable as we can get due to these topics being from Japan, translation reliabilities aside; work with what you can for the subject at hand, because people will understand if you can't exactly find a new york times interview, heh) or secondary analyses that in turn cite sources, then 1b will be met. If not even a
435:
RSEFrLg(386), DP(493); 2 attackdexes (354 and 467); several detailed pages on game mechanics; complete item lists; walkthroughs and strategy guides for 29 games; not to mention the detailed lists on manga, movies, and the TCG) their error rate is probably as low as wikipedia's and wikipedia's is reportedly lower than
Brittanica's and the errors
664:
The thing about this is, if
Torchic continues to fail to meet the requirements (as it has been doing even since its nomination) its position here should no longer be held. It fails attribution, the article itself isn't so well-written, and writing compatible sections isn't going to happen like magic.
686:
On that note, it was bad enough that when it appeared on the front page, editors immediately and consistently picked on its citation problems. Not very good at all. And this isn't a vote yet; it's a discussion to address the shortcomings that need to be addressed before we all either feel it's still
608:
It needs to be noted that a lot of things can be cited directly from the appropriate media - episode guides are a backing, but seeing as to their source, and some inaccuracies that could come in that source, it's best we stick to simply citing the media. Since
Torchic is full of citations that could
1278:
for just one example) and compare the quality of prose. Oh man, this article is not all that interesting, it's not altogether informative, and it's maybe, maybe a GA. But certainly not an FA. Sanity will prevail. (Phadkay, your efforts to improve the article are appreciated and useful and helpful,
295:
Some of the problems should be fixable. If there isn't any analysis in the anime or manga sections then the
Serebii refs can be replaced by citing the episodes and issues directly. The comprehensiveness problem will probably be the hardest issue to tackle. Will there actually be sources about the
434:
let's keep discussion of serebii to a minimum - only what is pertinent to the article, we can discuss it further at the project page. For a rebuttal, if we were to guage accuracy with the amount of content that serebii covers (450+ anime epiguides; 3 advanced pokedexes for RBYGSC(251 pokemon),
221:
That creation point is unnecessary. And references need to be interpreted carefully as they might not be the citation for an entire statement, maybe only the last part. I added episode templates for the anime paragraphs, so it's time we stop questioning
Serebii's quality and continue improving
305:
That doesn't solve the problem that this article is completely lacking in critical analysis from reliable sources, just the fact that
Serebii isn't a great way to cite things. I don't think Torchic can actually support a comprehensive article; this is filled out with inane, empty fragments of
443:
that i brought up on
Highway's talk page, which was never fixed. I guess he was trying to quote serebii epiguides to say that the show promotes people liking it because of its attractiveness, but the real arguable claim, "...Torchic's popularity is partially due to its aesthetic appeal." is
708:
Just a reminder, the internet is not the only resource. Serebii is not reliable by definition because it is a fan run website. The article's worst shortcoming is it's comprehensiveness, meaning the article is incomplete. There is no discussion of creation or reaction, which is required when
448:
jokes) Charmander and the source isn't the one making the link, i think it is meant to establish the fact that
Charmander's popularity has to due with aesthetic appeal, but that source is just some personal website gallery of Charmander merchandise. At least the Hasbro stuff is from a more
509:
The last spur was meant in jest, of course I'm not going to want to revoke
Torchic's FA status merely because Serebii gave me incorrect game guide info (they're unrelated). But there are other outstanding issues with Serebii. AMIB is willing to argue them. I'm just in the background.
265:
I'm not arguing that the subject isn't notable, but that its sources don't allow for any sort of useful explanation of the importance of this subject. Would you not agree that an article that fails to explain how the subject of the article is important isn't a comprehensive article? -
646:
Never shall the official site give us episode guides, game guides, manga guides etc. So eventually either the project fails in its aims because of one criterion. Then why not introduce another two citations at all places where
Serebii can't be relied on? Criticism is easy, after all!
255:
In reply to the comment about the article's notability - notability is not a consideration for the FA process. We inherently presume that all articles nominated are notable (FAC and FAR are not AFD and should not attempt to replicate its function). So that criticism is irrelevant.
650:
The Internet has 1 billion web pages and none of them is 100% reliable; they are all 99.99999999.......%. Still those who don't rely can glide across Google and locate and compare many more sites. Or best is to play the game and clarify all the so-called doubts.
1202:
I think I need to point out that a lack of reliable sources does not excuse a lack of comprehensiveness. That does mean that certain articles can never be FAs, and we may need to reconsider whether they should have been their own articles in the first place.
1003:
analyses with an author and contact, and interviews with contact information or sources (were they taken from a magazine? if no source is provided and its a fan-run interview, I recommend not using it to be safe). We must be careful when using fansites. ā
573:
When no analysis is being performed then citing manga, anime, or the video games directly is perfectly acceptable. The lack of analysis may keep the article from being comprehensive, but that's no reason not to cite the most reliable source available.
181:
The article is laden with references to primary sources for facts of questionable importance. How are any of the toys important? Nobody has seen fit to comment on them but Hasbro. How is the recall important? The only party to comment is the recalling
417:. I stopped EV training halfway before it would have completed (as I was under the impression that they would be doubled), so I have a personal vendetta against that place. (Fortunately, those EV reducing berries in Emerald fixed that problem).
835:
I will still be remove per 1b. No discussion of the character/species concept and creation and no analysis of its role in the games/anime/manga means the article is not comprehensive, and you won't find reliable sources for that content.
1161:
possible that there might be a way to improve the citations. However, that would require a rethink of the entire method of sourcing Pokemon articles, so it's not some trivial matter that can be fixed fast enough to keep it a FA.
987:
be fine in relation to this subject) can be found with out of universe information, then this needs to be transwikied, then compressed and merged into a article about this generation of Pokemon. I don't have a problem with
1226:
No, don't do it. Think about it, if all pokƩmon would be merged into one article, the article would either be too long or too unspecific. It also wouldn't make sense. Besides, in my opinion they are encyclopdia articles.
225:
I have erased all the citations that are being manipulated for the sake of stating misconceptions and asserting vague facts like the flying type Torchic and Bulbasaur's seed. I also feel that the toys section is needed.
992:
the sources being used, to be honest; it's the fact that if you're using this level of sources (which is probably quite accurate in relation to this subject), why not find out of universe material at least on this
467:
because of the errors, but because of the source of those errors. Serebii is full of mistakes because it's one guy's fansite. It's not even close to independently reviewed. It's just not a reliable source.
852:. It's not at all our fault that unreliable sources aren't being replaced, because there aren't any others that source all the information in the article. But that doesn't make it featured material. -
642:- The article has been provided with all possible sources and if we keep questioning their reliability, the project will never get another FA and we'll rather lose this one and the other one too!
1274:. Completely fails to meet 1a, and is not really meeting 1b or 1c, either. More than anything, I would ask any supporter of the article remaining an FA to read a really high-quality FA (look at
350:
1024:
That creation thing is unnecessary. Where on earth will we find information about it? If anyone can write that, either he's Satoshi Tajiri or he should be showered by barnstars.
880:. Support is gradually building to deal with individual PokƩmon as components of an encyclopedic whole, instead of trying to force the treatment of them as individual subjects. -
1240:
article, of course. But we have large numbers of Pokemon that are simply not notable, with zero sources. Some aren't even discussed on Serebii, because nobody cares about them. -
186:
Additionally, this article doesn't have a single word on the creative process that led to the creation of Torchic, nor a single word of sourced analysis or critical reception.
89:
916:. Citations aren't good at all, and the efforts are low on improving it and the prose, the lack of commentary on what was suggested, or anything else. It's deadbeat. -
654:
And all the minor problems with a few sources can be rectified with ease or removed presuming them as OR. There's absolutely no need to dethrone the article for that.
296:
creation or reception of Torchic, or any Pokemon other than Pikachu. This doesn't hold a candle to some of the other featured articles on fictional characters.
21:
1254:
I don't think any article about pokƩmon will be merged any time soon. Whismur is one of these so-called nonnotable. And guess what? It did survive an AfD.
551:
Bulbasaur PokƩdex entry - "A seed was planted on its back at birth. The plants sprouts and grows with this PokƩmon." Serebii.net. URL accessed 5 July 2006.
523:. The claims that nothing else could be used doesn't matter because if there isn't a reliable source then Knowledge (XXG) shouldn't have an article on it.
229:
Talking about etymology, Pokedream is the only site that provides it. I don't mind if that citation is removed, but what is the debatable linguistics in
803:
once again and the citations are recovering their damage! Criticism is easy but patience and perseverance will soon pay off as I save this article.
1314:
81:
44:
366:
Hey, is Serebii really a reliable source? It's run by one person, often has long-uncorrected errors, is a fansite, often doesn't update pages, etc.
1081:
Are citations such that they cant be improved? I prefer ending this nomination and putting a cleanup tag on the article so as its quality recovers.
1143:
117:
and (1c) of the FA criteria. Some references don't even back up the claims made. There are some references that don't mention the subject at all.
554:-- I don't see that quote on that page. Even if Serebii were a reliable source, there are still issues here. Side note: citation 6 is broken.
85:
895:
780:
598:
499:
403:
321:
281:
208:
34:
17:
583:
With no analysis whatsoever, this article's prose is far from brilliant. It merely slaps together trivial scraps of plot and setting. -
171:
At least a third of the references (I gave up counting) are to poorly-written, not-at-all-analytical anime episode summaries on Serebii.
484:
It doesn't help that this article's relatively best references are to a fansite noted for being somewhat flakey among PokƩmon fans. -
454:
976:
785:
927:
751:
698:
676:
620:
1139:
1212:
That's being done with Pokemon articles, at least; the long standing idea of merging them is getting attention now. -
548:-- shouldn't this be citing the the manga directly? There seem to be quite a few citations of this type. The second:
999:
1c. Some of the sources are just plain unreliable, like fansites. Usually, the only things good from fansites are
1299:
1258:
1249:
1231:
1221:
1207:
1194:
1171:
1118:
1098:
1085:
1071:
1054:
1042:
1028:
1013:
956:
944:
932:
900:
870:
861:
840:
830:
821:
807:
790:
756:
733:
713:
703:
681:
658:
625:
603:
578:
567:
527:
514:
504:
458:
421:
408:
357:
339:
326:
300:
286:
260:
249:
213:
129:
105:
891:
775:
594:
495:
399:
353:
before, given that I had been misled before in their gaming sections. I guess the issue hasn't died down yet.
317:
277:
204:
1106:
That's not a valid grounds for declaring Remove; note 14 is to a magazine article. It's correctly sourced.
1131:
1255:
1228:
1135:
1114:
1051:
101:
77:
545:
Synopsis of PokƩmon Adventures manga; Chapter 183. "VS. Mightyena" Serebii.net. URL accessed 13 May 2006.
1292:
923:
866:
if it's not our fault then why refrain from saving our FA? Improve the sources! How long does it take?
747:
694:
672:
616:
168:
Reference #3 is directly to a Japanese-English dictionary, which makes no reference to Torchic at all.
165:
The claim of the origin of the name, a debatable linguistic analysis, is sourced to a PokƩmon fansite.
1188:
1082:
1068:
1025:
867:
827:
804:
655:
561:
246:
1050:
Hell yeah, take the source 14 for example. What the hell? I have to read the book to get a source?
1009:
909:
881:
770:
767:
584:
485:
389:
307:
267:
194:
118:
1094:
Number 14 is good. It's the over reliance on websites that's causing the problem in this article.
158:; this isn't cited as a source that Combusken is a flying PokƩmon; it's cited as a source that it
126:
953:
817:
It appears that no attempts are being made to replace the unreliable sources, such as Serebii.
1245:
1217:
1167:
1107:
857:
450:
94:
1280:
332:
1183:
941:
556:
511:
418:
354:
520:
145:
miserably. I was looking at the references closely, and they don't stand up to scrutiny.
1285:
1006:
739:
Article appears to additionally fail "comprehensive" (1b), as suggested in discussion.
444:
completely unsourced. In fact, a comparison is made to the previous fire starter (no
142:
114:
1204:
1095:
917:
913:
837:
818:
741:
730:
710:
688:
666:
610:
575:
524:
336:
297:
1241:
1213:
1163:
853:
257:
122:
156:
1275:
1039:
609:
be attributed to media, that too, should be rectified. And, agreed with AMIB. -
445:
1038:
Unacceptable sources. Thank god people are considering that rationally now. -
414:
971:
There is no out of universe information. How was the character created?
972:
242:
61:
1279:
regardless of whether or not the article remains an FA. Nicely done.)
237:= Torchic? There is no dispute possible about the name unlike that of
1313:
Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in
1123:
Ok, I admit it is idiotic reason for deletion. But my vote is still
238:
542:
I picked a couple of Serebii citations at random. The first one:
43:
Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at
975:? How was the pokemon received by critics? I suggest looking at
153:
Many of the cited references don't even back up the claims made.
766:. The prose does not seem brilliant; nor are the citations. --
728:
Suggested FA criteria concerns is quality of citations (1c).
519:
Serebii is a self-published source, therfore it fails to be
189:
I'm not sure if this is FA quality. I'm not sure if this is
687:
eligible or whether we need to bring it up for removal. -
449:
legitimate website. Of course this is only one example. -
388:
We need to actually do something about this, this time. -
826:
Here come the attempts (most of them are accomplished).
1149:
440:
1307:The above discussion is preserved as an archive.
439:get fixed. There are several other issues, like
47:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1317:. No further edits should be made to this page.
335:away from using Serebii as much as possible.
174:The references to Gamespy, IGN, and Gamespot
33:The following is an archived discussion of a
8:
1315:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Featured article review
113:This article has horrible sources. It fails
45:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Featured article review
413:I know. That error totally screwed up my
331:I absolutely agree. I'd just like to push
463:Um. Serebii isn't a reliable source not
363:Well, every discussion seems to go....
18:Knowledge (XXG):Featured article review
121:has highlighted some of the problems
7:
634:What on earth is all this happening?
155:For example, take the reference to
981:borderline reliable/self-published
709:discussing a fictional character.
369:So what else are we going to use?
134:My commentary from talk, in toto:
28:
306:fictional stories or settings. -
1127:, per the rest of remove voters.
977:Characters of Final Fantasy VIII
349:I actually wondered about the
1:
176:don't mention Torchic at all
125:on the article's talk page.
1063:and if an episode is cited
141:sourced, and seems to fail
1334:
1300:22:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
1259:08:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
1250:03:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
1232:20:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
1222:18:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
1208:18:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
1172:15:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
1119:13:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
1086:15:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
1072:15:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
1029:14:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
957:21:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
945:07:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
933:06:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
901:04:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
871:13:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
862:03:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
841:18:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
831:13:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
822:02:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
808:13:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
791:02:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
757:21:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
734:10:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
714:18:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
704:12:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
682:12:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
659:12:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
626:09:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
604:02:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
579:21:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
568:19:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
528:18:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
515:07:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
505:05:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
459:05:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
250:13:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
106:00:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
1195:23:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
1099:20:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
1055:19:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
1043:02:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
1014:03:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
422:05:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
409:04:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
358:04:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
340:04:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
327:04:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
301:04:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
287:06:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
261:06:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
214:23:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
130:01:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
1310:Please do not modify it.
1059:yes, if a book is cited
996:Prose issues throughout.
40:Please do not modify it.
1146:) 18:18, April 10, 2007
35:featured article review
1181:due to source issues.
351:reliability of Serebii
162:a flying PokƩmon. WTF?
56:09:39, 13 April 2007.
952:per above reasoning.
382:Thread gets archived
795:Hey, the prose was
119:User:A_Man_In_Black
1256:TheBlazikenMaster
1248:
1229:TheBlazikenMaster
1220:
1170:
1148:
1136:TheBlazikenMaster
1134:comment added by
1065:YOU MUST WATCH IT
1052:TheBlazikenMaster
931:
899:
860:
755:
702:
680:
624:
602:
553:
547:
521:a reliable source
503:
407:
325:
285:
212:
148:Some highlights:
76:Messages left at
68:Review commentary
1325:
1312:
1298:
1295:
1244:
1216:
1191:
1186:
1166:
1147:
1128:
1111:
1105:
1061:YOU MUST READ IT
921:
889:
887:
856:
788:
783:
778:
773:
745:
692:
670:
614:
592:
590:
564:
559:
549:
543:
493:
491:
397:
395:
315:
313:
275:
273:
202:
200:
137:This article is
98:
52:The article was
42:
1333:
1332:
1328:
1327:
1326:
1324:
1323:
1322:
1321:
1308:
1293:
1290:
1189:
1184:
1129:
1109:
1103:
1083:Vikrant Phadkay
1069:Vikrant Phadkay
1026:Vikrant Phadkay
883:
868:Vikrant Phadkay
828:Vikrant Phadkay
805:Vikrant Phadkay
786:
781:
776:
771:
724:
722:FARC commentary
656:Vikrant Phadkay
636:
586:
562:
557:
487:
457:
391:
309:
269:
247:Vikrant Phadkay
196:
96:
70:
65:
38:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
1331:
1329:
1320:
1319:
1303:
1302:
1269:
1268:
1267:
1266:
1265:
1264:
1263:
1262:
1261:
1197:
1176:
1175:
1174:
1155:
1154:
1153:
1152:
1151:
1089:
1088:
1076:
1075:
1074:
1045:
1033:
1032:
1031:
1019:
1018:
1017:
1016:
997:
994:
983:source (which
966:
965:
959:
947:
935:
920:(Tetsuya-san)
910:A Man In Black
903:
875:
874:
873:
847:
846:
845:
844:
843:
812:
811:
810:
799:brilliant, it
760:
759:
744:(Tetsuya-san)
736:
723:
720:
719:
718:
717:
716:
691:(Tetsuya-san)
684:
669:(Tetsuya-san)
644:
643:
635:
632:
631:
630:
629:
628:
613:(Tetsuya-san)
606:
540:
539:
538:
537:
536:
535:
534:
533:
532:
531:
530:
507:
475:
474:
473:
472:
471:
470:
469:
468:
453:
427:
426:
425:
424:
385:
384:
379:
378:
377:
376:
375:
374:
373:
347:
346:
345:
344:
343:
342:
292:
291:
290:
289:
184:
183:
179:
172:
169:
166:
163:
111:
110:
109:
108:
69:
66:
64:
59:
58:
50:
49:
29:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1330:
1318:
1316:
1311:
1305:
1304:
1301:
1296:
1289:
1288:
1284:
1283:
1277:
1273:
1270:
1260:
1257:
1253:
1252:
1251:
1247:
1243:
1239:
1235:
1234:
1233:
1230:
1225:
1224:
1223:
1219:
1215:
1211:
1210:
1209:
1206:
1201:
1198:
1196:
1193:
1192:
1187:
1180:
1177:
1173:
1169:
1165:
1160:
1159:theoretically
1156:
1150:
1145:
1141:
1137:
1133:
1126:
1122:
1121:
1120:
1116:
1112:
1102:
1101:
1100:
1097:
1093:
1092:
1091:
1090:
1087:
1084:
1080:
1077:
1073:
1070:
1066:
1062:
1058:
1057:
1056:
1053:
1049:
1046:
1044:
1041:
1037:
1034:
1030:
1027:
1023:
1022:
1021:
1020:
1015:
1012:
1011:
1008:
1002:
998:
995:
991:
986:
982:
978:
974:
970:
969:
968:
967:
964:ā 1a, 1b, 1c.
963:
960:
958:
955:
954:LuciferMorgan
951:
948:
946:
943:
939:
936:
934:
929:
925:
919:
915:
911:
908:as per users
907:
904:
902:
897:
893:
888:
886:
879:
876:
872:
869:
865:
864:
863:
859:
855:
851:
848:
842:
839:
834:
833:
832:
829:
825:
824:
823:
820:
816:
813:
809:
806:
802:
798:
794:
793:
792:
789:
784:
779:
774:
769:
765:
762:
761:
758:
753:
749:
743:
740:
737:
735:
732:
729:
726:
725:
721:
715:
712:
707:
706:
705:
700:
696:
690:
685:
683:
678:
674:
668:
663:
662:
661:
660:
657:
652:
648:
641:
640:Keep for sure
638:
637:
633:
627:
622:
618:
612:
607:
605:
600:
596:
591:
589:
582:
581:
580:
577:
572:
571:
570:
569:
566:
565:
560:
552:
546:
529:
526:
522:
518:
517:
516:
513:
508:
506:
501:
497:
492:
490:
483:
482:
481:
480:
479:
478:
477:
476:
466:
462:
461:
460:
456:
452:
447:
442:
438:
433:
432:
431:
430:
429:
428:
423:
420:
416:
412:
411:
410:
405:
401:
396:
394:
387:
386:
383:
380:
371:
370:
368:
367:
365:
364:
362:
361:
360:
359:
356:
352:
341:
338:
334:
330:
329:
328:
323:
319:
314:
312:
304:
303:
302:
299:
294:
293:
288:
283:
279:
274:
272:
264:
263:
262:
259:
254:
253:
252:
251:
248:
244:
240:
236:
232:
227:
223:
220:
216:
215:
210:
206:
201:
199:
192:
187:
180:
177:
173:
170:
167:
164:
161:
157:
154:
151:
150:
149:
146:
144:
140:
135:
132:
131:
128:
124:
120:
116:
107:
103:
99:
92:
91:
87:
83:
79:
74:
73:
72:
71:
67:
63:
60:
57:
55:
48:
46:
41:
36:
31:
30:
23:
19:
1309:
1306:
1286:
1281:
1271:
1237:
1199:
1182:
1178:
1158:
1124:
1078:
1064:
1060:
1047:
1035:
1005:
1000:
989:
984:
980:
961:
949:
937:
905:
884:
877:
849:
814:
800:
796:
763:
738:
727:
653:
649:
645:
639:
587:
555:
550:
544:
541:
488:
464:
451:ĪĪ±ĻĻĪµĻĪĪ±ĻĻĪµĻ
446:Stephen King
436:
392:
381:
348:
310:
270:
234:
230:
228:
224:
218:
217:
197:
190:
188:
185:
175:
159:
152:
147:
139:pathetically
138:
136:
133:
112:
78:HighwayCello
75:
53:
51:
39:
32:
1282:Matt Yeager
1276:Joan of Arc
1130:āPreceding
193:quality. -
82:Video games
942:Hbdragon88
940:per above
512:Hbdragon88
455:Alexandria
437:eventually
419:Hbdragon88
355:Hbdragon88
245:, right?
882:A Man In
585:A Man In
486:A Man In
415:Gardevoir
390:A Man In
308:A Man In
268:A Man In
222:Torchic.
195:A Man In
1205:Jay32183
1144:contribs
1132:unsigned
1096:Jay32183
1036:Remove.'
918:Sotomura
914:Jay32183
896:past ops
892:conspire
838:Jay32183
819:Jay32183
742:Sotomura
731:Marskell
711:Jay32183
689:Sotomura
667:Sotomura
611:Sotomura
599:past ops
595:conspire
576:Jay32183
525:Jay32183
500:past ops
496:conspire
441:this one
404:past ops
400:conspire
337:Jay32183
322:past ops
318:conspire
298:Jay32183
282:past ops
278:conspire
209:past ops
205:conspire
86:Nintendo
20: |
1242:Amarkov
1214:Amarkov
1200:Comment
1164:Amarkov
1110:Georgia
1048:Remove.
1007:Deckill
1001:sourced
973:Cosplay
854:Amarkov
768:King of
258:Raul654
243:Milotic
127:Funpika
97:Georgia
90:Pokemon
62:Torchic
54:removed
22:Torchic
1272:Remove
1179:Remove
1157:It is
1125:remove
1040:Taxman
993:level?
962:Remove
950:Remove
938:Remove
906:Remove
878:Remove
850:Remove
815:Remove
797:always
764:Remove
333:WP:PCP
182:party.
88:, and
1294:Talk?
1190:shtak
1185:Pagra
1108:Sandy
1104:Note:
885:Blāck
588:Blāck
563:shtak
558:Pagra
489:Blāck
393:Blāck
311:Blāck
271:Blāck
239:Lugia
235:chick
231:torch
198:Blāck
160:isn't
95:Sandy
16:<
1246:moo!
1236:Not
1218:moo!
1168:moo!
1140:talk
1115:Talk
1079:Keep
990:most
924:yell
912:and
858:moo!
748:yell
695:yell
673:yell
617:yell
465:just
219:Keep
143:WP:N
123:Here
115:WP:N
102:Talk
1238:one
985:may
928:see
752:see
699:see
677:see
621:see
372:...
241:or
1142:ā¢
1117:)
1067:.
1010:er
926::
894:|
801:is
750::
697::
675::
665:-
619::
597:|
498:|
402:|
320:|
280:|
233:+
207:|
191:GA
104:)
93:.
84:,
80:,
37:.
1297:)
1291:(
1287:ā«
1162:-
1138:(
1113:(
930:)
922:(
898:)
890:(
787:ā
782:ā£
777:ā¦
772:ā„
754:)
746:(
701:)
693:(
679:)
671:(
623:)
615:(
601:)
593:(
502:)
494:(
406:)
398:(
324:)
316:(
284:)
276:(
211:)
203:(
178:.
100:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.