1412:
following in academic circles. The argument in favor of this new term is that much (?) of the effect was established by careful editing (SPLICING), rather than by STOPPING the camera. However, editing (SPLICING) can be a part of the process (and possibly in rare occasions the only technique applied), the main feature of the effect is STOPPING the action (either by STOPPING the film transport in the editing room, or in camera), then change something in the scene while keeping a match in the framing of the picture (either by keeping the camera unchanged - and very probably inactive - during the change, or in the editing room by finding a matching shot with the desired change) and then starting a new matching shot of the changed scene. The evidence that at least MĂ©lies (the most famous practitioner of the technique) carefully edited these transformations doesn't mean he (and other practitioners) did not stop the camera (and/or the action in front of the camera) between the desired shots. It would usually be a costly and unnecessary waste to keep the camera rolling in between the shots. Editing could merely be used to clean up some undesired frames of film (for instance those that remained when the camera slowed down and started up again, or those that did not show the scene in the desired state). Although the seamlessness of a splice probably influences much of the effectiveness of the effect, it still seems a technical polish of what is mainly achieved by a change between shots with enough unicity of the enframing and mise-en-scene. In almost all examples editing simply can't have been the main part of the process: it would be almost impossible to find and edit matching shots if this wasn't planned during shooting. Furthermore: in most accounts of the discovery of the effect (Blackton, MĂ©lies) it has been stated that it was accidentally discovered by STOPPING the camera between shots of the same scene and noticing interesting effects. It is hard to imagine that the effect was discovered in the editing room. I intend to also clean up the content of the page to reflect this argument: it now has way too much emphasis on the editing as cause of the effect and states that the idea that the camera was stopped is incorrect.
811:
people neglect to vote in political elections; it is the process we have, and people declining to participate in it is their own choice. The rationales belatedly raised here aren't even valid ones (e.g.: because the name was old, because the template is frequently used, because KATMAKROFAN would rather that "More citations needed" (plural) point confusingly to a template with singular output). And we're airing them anyway, now. Why should we re-open an RM to air them again? Are they magically going to make more sense tomorrow than they do today? Most MRs lead to endorsement, because this process isn't a wikilawyering and canvassing farm, but intended to be used to review moves that were genuinely faulty, not just "I don't like it" matters, otherwise every non-snowball RM would be re-litigated here
2135:, you are correct that it is an unclear situation; that is why I would otherwise support the "no consensus" conclusion, especially with the canvassing accusations and the borderline civility issues in the discussion. However, I think your wording in the closing statement was unfortunate; instead of saying "the source is not clear evidence", or something similar, you mistakenly said "there is no source". This may not have been what you were thinking when you wrote it, but that's what got posted as the closing statement. We all make mistakes; I definitely don't mean this as an attack on you as an editor or closer, but I think it would be better in this case to have someone else close the discussion. All respect,--
1642:(which is the important thing here) has also changed. However, we do need more evidence than just the signs on the building itself having changed. On the other hand, the oppose !vote is not very convincing either, as it doesn't attempt to assess whether the common name has indeed changed since the official name change. This RM should be relisted so that we can determine whether the common name really has changed or not. Finally, to the closer, if you close an RM which is not "clear cut", i.e. there isn't a very obvious consensus, then you really must give an explanation as part of your close, to indicate which arguments you assessed and their application to policy. Thanks  â
2621:, where he actually reverted the previous close and reopened the old discussion, which set up the tempting error. A disputed RM discussion cannot be relisted three weeks later. It should have been a fresh discussion. Procedurally, this is a mess. People should take more care to do things right if the processes are to be respected. The nominator may feel an immediate fresh RM is required, but I think the existing discussions are clearly not supporting a move, and it is not reasonable to ask the many participants back again immediately. I recommend a two-month moratorium following the close of the review before a fresh RM may be entertained. --
839:
would be better to have them raised in an re-opened discussion on the template talk page than here. I said "speedy", as in, re-open discussion on the template talk page before anyone else posts here. Too late? OK. This MRV should be closed with an "Endorse", and if KMF really wants to be heard, he can wait six months than open a fresh RM to move template back. Far less ideal than re-opening to let his belated rationales get discussed immediately. On the part of KMF, I think he should have posted on the closer's tak page,
2036:: There are accusations and evidence of canvassing on both sides of this discussion, which made it difficult to determine whether the community has actually arrived at a consensus. Also, the main assertion was that the name was a sponsored name, but the sources clearly state that the league was renamed several months before the sponsorship deal was announced. These two factors led me to close this as "no consensus", without prejudice against having a fresh discussion, without canvassing.
187:
that "Magic (paranormal)" be moved to "Magic". Eight editors supported the 'alternative move' from "Magic (paranormal)" to "Magic" (CookieMonster755, Necrothesp, Rreagan007, Randy Kryn, Zxcvbnm, Katolophyromai, Trovatore, and myself). Only two editors opposed the suggestion (SMcCandlish and SnowFire); another expressed neutrality on the issue (power~enwiki). Eight versus two is a pretty clear general consensus. I have briefly discussed this issue with the closing administrator (
426:. Good close. Not a terrible discussion, but not a good one. Some participant moved position, others did not, a variety of opinions remain. The notional consensus move was not the one nominated, and that is always a stretch, only justified with very clear support. An immediate new RM is a Bad idea. Having got the proposal wrong once, the Nominator should reflect some, and carefully prepare a better nomination. Take a breath. A week at least, not immediate. â
2082:: I think that, given the canvassing, the closer was perfectly within their rights to make a "no consensus" close. However, by saying that there was no source at all for the sponsorship claim, it is easy to call into question the thoroughness with which the closer reviewed the discussion. Given that, I think the discussion should be re-opened, given another week for input, and then closed by an uninvolved editor.--
2702:âčïž Don't confuse decisive with stubborn. This has nothing to do the the procedurally pointless comment-free relistings of ongoing discussions, which I criticise. The close of the MRV was fine, it was the associated action that was a mistake, as demonstrated by what subsequently happened. You re-opened a weeks-closed discussion, instead of a fresh relist at MR. You may have missed this
843:, and asked for a re-open. His failure to do that is the biggest failure I see here. Timrollpickering's close was quite reasonable. Should you, the RM nominator have advertised more widely? That might go to a future WT:RM discussion. I think your responses, both in the RM and here are MR are overly combative. You are involved, so stop dominating the discussion please. --
2724:. A small discussion 5 years ago does not consensus make. I explained my reasoning for why I thought relisting an old discussion was preferable. I still think it was, and I would do it again in a heartbeat. I also get why some might have preferred a new one. This is a good faith disagreement, and there are positives and negatives to either way of handling it.
2896:
debate had been opened for a longer period than it actually was. Re-openings need to be more explicit. All that said the weight of further contributions has strengthened the not moved and at this stage there's such a mess that it's best to write a line under the whole RM and come back later rather than have this particular discussion further prolonged.
2175:- I don't feel like the closer read the arguments properly - there clearly was evidence that the league was renamed to match a new sponsor, even if there was a gap of a few months before the sponsorship was officially announced. I very much doubt that it was simple coincidence that they renamed the league and then found a sponsor with a similar name. â
698:, do not have that kind of ambiguity in their titles, but the ambiguity might have been a feature rather than a bug. "What do we actually mean when we slap this template on the page?" is something that could probably be profitably discussed by more than three of the 127,972 editors who made an edit here during the the last month.
2895:
In the previous MRV I supported a re-opening over the hasty speedy close. Challenges to speedy closes happen all the time and are a legitimate outcome of MRV. However the result was messy as the discussion wasn't properly structured to show that this was what had happened, creating the impression the
2397:
said it had been 24 days but I she is mistaken because the request was reopened and she was going off of the original date. I request that a new move consensus be formed and allow people at least 10 days to comment. The is only a 5 vote difference with 2 neutral votes. I think that this deserves more
1608:
The closing instructions clearly state that discussions can be closed at anytime after being relisted, and since MOS guidelines clearly state that moving it would also be wrong, I opted to close like Ive already mentioned. I also will note that more users opted to AFTER the move discussion was closed
838:
No, MR is not limited to abuse. MR is a forum to discover even process limitations. "Review" is the operative word. There is some merit to the complaint that an important thing got moved with too little advertising and participation. Not a whole lot, but some. The belatedly raised rationales, it
2635:
Yes, I do deserve to be minnowed, and yet in my defense, I generally research these thoroughly before closing and had no reason to think that it was anything other than a relisted discussion. While I agree that a fresh discussion would have been better than a relisting, I would have given it another
2434:
I think having more than 5 days for the Press
Secretary of the United States is important, yes. I think that with less than 6 votes difference and less than 6 day to be considered that it should be relisted an reconsidered. I mean no disrespect. I just think that its really close and too significant
2687:
I stand by my close of the previous MRV. Despite your negative views on relisting it is a common procedure and with opposition raised at a move review the called for it to be reopened, a speedy relisting of a bad SNOW close was the obvious call. I have no opinion on this discussion, but my previous
810:
MR is concerned with whether the process was abused, or whether the close was clearly faulty in some way. Neither is the case. If a week-long RM on a major template attracts little commentary, it's because people generally don't care. You being unhappy about this is like being unhappy that so many
688:, but the effect of this name change is to focus the template on the mere volume of sources, rather than on the quality. "Ref improve" could have been interpreted either way: improve by using a higher quality of refs, or improve by having a larger volume of refs. Other related templates, such as
2474:
I ask the admin to consider a few things. 1. This is the Press
Secretary of the United States and it deserves reasonable consideration as such. 2. This move consensus was only 6 days. 3. There are only 5 votes between yes and no and people were still commenting. 4. During all part of the consensus
186:
The closing administrator believed that no consensus had been achieved. Conversely, consensus had been achieved. Although my initial suggestion, that "Magic (paranormal)" be moved to "Magic (study of religion)", found little support, there was very clear majority support for
Trovatore's suggestion
2149:
What I wrote was "The current name may be a sponsored name, but there is no source given for the assertion, which makes it less convincing." I'm not sure how that is a mistake â there is still no source for the assertion that this is a sponsored name. This is an inference that some editors are
1411:
EXPLANATION: The term "stop trick" is still much more common and has been in use much longer than the term "substitution splice" (check Google Books for instance). The term "substitution splice" is a modern academic term first suggested by Tom
Gunning in 1989 and seems to have had considerable
1407:
IN SHORT: I argue that: 1 - the term "substitution splice" is less common, 2 - the term is not as precise or correct (splicing can be part of the process, but is not the deciding factor and can probably be left out. And: editing still STOPS the action) 3 - the term is a relatively new academic
2204:âââEndorse closeâââ the sources are clear that it the name itself was changed several months before the sponsorship. Itâs also the UAE so itâs perfectly possible the sponsor came on after the name change, or indeed was told to. Either way âvery much doubtingâ ought to be trumped by a source.
334:
strong enough to override the primary topic issue, which would have involved moving a long-existing dab page as well as this article. I have no problem with immediately starting another RM dedicated specifically to the primary topic move, I think that'll bring more clarity to the
2806:
In fully engaged wikispeak, I would say policies were followed, but there were some process irregularities. There was a clear lack of consensus for the move. I already suggested two months as "enough time to give their opinion", and clarified this at the top of my !vote.
194:
had not been sufficiently addressed in the discussion, but (in my view) that is not a sufficient rationale for ignoring consensus or for the discussion to be closed; WP:PRIMARYTOPIC could have been discussed further had it been left open for further dialogue to take place.
2742:
looks like a 28-day old discussion. It lacks a back-reference to the MR discussion. There is confusion as to whether relist means renomiate or reopen. I'd suggest that it would be better to have used a resist template, dividing the discussion into pre- and post-MR, to
1658:
Understood, I did not realize that was a requirement, but now that I have reread page mover instructions it does appear it is encouraged. Thanks for correcting me, I am willing to Relist this discussion upon this newly found info, if that is decided to do so.
1043:
for the odd case that a single statement really does need multiple citations (e.g. "1929â2006" where the source is a 2005 book that provides the birth date and we have no source yet for the death date). If a whole block of material needs additional
2747:
the old close, and to note that the discussion was re-opened per the MR discussion. Personally, I think a fresh RM makes for a more transparent chronology, but if you must re-open, explaining the circumstances of the re-opening is important.
512:.Though, there appears to be a rational sentiment that the discussion ought to have been more-widely advertised there isn't any other major problem.A new RM may be initiated but not before the passage of six months from this date of closure.
606:
It wasn't broken; why did we need to fix it? "Refimprove" was the name of the template for more than 10 years, and IT WORKED. "More citations needed" would work better as a redirect to the "additional citation needed" inline template.
2489:
Since MR is in place to consider the close of the debate itself rather than the merits of the move discussion, it should also be noted that there had been no overt notice that the debate had been anything other than "relisted".
795:
was made, an extended discussion better advertised will result in a clearer consensus. Less harm doing that, something the closing admin might have done on a direct request, than to leave this MRV discussion going for weeks.
443:
Good decision at the close. The 2nd choice of title was a bit borderline; however, it (or a more suitable qualifier) might be passable after a brief waiting period. In my opinion, making the paranormal magic page the PTOPIC is
2475:
period, we had a major U.S. Holiday 5. Also, as a part of the consensus it was closed after 3 days intially then reopened four more days. It is reasonable to request at least a week all together to gather community input.
1408:
fabrication and has not been widely recognised outside academic circles. "Substitution stop trick" would be a more precise and unique term. Although it is far less common, it could arguably be considered as the next move.
232:, but I also think the current close is fine and well within discretion. If there is a new RM at some point in the future, I'd recommend it be on the primary topic question (without taking a stance on that myself).
2380:
The initial move consensus on the talk page started on 12 December but was closed on and was closed on 13 December not enough time to form a good consensus. So then I requested a move review and on 30 December
80:; there is no consensus about the suggested opening of a new immediate RM, and anyone wishing to follow that path would be wise to carefully read the arguments for and against the idea expressed in this MRV.
2150:
willing to make, but others oppose based on the timing â hence, no consensus. Either way, I would still suggest, as I did in my original close, that a new RM is the right approach, without canvassing.
2496:
When a relisted discussion reaches a resolution, it may be closed at any time according to the closing instructions; there is no required length of time to wait before closing a relisted discussion.
1172:
Templates are renamed all the time, including some high use ones, and the discussion was pretty clear cut. The objection is an argument not made in the discussion rather than to an improper close.
2780:
Since clearly the policies were not followed and the time frame was extremely short my recommendation would be to scrap and start fresh. Allow the users enough time to give their opinion. See
2001:
This is a move review, not a requested move and we only comment on this requested move. But, I think it is better to open a requested move on those articles after this move review is closed.
942:
additional sources." (Emphasis added by me.) Also, your "but teh noobz wont kno wat teh templaet iz 4!!1" defense won't work, as most
Wikipedians will still use the "refimprove" name anyway.
330:, the many songs and albums of the name, etc.). Indeed, two participants opposed the suggestion on those grounds. Overall I didn't find a local consensus in favor of the move to
1609:
by myself. Therefore that doesnt count towards determining consensus. unless more support here or another RM request is done, I make no plans on overturning my closure. Thanks,
581:
1247:. This was an entirely reasonable close. In fact, there doesn't seem to be any criticism here of the closure itself. If this is something which needed wider exposure, then an
2763:
1185:
the template. We have section and inline templates which narrow the problem down to a particular part of an article, making it easier to solve; there are also templates like
1534:
730:
a template about an insufficient number, not quality, of citations. If WhatamIdoing thinks otherwise, they may have been misusing the template when they really intended
2111:. We can infer that the name is sponsored and they just delayed announcing it for some reason, but it's not as cut-and-dried as some people are making it out to be.
2935:
2059:
As stated in the discussions, there is unequivocal evidence and consensus for the sponsorship of the name. The source clearly shows sponsorship for the name, and
1781:
356:
For what it's worth, I'm more than happy to go down the route of kicking off a new RfC, this time more specifically tailored to the issue of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.
2355:
2449:
Yes, this was open for a total of about 6 days and garnered a clear consensus to not move the page during that time; however, since you have in good faith
1382:
2766:(sorted by reverse days open). I note that the reopening of the long closed discussion caused it to be incorrectly reported as open for 28 days. --
161:
1211:
the problem is. We can do without the more citations needed (formerly refimprove (formerly citations missing (formerly cleanup-verify))) template.
587:
2781:
2703:
2450:
47:
37:
1540:
1465:.The closer has already agreed to relisting the debate, as proposed by the sole participant and there is little point in keeping this MRV open.
868:
The RM ran its full course, and nothing was wrong with the close. KATMAKROFAN's belated complaint doesn't make any sense: the vague, ambiguous
1013:
I'd actually use "more citations needed"; if twinkle and the page curation tool were changed most tags would be with "more citations needed"
2211:
1929:, despite the fact that the second comment on the move (by Bijanii at 03:37, 7 December 2017 (UTC)) contained a fairly clear source (i.e.
1787:
2361:
1056:. But all of this is academic; the move has broken nothing, was a proper RM, and closed properly, so there is nothing for MR to do here.
2413:
I understand your chagrin; and yet, it is difficult to see how a few more hours would make a difference. Do you really think it would?
1038:
932:
890:
599:
551:
791:? On the basis of a reasonable request mainly that it was a lightly attended discussion, by numbers. If, as you clearly presume, the
1811:
1388:
2882:
1552:
1504:
1155:
1067:
1001:
914:
828:
773:
674:
1102:
I have already changed all references to "more citations needed" (including the
Wikidata interlanguage link) back to "refimprove".
254:
as at least a marginal improvement that didn't get much explicit challenge. And yeah, I have no problem with starting another RM.--
167:
903:
seeks more citations, plural. How old a name is or how frequently a page is used has nothing to do with whether it gets renamed.
374:
Do your tailoring carefully. A bad cut canât always be altered later. Take care with terminology. There is no need for an RfC. â
342:
261:
310:
into account, but did not find consensus for such a move. Almost none of the !votes supporting that suggestion engaged with the
1944:
1861:
1051:
898:
882:
547:
504:
2389:
speedy relisted the request back up for consideration but then again less than 5 days later it has been closed. The closer,
1230:. This was a lightly trafficed discussion on a heavily used template. No harm in letting discussion continue a bit more.
401:
as the primary topic, no actual evidence was introduced as to whether that was the case or not. Since these discussions are
1925:
I think there was a pretty clear consensus (and evidence) that the move was appropriate. The closing rationale stated that
1827:
1559:
There was a change legal status in 2017 and became the
University College of Osteopathy, as the original request stated.
42:
1308:
if you think the article should be at a different title, please open a new requested move, following the instructions at
1885:
1799:
1751:
1713:
1500:
1466:
1453:
712:
I believe it has been "needs additional citations for verification" not "needs to higher quality references" for years.
513:
314:
issue - namely, that supernatural magic is more significant than all other the other topics of the same name combined (
2835:
2797:
2554:
2480:
2440:
2403:
2373:
2325:
2156:
2117:
2042:
733:
692:
83:
1594:
From what I read no consensus was reached and more users opted for the move. Please, correct me if I am wrong. Best,
840:
2853:
2653:
2508:
2464:
2424:
467:
361:
200:
21:
1806:
Per
Knowledge's standards and consensus on the talk page, the article should be moved to its unsponsored name -
1580:
if you read it, it basically says, just because its official name doesnt mean its the right name for an article
2215:
1826:
shows renewable sponsorship for the naming of the league with
Arabian Gulf Development for 70 million AED, and
1400:
1352:
757:
1747:
1700:
1635:
741:
179:
131:
1216:
1107:
947:
635:
612:
2793:
2729:
2693:
2476:
2436:
2399:
2321:
2263:
2006:
1961:
1911:
1893:
1869:
1850:
1141:
1093:
703:
311:
276:
237:
191:
649:
and advertise with an RFC on VP/Proposals as per the request. In the meantime, leave it where it is. --
2911:
2897:
2879:
2721:
2618:
2305:
2242:
1731:
1679:
1484:
1432:
1332:
1271:
1173:
1152:
1064:
998:
911:
825:
770:
671:
627:
531:
483:
111:
17:
1212:
1120:
1103:
943:
631:
608:
2868:
2845:
2762:
I believe that I found the discussion when it was listed as one of the oldest open RM discussions at
2645:
2606:
2568:
2500:
2456:
2416:
2392:
2285:
2207:
2108:
1930:
1903:
1823:
1639:
749:
459:
357:
339:
323:
272:
258:
251:
223:
206:
196:
2812:
2771:
2753:
2711:
2676:
2626:
2593:
2536:
2226:
2195:
2179:
2140:
2087:
1939:
1599:
1564:
1348:
1292:
1256:
1199:
1189:
1144:, arguably block-worthy as unrepentantly disruptive and a harbinger of further disruption to come.
1128:
1018:
965:
871:
848:
801:
717:
654:
431:
414:
379:
288:
94:
1577:
1417:
1235:
1032:
402:
398:
397:
as being well within the closer's discretion. While a clear majority of editors were in favor of
127:
72:
2900:
2887:
2857:
2816:
2801:
2775:
2757:
2733:
2715:
2697:
2680:
2657:
2630:
2597:
2580:
2559:
2540:
2512:
2484:
2468:
2444:
2428:
2407:
2294:
2230:
2199:
2182:
2161:
2144:
2122:
2091:
2072:
2047:
2024:
2010:
1989:
1964:
1949:
1915:
1897:
1873:
1854:
1839:
1720:
1668:
1651:
1618:
1603:
1589:
1568:
1473:
1421:
1321:
1260:
1239:
1220:
1176:
1160:
1132:
1111:
1097:
1088:
RM was fine, it isnât a broken process, and we rename plenty of highly used templates using it.
1072:
1022:
1006:
951:
919:
852:
833:
805:
778:
721:
707:
679:
658:
639:
616:
520:
471:
435:
418:
383:
365:
347:
292:
266:
241:
210:
100:
2725:
2689:
2614:
2384:
2068:
2020:
2002:
1985:
1958:
1907:
1889:
1865:
1846:
1835:
1647:
1317:
1089:
699:
233:
2874:
2785:
2602:
2576:
1634:- the standard of argument on both sides of this RM looks poor to me. Support arguments use
1147:
1059:
993:
906:
820:
788:
765:
666:
623:
319:
315:
2871:. That may change in a year. I wouldn't revisit this before at least 6 months have passed.
2789:
2610:
2549:
2276:
2151:
2112:
2060:
2037:
1819:
1663:
1613:
1584:
1137:
336:
255:
89:
2636:
day if there had been some notification of the previous MR noted within the discussion.
1927:
The current name may be a sponsored name, but there is no source given for the assertion
1300:. The RM mentioned was more than two years ago, so it's too late for a move review now.
2839:
2808:
2767:
2749:
2707:
2672:
2622:
2589:
2532:
2222:
2191:
2176:
2136:
2098:
2083:
1973:
1934:
1807:
1595:
1560:
1252:
1124:
1014:
844:
797:
713:
685:
650:
427:
410:
375:
284:
229:
2929:
1977:
1413:
1303:
1248:
1231:
987:
981:
327:
958:
Just fix the template documentation to match the template, obviously. Ignoring your
2491:
2104:
2064:
2016:
1996:
1981:
1831:
1643:
1313:
1309:
452:
446:
2572:
973:
2130:
2054:
1660:
1610:
1581:
970:
will continue to work is fine; that what shortcuts are for. No one has taken
938:'s documentation: "... used inline in the article where a claim requires one
959:
283:
rename, as sometimes occurs and justifies a closer picking the least bad. â
2642:, and had it been left in the discussion, we probably wouldn't be here.
2435:
to make a rush to judgement. 24 days versus 6 days is a big difference.
1933:). I therefore have my doubts that the closer read the debate properly.
1815:
1810:- for consistency with other unsponsored competition names such as the
1035:, we do not want a stack-up of citations for each point. We only have
2671:đ It took some effort to discover the little error on your part. --
2453:, I will be happy to abide by whatever the closing admin decides.
405:, a majority is not necessarily sufficient to establish consensus.
331:
307:
1031:
template for "more citations needed" doesn't make sense. Per
190:) before bringing the issue here; they felt that the issue of
275:. Such a close would have been a supervote, and contrary to
409:
to specifically discuss and reach consensus on that issue.--
1048:, that's why we have block citation cleanup templates like
1864:'s list of association football-related page discussions.
226:
with the possibility of a new RM being opened immediately.
895:, because the latter seeks one additional citation while
1886:
Talk:UAE Arabian Gulf League#Unsponsored name discussion
2739:
2638:
2531:. The consensus was clearly not in favor of the move.--
2368:
2348:
2340:
2332:
1794:
1774:
1766:
1758:
1547:
1527:
1519:
1511:
1395:
1375:
1367:
1359:
594:
574:
566:
558:
188:
174:
154:
146:
138:
2619:
Knowledge:Move_review#Sarah_Huckabee_Sanders_(closed)
1638:, and a change of official name *may* mean that the
2764:
Knowledge:Requested_moves/Current_discussions/Table
306:. I took the suggestion of moving to the base name
2609:for closing early without the NAC template, but a
222:consensus to move, no consensus to title, move to
456:comes closer, but still isn't quite the PTOPIC.
2107:. The sponsorship deal was not announced until
1904:WT:FOOTY#Consistency of using unsponsored names
250:In retrospect, I should have probably moved to
2398:time to be considered than less than 6 days.
220:for what it is worth, I would have closed as
8:
2271:, without prejudice to another, fresh RM in
2893:Endorse close, allow a fresh RM in 2 months
2567:. The close was policy based, specifically
2304:The following is an archived debate of the
1860:Note: This discussion has been included in
1730:The following is an archived debate of the
1483:The following is an archived debate of the
1331:The following is an archived debate of the
812:
530:The following is an archived debate of the
110:The following is an archived debate of the
2256:
2205:
1693:
1446:
1285:
497:
204:
65:
2586:Endorse, allow a fresh RM after 2 months
922:; revised: 00:51, 24 January 2018 (UTC).
1980:should also be moved back per source.--
1830:shows the renewal of the partnership.
2936:Knowledge move review monthly listings
2495:
1926:
879:works just fine, and we would not use
2722:relisting is still a possible outcome
2063:articles don't use sponsored names.--
1205:that are more specific about exactly
7:
1576:The consensus was IMHO not move per
866:Endorse, and leave exactly as it is.
2914:of the page listed in the heading.
2245:of the page listed in the heading.
1682:of the page listed in the heading.
1435:of the page listed in the heading.
1274:of the page listed in the heading.
486:of the page listed in the heading.
2548:. The closer made the right call.
2103:The name of the league changed in
1812:League of Ireland Premier Division
28:
2639:The MRT template had been removed
2910:The above is an archive of the
2720:That thread is 5 years old and
2241:The above is an archive of the
1678:The above is an archive of the
1431:The above is an archive of the
1270:The above is an archive of the
482:The above is an archive of the
548:Template:More citations needed
505:Template:More citations needed
279:. There was no imperative for
1:
2872:
1145:
1057:
991:
904:
818:
763:
684:I wouldn't want to speak for
664:
472:19:53, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
101:17:16, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
30:
2901:12:12, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
2888:04:59, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
2858:01:04, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
2617:for his ""Speedy relist" of
2295:03:34, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
1721:05:35, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
1669:18:44, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
1652:16:10, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
1619:14:49, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
1604:02:58, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
1590:02:49, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
1569:00:56, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
1501:British School of Osteopathy
1474:07:59, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
1454:British School of Osteopathy
1422:11:18, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
1322:16:03, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
1261:06:06, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
1240:19:25, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
1221:01:30, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
1177:12:05, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
1161:00:51, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
1133:06:57, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
1112:06:45, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
1098:05:35, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
1073:00:51, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
1023:06:45, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
1007:00:51, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
952:06:29, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
920:04:55, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
853:03:05, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
834:00:51, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
806:12:34, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
779:00:51, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
722:06:57, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
708:06:52, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
680:04:55, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
659:03:54, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
640:03:40, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
617:01:22, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
521:15:52, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
436:11:42, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
419:18:55, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
384:11:45, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
366:15:36, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
348:15:32, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
293:11:51, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
267:15:32, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
242:14:47, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
211:14:36, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
2817:06:12, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
2802:05:32, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
2776:02:44, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
2758:02:39, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
2734:01:59, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
2716:01:52, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
2698:01:23, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
2688:close of the MRV was good.
2681:01:52, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
2658:01:04, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
2631:00:53, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
2598:06:12, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
2581:21:24, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
2560:17:32, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
2541:15:35, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
2513:15:38, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
2485:07:59, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
2469:04:56, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
2445:04:10, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
2429:04:06, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
2408:03:54, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
2231:23:24, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
2200:00:35, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
2183:19:54, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
2162:20:02, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
2145:18:59, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
2123:18:46, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
2092:18:42, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
2073:06:54, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
2048:15:39, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
2025:06:54, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
2011:09:05, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
1990:02:40, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
1965:20:15, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
1950:12:27, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
1916:12:06, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
1898:10:27, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
1874:10:24, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
1855:09:40, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
1840:07:47, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
271:There was no consensus for
2952:
2494:is specific in regard to:
2218:) 05:49, 8 January 2018â
1039:additional citation needed
933:additional citation needed
891:additional citation needed
841:User talk:Timrollpickering
2740:relisted/reopened version
2275:2 months or so from now.
1251:would be the way to go.--
2917:Please do not modify it.
2451:again brought this to MR
2311:Please do not modify it.
2248:Please do not modify it.
1737:Please do not modify it.
1685:Please do not modify it.
1490:Please do not modify it.
1438:Please do not modify it.
1338:Please do not modify it.
1298:Procedural close - stale
1277:Please do not modify it.
738:or one of its variants (
537:Please do not modify it.
489:Please do not modify it.
117:Please do not modify it.
78:endorse the RM's closure
76:â There is consensus to
2867:. Overwhelming case of
2190:per User:Number_57. --
1748:UAE Arabian Gulf League
1701:UAE Arabian Gulf League
787:"On what basis?" asks
2322:Sarah Huckabee Sanders
2264:Sarah Huckabee Sanders
1845:I fixed the template.
813:
407:Endorse opening new RM
2838:that is in tune with
1052:More citations needed
899:More citations needed
883:More citations needed
628:User:Timrollpickering
18:Knowledge:Move review
2842:'s recommendation.
2607:User:Paine Ellsworth
1862:WikiProject Football
1708:.Clear consensus to
324:Magic: The Gathering
273:Magic (supernatural)
252:Magic (supernatural)
224:Magic (supernatural)
43:Move review archives
2308:of the page above.
1734:of the page above.
1487:of the page above.
1349:Substitution splice
1335:of the page above.
1293:Substitution splice
534:of the page above.
114:of the page above.
2080:Re-open and relist
734:Unreliable sources
693:Unreliable sources
447:a bit of a stretch
399:Magic (paranormal)
304:Closer's statement
128:Magic (paranormal)
73:Magic (paranormal)
2924:
2923:
2860:
2855:
2794:Jamesharrison2014
2660:
2655:
2615:User:TonyBallioni
2515:
2510:
2477:Jamesharrison2014
2471:
2466:
2437:Jamesharrison2014
2431:
2426:
2400:Jamesharrison2014
2255:
2254:
2233:
2219:
2210:comment added by
1884::Please see also
1876:
1692:
1691:
1445:
1444:
1284:
1283:
1170:Endorse as closer
1123:on what basis..?
962:. The fact that
887:as a redirect to
496:
495:
474:
469:
345:
264:
213:
87:
84:non-admin closure
56:
55:
2943:
2919:
2898:Timrollpickering
2886:
2856:
2852:
2848:
2656:
2652:
2648:
2641:
2557:
2552:
2511:
2507:
2503:
2467:
2463:
2459:
2427:
2423:
2419:
2396:
2388:
2371:
2351:
2343:
2335:
2313:
2292:
2283:
2257:
2250:
2220:
2188:Overturn to move
2173:Overturn to move
2159:
2154:
2134:
2120:
2115:
2102:
2058:
2045:
2040:
2000:
1955:Overturn to move
1947:
1942:
1937:
1923:Overturn to move
1859:
1797:
1777:
1769:
1761:
1739:
1718:
1694:
1687:
1636:WP:OFFICIALNAMES
1550:
1530:
1522:
1514:
1492:
1471:
1447:
1440:
1398:
1378:
1370:
1362:
1340:
1307:
1286:
1279:
1204:
1198:
1194:
1188:
1174:Timrollpickering
1159:
1071:
1055:
1042:
1005:
985:
977:
969:
937:
931:
918:
902:
894:
886:
875:
832:
816:
789:User:SMcCandlish
777:
761:
753:
745:
737:
697:
691:
678:
624:User:SMcCandlish
597:
577:
569:
561:
539:
518:
498:
491:
470:
466:
462:
455:
449:
343:
320:magic in fiction
316:Magic (illusion)
262:
177:
157:
149:
141:
119:
99:
97:
92:
91:Ben · Salvidrim!
81:
66:
52:
36:
31:
2951:
2950:
2946:
2945:
2944:
2942:
2941:
2940:
2926:
2925:
2915:
2847:Paine Ellsworth
2846:
2647:Paine Ellsworth
2646:
2637:
2555:
2550:
2502:Paine Ellsworth
2501:
2492:WP:RM#Relisting
2458:Paine Ellsworth
2457:
2418:Paine Ellsworth
2417:
2393:Paine Ellsworth
2390:
2382:
2367:
2366:
2360:
2354:
2347:
2346:
2339:
2338:
2331:
2330:
2309:
2286:
2277:
2246:
2157:
2152:
2128:
2118:
2113:
2096:
2052:
2043:
2038:
1994:
1945:
1940:
1935:
1793:
1792:
1786:
1780:
1773:
1772:
1765:
1764:
1757:
1756:
1735:
1714:
1683:
1666:
1616:
1587:
1546:
1545:
1539:
1533:
1526:
1525:
1518:
1517:
1510:
1509:
1488:
1467:
1436:
1394:
1393:
1387:
1381:
1374:
1373:
1366:
1365:
1358:
1357:
1336:
1301:
1275:
1228:Courtesy reopen
1202:
1196:
1192:
1186:
1142:WP:FAITACCOMPLI
1049:
1036:
979:
971:
963:
935:
929:
896:
888:
880:
869:
758:Primary sources
755:
747:
739:
731:
695:
689:
663:On what basis?
593:
592:
586:
580:
573:
572:
565:
564:
557:
556:
535:
514:
487:
461:Paine Ellsworth
460:
451:
445:
358:Midnightblueowl
312:WP:PRIMARYTOPIC
277:WP:TITLECHANGES
197:Midnightblueowl
192:WP:PRIMARYTOPIC
173:
172:
166:
160:
153:
152:
145:
144:
137:
136:
115:
95:
90:
88:
64:
57:
50:
34:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
2949:
2947:
2939:
2938:
2928:
2927:
2922:
2921:
2906:
2905:
2904:
2903:
2890:
2834:I have left a
2832:
2831:
2830:
2829:
2828:
2827:
2826:
2825:
2824:
2823:
2822:
2821:
2820:
2819:
2760:
2685:
2684:
2683:
2664:
2663:
2662:
2661:
2600:
2583:
2562:
2543:
2525:
2524:
2523:
2522:
2521:
2520:
2519:
2518:
2517:
2516:
2378:
2377:
2364:
2358:
2352:
2344:
2336:
2328:
2316:
2315:
2300:
2299:
2298:
2297:
2253:
2252:
2237:
2236:
2235:
2234:
2212:94.204.102.234
2202:
2185:
2170:
2169:
2168:
2167:
2166:
2165:
2164:
2077:
2076:
2075:
2031:
2030:
2029:
2028:
2027:
1974:UAE League Cup
1967:
1952:
1920:
1919:
1918:
1902:Also see also
1878:
1877:
1857:
1808:UAE Pro-League
1804:
1803:
1790:
1784:
1778:
1770:
1762:
1754:
1742:
1741:
1726:
1725:
1724:
1723:
1690:
1689:
1674:
1673:
1672:
1671:
1664:
1655:
1654:
1628:
1627:
1626:
1625:
1624:
1623:
1622:
1621:
1614:
1585:
1557:
1556:
1543:
1537:
1531:
1523:
1515:
1507:
1495:
1494:
1479:
1478:
1477:
1476:
1443:
1442:
1427:
1426:
1405:
1404:
1391:
1385:
1379:
1371:
1363:
1355:
1343:
1342:
1327:
1326:
1325:
1324:
1282:
1281:
1266:
1265:
1264:
1263:
1242:
1224:
1223:
1179:
1166:
1165:
1164:
1163:
1135:
1115:
1114:
1100:
1082:
1081:
1080:
1079:
1078:
1077:
1076:
1075:
1030:
1011:
1010:
1009:
924:
923:
878:
863:
862:
861:
860:
859:
858:
857:
856:
855:
793:right decision
785:
784:
783:
782:
781:
742:Self-published
729:
647:Speedy Re-open
643:
642:
604:
603:
590:
584:
578:
570:
562:
554:
542:
541:
526:
525:
524:
523:
494:
493:
478:
477:
476:
475:
438:
421:
391:
390:
389:
388:
387:
386:
369:
368:
351:
350:
300:
299:
298:
297:
296:
295:
245:
244:
228:as allowed by
209:comment added
184:
183:
170:
164:
158:
150:
142:
134:
122:
121:
106:
105:
104:
103:
63:
58:
54:
53:
45:
40:
29:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2948:
2937:
2934:
2933:
2931:
2920:
2918:
2913:
2908:
2907:
2902:
2899:
2894:
2891:
2889:
2884:
2881:
2878:
2877:
2870:
2869:WP:COMMONNAME
2866:
2865:Endorse close
2863:
2862:
2861:
2859:
2854:
2851:
2850:
2849:
2841:
2837:
2836:closer's note
2818:
2814:
2810:
2805:
2804:
2803:
2799:
2795:
2791:
2787:
2783:
2779:
2778:
2777:
2773:
2769:
2765:
2761:
2759:
2755:
2751:
2746:
2741:
2737:
2736:
2735:
2731:
2727:
2723:
2719:
2718:
2717:
2713:
2709:
2705:
2701:
2700:
2699:
2695:
2691:
2686:
2682:
2678:
2674:
2670:
2669:
2668:
2667:
2666:
2665:
2659:
2654:
2651:
2650:
2649:
2640:
2634:
2633:
2632:
2628:
2624:
2620:
2616:
2612:
2608:
2604:
2599:
2595:
2591:
2587:
2584:
2582:
2578:
2574:
2570:
2569:WP:COMMONNAME
2566:
2563:
2561:
2558:
2553:
2547:
2544:
2542:
2538:
2534:
2530:
2529:Endorse close
2527:
2526:
2514:
2509:
2506:
2505:
2504:
2497:
2493:
2488:
2487:
2486:
2482:
2478:
2473:
2472:
2470:
2465:
2462:
2461:
2460:
2452:
2448:
2447:
2446:
2442:
2438:
2433:
2432:
2430:
2425:
2422:
2421:
2420:
2412:
2411:
2410:
2409:
2405:
2401:
2394:
2386:
2375:
2370:
2363:
2357:
2350:
2342:
2334:
2327:
2323:
2320:
2319:
2318:
2317:
2314:
2312:
2307:
2302:
2301:
2296:
2293:
2291:
2290:
2284:
2282:
2281:
2274:
2270:
2267:â Closure is
2266:
2265:
2261:
2260:
2259:
2258:
2251:
2249:
2244:
2239:
2238:
2232:
2228:
2224:
2217:
2213:
2209:
2203:
2201:
2197:
2193:
2189:
2186:
2184:
2181:
2178:
2174:
2171:
2163:
2160:
2155:
2148:
2147:
2146:
2142:
2138:
2132:
2126:
2125:
2124:
2121:
2116:
2110:
2106:
2100:
2095:
2094:
2093:
2089:
2085:
2081:
2078:
2074:
2070:
2066:
2062:
2056:
2051:
2050:
2049:
2046:
2041:
2035:
2032:
2026:
2022:
2018:
2014:
2013:
2012:
2008:
2004:
1998:
1993:
1992:
1991:
1987:
1983:
1979:
1978:UAE Super Cup
1975:
1971:
1968:
1966:
1963:
1960:
1956:
1953:
1951:
1948:
1943:
1938:
1932:
1928:
1924:
1921:
1917:
1913:
1909:
1905:
1901:
1900:
1899:
1895:
1891:
1887:
1883:
1880:
1879:
1875:
1871:
1867:
1863:
1858:
1856:
1852:
1848:
1844:
1843:
1842:
1841:
1837:
1833:
1829:
1825:
1821:
1817:
1813:
1809:
1801:
1796:
1789:
1783:
1776:
1768:
1760:
1753:
1749:
1746:
1745:
1744:
1743:
1740:
1738:
1733:
1728:
1727:
1722:
1719:
1717:
1716:Winged Blades
1711:
1707:
1703:
1702:
1698:
1697:
1696:
1695:
1688:
1686:
1681:
1676:
1675:
1670:
1667:
1662:
1657:
1656:
1653:
1649:
1645:
1641:
1640:WP:COMMONNAME
1637:
1633:
1630:
1629:
1620:
1617:
1612:
1607:
1606:
1605:
1601:
1597:
1593:
1592:
1591:
1588:
1583:
1579:
1575:
1574:
1573:
1572:
1571:
1570:
1566:
1562:
1554:
1549:
1542:
1536:
1529:
1521:
1513:
1506:
1502:
1499:
1498:
1497:
1496:
1493:
1491:
1486:
1481:
1480:
1475:
1472:
1470:
1469:Winged Blades
1464:
1460:
1456:
1455:
1451:
1450:
1449:
1448:
1441:
1439:
1434:
1429:
1428:
1425:
1423:
1419:
1415:
1409:
1402:
1397:
1390:
1384:
1377:
1369:
1361:
1354:
1350:
1347:
1346:
1345:
1344:
1341:
1339:
1334:
1329:
1328:
1323:
1319:
1315:
1311:
1305:
1299:
1295:
1294:
1290:
1289:
1288:
1287:
1280:
1278:
1273:
1268:
1267:
1262:
1258:
1254:
1250:
1246:
1245:Endorse close
1243:
1241:
1237:
1233:
1229:
1226:
1225:
1222:
1218:
1214:
1210:
1209:
1201:
1191:
1184:
1180:
1178:
1175:
1171:
1168:
1167:
1162:
1157:
1154:
1151:
1150:
1143:
1139:
1136:
1134:
1130:
1126:
1122:
1119:
1118:
1117:
1116:
1113:
1109:
1105:
1101:
1099:
1095:
1091:
1087:
1084:
1083:
1074:
1069:
1066:
1063:
1062:
1053:
1047:
1040:
1034:
1028:
1026:
1025:
1024:
1020:
1016:
1012:
1008:
1003:
1000:
997:
996:
990:, have they?
989:
983:
975:
967:
961:
957:
956:
955:
954:
953:
949:
945:
941:
934:
928:
927:
926:
925:
921:
916:
913:
910:
909:
900:
892:
884:
876:
873:
867:
864:
854:
850:
846:
842:
837:
836:
835:
830:
827:
824:
823:
815:
809:
808:
807:
803:
799:
794:
790:
786:
780:
775:
772:
769:
768:
759:
751:
743:
735:
727:
725:
724:
723:
719:
715:
711:
710:
709:
705:
701:
694:
687:
683:
682:
681:
676:
673:
670:
669:
662:
661:
660:
656:
652:
648:
645:
644:
641:
637:
633:
629:
625:
621:
620:
619:
618:
614:
610:
601:
596:
589:
583:
576:
568:
560:
553:
549:
546:
545:
544:
543:
540:
538:
533:
528:
527:
522:
519:
517:
516:Winged Blades
511:
507:
506:
502:
501:
500:
499:
492:
490:
485:
480:
479:
473:
468:
465:
464:
463:
454:
453:Magic Johnson
450:. Looks like
448:
442:
439:
437:
433:
429:
425:
422:
420:
416:
412:
408:
404:
400:
396:
395:Endorse close
393:
392:
385:
381:
377:
373:
372:
371:
370:
367:
363:
359:
355:
354:
353:
352:
349:
346:
340:
338:
333:
329:
328:Orlando Magic
325:
321:
317:
313:
309:
305:
302:
301:
294:
290:
286:
282:
278:
274:
270:
269:
268:
265:
259:
257:
253:
249:
248:
247:
246:
243:
239:
235:
231:
227:
225:
219:
216:
215:
214:
212:
208:
202:
198:
193:
189:
181:
176:
169:
163:
156:
148:
140:
133:
129:
126:
125:
124:
123:
120:
118:
113:
108:
107:
102:
98:
93:
85:
79:
75:
74:
70:
69:
68:
67:
62:
59:
49:
48:2018 February
46:
44:
41:
39:
38:2017 December
33:
32:
23:
19:
2916:
2909:
2892:
2875:
2864:
2844:
2843:
2833:
2744:
2726:TonyBallioni
2690:TonyBallioni
2644:
2643:
2585:
2564:
2545:
2528:
2499:
2498:
2455:
2454:
2415:
2414:
2385:TonyBallioni
2379:
2310:
2303:
2288:
2287:
2279:
2278:
2272:
2268:
2262:
2247:
2240:
2206:â Preceding
2187:
2172:
2079:
2033:
2003:Hhhhhkohhhhh
1969:
1954:
1922:
1908:Hhhhhkohhhhh
1890:Hhhhhkohhhhh
1881:
1866:Hhhhhkohhhhh
1847:Hhhhhkohhhhh
1805:
1736:
1729:
1715:
1709:
1705:
1699:
1684:
1677:
1631:
1558:
1489:
1482:
1468:
1462:
1458:
1452:
1437:
1430:
1410:
1406:
1337:
1330:
1297:
1291:
1276:
1269:
1244:
1227:
1207:
1206:
1182:
1169:
1148:
1090:TonyBallioni
1085:
1060:
1045:
994:
939:
907:
865:
821:
792:
766:
700:WhatamIdoing
667:
646:
605:
536:
529:
515:
509:
503:
488:
481:
458:
457:
440:
423:
406:
394:
303:
280:
234:TonyBallioni
221:
217:
185:
116:
109:
77:
71:
61:2018 January
60:
2912:move review
2876:SMcCandlish
2306:move review
2243:move review
1828:this source
1824:This source
1732:move review
1680:move review
1578:WP:OFFICIAL
1485:move review
1433:move review
1333:move review
1272:move review
1149:SMcCandlish
1121:KATMAKROFAN
1061:SMcCandlish
1033:WP:OVERCITE
995:SMcCandlish
908:SMcCandlish
822:SMcCandlish
767:SMcCandlish
750:Third-party
668:SMcCandlish
532:move review
484:move review
205:âPreceding
112:move review
2015:Alright.--
1888:, thanks!
1200:refexample
1190:one source
966:Refimprove
872:Refimprove
814:ad nauseam
726:Yes, this
337:CĂșchullain
256:CĂșchullain
2840:SmokeyJoe
2809:SmokeyJoe
2786:WP:MINNOW
2768:SmokeyJoe
2750:SmokeyJoe
2745:strickout
2708:SmokeyJoe
2673:SmokeyJoe
2623:SmokeyJoe
2603:WP:MINNOW
2590:SmokeyJoe
2533:Aervanath
2223:Aervanath
2192:SmokeyJoe
2137:Aervanath
2109:September
2099:Aervanath
2084:Aervanath
1957:per N57.
1596:House1090
1561:House1090
1424:Joortje1
1253:Aervanath
1183:deprecate
1129:pingĂł miĂł
1125:Galobtter
1019:pingĂł miĂł
1015:Galobtter
960:straw man
845:SmokeyJoe
798:SmokeyJoe
762:, etc.).
718:pingĂł miĂł
714:Galobtter
686:SmokeyJoe
651:SmokeyJoe
428:SmokeyJoe
411:Aervanath
403:not votes
376:SmokeyJoe
285:SmokeyJoe
2930:Category
2790:WP:TROUT
2611:WP:TROUT
2273:at least
2269:endorsed
2208:unsigned
2105:May 2013
2061:WP:FOOTY
1820:WP:FOOTY
1814:and the
1706:Overturn
1459:Overturn
1414:Joortje1
1304:Joortje1
1232:SnowFire
1138:WP:POINT
1044:citation
622:Pinging
441:Endorse.
335:issue.--
20: |
2565:Endorse
2546:Endorse
2362:archive
2341:history
2289:Warrior
2065:Bijanii
2034:Comment
2017:Bijanii
1997:Bijanii
1982:Bijanii
1970:Comment
1962:Snowman
1882:Comment
1832:Bijanii
1816:EFL Cup
1788:archive
1767:history
1644:Amakuru
1541:archive
1520:history
1389:archive
1368:history
1314:Amakuru
1086:Endorse
940:or more
588:archive
567:history
510:Endorse
424:Endorse
230:WP:RMCI
218:Endorse
207:undated
168:archive
147:history
2788:, and
2782:thread
2704:thread
2573:ToThAc
1936:Number
1632:Relist
1463:Relist
1029:inline
988:WP:RFD
2706:? --
2588:. --
2369:watch
2356:links
2131:Bradv
2055:Bradv
1959:Giant
1795:watch
1782:links
1661:âââââ§
1611:âââââ§
1582:âââââ§
1548:watch
1535:links
1396:watch
1383:links
1312:. Â â
1310:WP:RM
1181:Just
877:still
595:watch
582:links
332:Magic
308:Magic
175:watch
162:links
51:: -->
16:<
2813:talk
2798:talk
2772:talk
2754:talk
2738:The
2730:talk
2712:talk
2694:talk
2677:talk
2627:talk
2613:for
2605:for
2594:talk
2577:talk
2551:Brad
2537:talk
2481:talk
2441:talk
2404:talk
2349:logs
2333:edit
2326:talk
2227:talk
2216:talk
2196:talk
2153:Brad
2141:talk
2114:Brad
2088:talk
2069:talk
2039:Brad
2021:talk
2007:talk
1986:talk
1976:and
1931:this
1912:talk
1894:talk
1870:talk
1851:talk
1836:talk
1775:logs
1759:edit
1752:talk
1710:move
1665:Talk
1648:talk
1615:Talk
1600:talk
1586:Talk
1565:talk
1528:logs
1512:edit
1505:talk
1461:and
1418:talk
1376:logs
1360:edit
1353:talk
1318:talk
1257:talk
1236:talk
1217:talk
1208:what
1195:and
1140:and
1108:talk
1094:talk
982:fact
978:and
948:talk
849:talk
802:talk
704:talk
655:talk
636:talk
626:and
613:talk
575:logs
559:edit
552:talk
432:talk
415:talk
380:talk
362:talk
289:talk
281:some
238:talk
201:talk
155:logs
139:edit
132:talk
35:<
2885:đŒ
2792:.
2372:) (
2280:Sky
2180:Jay
2177:Pee
2127:Hi
1818:in
1798:) (
1551:) (
1399:) (
1249:RFC
1213:KMF
1158:đŒ
1104:KMF
1070:đŒ
1027:An
1004:đŒ
986:to
944:KMF
917:đŒ
831:đŒ
776:đŒ
677:đŒ
632:KMF
609:KMF
598:) (
178:) (
22:Log
2932::
2873:â
2815:)
2807:--
2800:)
2784:,
2774:)
2756:)
2748:--
2732:)
2714:)
2696:)
2679:)
2629:)
2601:A
2596:)
2579:)
2571:.
2539:)
2483:)
2443:)
2406:)
2374:RM
2229:)
2221:--
2198:)
2143:)
2090:)
2071:)
2023:)
2009:)
1988:)
1972::
1914:)
1906:.
1896:)
1872:)
1853:)
1838:)
1822:.
1800:RM
1712:.
1704:â
1650:)
1602:)
1567:)
1553:RM
1457:â
1420:)
1401:RM
1320:)
1296:â
1259:)
1238:)
1219:)
1203:}}
1197:{{
1193:}}
1187:{{
1146:â
1131:)
1110:)
1096:)
1058:â
1054:}}
1050:{{
1041:}}
1037:{{
1021:)
992:â
984:}}
980:{{
976:}}
974:cn
972:{{
968:}}
964:{{
950:)
936:}}
930:{{
905:â
901:}}
897:{{
893:}}
889:{{
885:}}
881:{{
874:}}
870:{{
851:)
819:â
817:.
804:)
796:--
764:â
760:}}
756:{{
754:,
752:}}
748:{{
746:,
744:}}
740:{{
736:}}
732:{{
728:is
720:)
706:)
696:}}
690:{{
665:â
657:)
638:)
630:.
615:)
600:RM
508:â
434:)
417:)
382:)
364:)
326:,
322:,
318:,
291:)
240:)
203:)
180:RM
2883:Âą
2880:â
2811:(
2796:(
2770:(
2752:(
2728:(
2710:(
2692:(
2675:(
2625:(
2592:(
2575:(
2556:v
2535:(
2479:(
2439:(
2402:(
2395::
2391:@
2387::
2383:@
2376:)
2365:|
2359:|
2353:|
2345:|
2337:|
2329:|
2324:(
2225:(
2214:(
2194:(
2158:v
2139:(
2133::
2129:@
2119:v
2101::
2097:@
2086:(
2067:(
2057::
2053:@
2044:v
2019:(
2005:(
1999::
1995:@
1984:(
1946:7
1941:5
1910:(
1892:(
1868:(
1849:(
1834:(
1802:)
1791:|
1785:|
1779:|
1771:|
1763:|
1755:|
1750:(
1646:(
1598:(
1563:(
1555:)
1544:|
1538:|
1532:|
1524:|
1516:|
1508:|
1503:(
1416:(
1403:)
1392:|
1386:|
1380:|
1372:|
1364:|
1356:|
1351:(
1316:(
1306::
1302:@
1255:(
1234:(
1215:(
1156:Âą
1153:â
1127:(
1106:(
1092:(
1068:Âą
1065:â
1046:s
1017:(
1002:Âą
999:â
946:(
915:Âą
912:â
847:(
829:Âą
826:â
800:(
774:Âą
771:â
716:(
702:(
675:Âą
672:â
653:(
634:(
611:(
602:)
591:|
585:|
579:|
571:|
563:|
555:|
550:(
430:(
413:(
378:(
360:(
344:c
341:/
287:(
263:c
260:/
236:(
199:(
182:)
171:|
165:|
159:|
151:|
143:|
135:|
130:(
96:â
86:)
82:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.