Knowledge (XXG) talk:In the news/Archive 77

4527:: Any news story currently on the main page is open for debate and must remain open for debate (including arguments to pull it or rephrase it) for as long as it's posted on the main page, and it's unacceptable that US editors nominate a local news item from their country in the middle of the night before people in Europe have had a chance to participate, and then attempt to close the debate; in effect they've only had a local debate favouring editors from the U.S. on whether domestic news from that country should be posted. This is not something we accept from any other country. The main page has had problems with US bias for years. If we now post a US judge who isn't the head of the supreme court, then there are no reasons not to post supreme court justices from other countries, but I imagine any such nomination, even of justices from large countries such as the U.K., Germany, Russia or China, would meet fierce resistance here. The bigger problem is not that it was posted in the first place, but that there is an unacceptable attempt to stifle debate and prevent large parts of the world from weighing in by closing the debate on a live item. If postings are now suddenly treated in such an inflexible way, instead of being subject to discussion and revision as they should, then we need a minimum time requirement, but a better solution would of course be to clarify that live items on the main page are 696:. Jeff Goldblum, Billy Porter, and Matthew McConaughey presented awards - yeah, they're going to show up for a minor clip show in another country any day, right? And this is not to touch on the internationalist of the British TV industry. While the biggest of US productions obviously reach many corners of the world, British TV does the same but also takes its smaller shows - across kids, daytime, soaps, news, and comedy - too. The BAFTA TV ceremony itself is a major event on the industry calendar, more reputable than the NTV's (the UK's National Television Awards, which are truly exclusive and focus way too much on soaps and variety), and usually just as glamorous and well-attended as the Emmys. This year, it still had a physical presence, with many of the presenters being together at Television Studio (good idea? who knows), while the Emmys will be entirely virtual. I'm not commenting on the difference, because we're not the organizers, either. Really, both the Emmys and BAFTA TV awards are equally notable as the complementary ceremonies for the dual TV giants. 1788:

not shy away from them, but readers here coming to the front page are come from places where English is a principle language and thus where we can presume that the news is coming to them in English in the primary or a major secondary format. Having main page ITN items on events that are just simply not covered by any English source at all is tricky to include, much less as a recurring event (exceptions made for RDs but because those are "easy" to pass). So I think trying to argue "but we don't cover these Korean awards so why should we cover the British ones" is not a great argument here. To stress, we do cover non-English events that get routine coverage in English press like the Indian Premier League, La Liga, the Berlin Int'l Film Festival, and so on, and this is not to limit what can be done in mainspace because we can make articles that only use foreign language sources. But ITN we can be a bit more selective to what is going to be of interest to English-comprehending readers. --

828:

opinions evidently differ, I won't debate further on that matter - we (Knowledge (XXG)) are here to determine if the (recurrence of) the ceremony/awards merely happening is notable. Nominees and winners will change every year, but the event to be posted won't. So, whatever your views (well thought out as they are, shown above) on the quality of nominees, we can objectively judge how the various ceremonies are treated both in their own country and abroad. The BAFTA TV awards and the Emmys are in their own league. The best comparative for other award shows I've personally seen, like in Spain and France (I could only comment on search results for others, which I'm sure you can find yourself), is the UK's National Television Awards (mentioned above). That is, they're hyped enough for a week that you remember it exists, most people don't care enough to watch but might be interested in the winners, it focuses on popularity, and is not covered abroad.

676:

about them and we know the disparity in entertainment articles still exists on WP. Given that the UK has television channels dedicated to foreign programming (e.g. Walter) on satellite and not just the internet, the BAFTAs are arguably more international because they have that pool to choose from. Both ceremonies are theoretically restricted to their national productions, having broadened over the years and now basically nominating the same things. This also brings up the concept of exceptionalism, the idea that even though there will be TV shows not broadcast in one of the two countries (and vice versa), it is the ones not shown in the US that are by default second rated, an irrational suggestion. Especially since a lot of US TV shows are UK co-productions that maybe don't get a look in at the BAFTAs because there are some exclusively British productions that are just better. Apparently the idea that UK-only shows get lots of noms

1209:. Discounting spikes, on most average days the Emmys page gets between 1000 and 1200 views, while the BAFTA TV awards page usually gets somewhere between 80 and 110 views. That's an entire order of magnitude difference, and far more than can be explained just by considering the relative populations of the two countries. I don't have any figures for global TV audiences, but I would predict something similar. The Emmys are viewed worldwide, while the BAFTA TVs are mainly a British thing. Would be interested to see any counter-evidence to this, in terms of concrete facts and figures. And to counter Kingsif's reply to Bzweebl, "shows not aired in the US will have a much lower viewership" - but that's the point. It doesn't have a global reach. — 1665:"Decades until it would reach the same level of notability" ... That's precisely the notion that I want us to challenge. When we have not identified the disruptors, it is hard to say decades. What if that disruption has already occurred, and its just that we are oblivious to it. E.g. Take eGames - What if some of the gaming events are more "notable" than let's say the Ashes (using this as an example, only because this page has that name quoted), and we are oblivious to it because our sense for notability flows down from the TV / Newspaper world and we have taken that as-is to the online world. But, anyways, I think I am digressing from this specific add / removal discussion. Cheers and Good luck. 3055:, and I don't disagree at all that normally a few hours is not a problem. And maybe we need some policy about very strong consensus, or number/proportion of commenters who've supported, or what automatically gets a blurb so it doesn't need its roll to be slowed. But just a straight 'nothing until 8 hours is up, no matter how many people have supported the need for a blurb and/or how strong the consensus is' is likely to cause a problem. Let's not fix a very small, rare problem with something that could cause a bigger (though likely also rare) problem and ties the hands of well-intentioned editors who, while they may very well have a bias, as we all do 2808:. The exact number of hours can be discussed (I would have proposed 5 hours), but the principle should stand. Without it, we end up with these retain/pull-discussions all the time. A time limit will also ensure that articles can be properly updated/checked for quality, as often editors support on notability without examining quality. If there is not consensus for implementing this for all non-ITNR-items, one can consider only implementing it for death blurbs; they are contentious most of the time. ― 4100:*dominated* the news, but we didn't touch it until the House voted to the impeachment terms. I'm sure BBC and other foreign papers covered it to a degree but not to the volume that our media covered it (to the point you could not avoid it). RDs are very similar, particularly around politicians, entertainers, and athletes. I mean, not saying she won't get a blurb when the Queen dies, but I can tell you that this will be a few hours in US TV, and week-long thing in the UK. -- 1767:

ceremonies being different: the BAFTAs don't have commercials and have only one advertising partner, while advertising is really an integral part of the Emmys. It's that the set-up of the Korean award shows just makes them by default have no impact or prestige even on their own TV network. They're so evidently unimportant. If anything, that's more argument to add the BAFTAs: they demonstrate renown like the Emmys where other TV cultures just haven't mastered it.

31: 1186:

presented that given that we are presenting the BAFTAs (british film awards) and the Emmys (US TV awards), we logically have to also present the British version of TV awards. That logic doesn't follow, since the BATAs are of less importance than both the BAFTAs and the Emmys. The item failed to garner consensus for running this year, and it would be very wrong to therefore slip it in for next year by the back door, by declaring it ITN/R. —

3553:. That's not the same as saying that it might find consensus because of course it can, just that is it likely anyone will object? And that judgement also has to take into account the fact that US items are more likely to gain unanimous support at hours when European editors are asleep. Overall, such a measure will avoid a lot of bad blood and lead to more harmonious consensus building, and I strongly recommend that we adopt it. — 1722:? Oversaturation isn't a good look in awards. Anyone with Netflix knows there's a lot of Korean TV, but it's mostly soapy (even The Good Doctor) and overhyped (random example: The Producers) and producing infinite sequel series. There's a reason the Premios Platinos have a better rep than the TVyNovela awards. Korea has (at least) 8 national award ceremonies for TV, and another 7 made up of networks ranking their own shows: that 3492:

headline stories, if the article gets in shape quickly and it's obvious we'll post, then we shouldn't wait around. The principal point is whether there is any likelihood of serious opposition. That's a judgment call on the part of the admin who sees it, but it's one they should be actively encouraged to make. So my preference would be to stipulate a minimum amount of time for any nomination likely to attract opposition. —

4071:. Have folks considered a two Admin closure mechanism? The idea being that if one is rushing, the other is the tempering force. Alternately, at the risk of opening a can of worms (or even violating some rule) -- is there a notion of Admins from regions? Divide the globe in x zones (e.g. four) to account for time zones, and necessitate that the closing action have the concurrence of Admins from at least two zones? 5788:- 24hr-before-posting has two benefits: #1, it ensures everyone in the world has an opportunity to participate. #2, it ensures everything that's posted has been in the news for at least one full news cycle (24hrs+), helping prevent the newsticker problem. IAR exceptions could continue to be made as always. I'd support this as a requirement or an encouragement, and I'd support any time period as better than none. 4972:. Frivolous finger-twiddling would be of no benefit 99% of the time. When we sit around waiting 8 hours to post "President Trump nukes California" or something, this policy would inevitably be whittled down to "8 hours but only if it's not important", which would just lead to more pointless bickering on what constitutes an "important" ITN posting. Maybe we could bring back the old RD criteria too. 1235:, which was that the US has a much larger population than the UK, and so the most-viewed shows in each country will have very disparate stats. 1 million is a good TV audience figure in the UK, in the US it is poor. (The equivalent 'good' in the US is about 10 million.) In June 2020 the peak TV viewership for a single broadcast in the UK was for football, at 4.1 million ( 3246:- there is an ongoing problem of (usually American) posters sneaking contentious noms in under the radar when other parts of the world are asleep. This is sorely needed. I would suggest 8 hours. People who complain that this would stop things being posted speedily clearly don't understand what ITN is actually about, and their votes can be safely disregarded. 2889:, I'm well aware that Knowledge (XXG) is an encyclopedia, thanks. ITN, however, is the one place on Knowledge (XXG) where we ought to try to get current events right quickly. If an article is in good shape and there's immediate worldwide coverage, why shouldn't we trust those editing at the time to use their judgement to make a non-irreversible decision? 3455:. This has been proposed and rejected previously and I see no reason why it should be different this time. And by the way, the “not news/not a news ticker” argument being raised by many of the supporters is a reason to scrap ITN all together, not to enforce some arbitrary posting rule that has nothing to do with the quality of the article being posted. 5730:, a court system that has become a de facto legislative body over the years. The presence of one justice with an opposite (to RBG) political bent on the court can severely swing the country's outlook on issues such as healthcare, abortion, gun ownership, and civil rights. The timing with the presidential election is even more notable even without the 3144:, combine the two ideas? 8 hours, except in the case of a minimum number of comments, with a minimum proportion supporting. As GCG pointed out below, the rule as proposed would mean that if we had 50 comments and no opposes, we'd still have to wait 8 hours. Of course then we'd have to be able to come to some agreement on those minimums lol... 1351:. Not significant to consider adding as a recurring news item (recurring) on the homepage. That said, an unrelated exploratory effort should be undertaken to see if there are any new media awards that we have not represented, and consider inclusion if notable. This is building on one of the users' comment from upstream. Good luck. 4776:. I would like to weigh in in favour of pulling the item, but the discussion was rapidly closed once the item had been posted in the middle of the night. The closing of the discussion to prevent people from saying "pull", and after US editors had had far more time to participate, is the bigger problem here. -- 5213:

about them. I just don't think that a mandatory waiting period is the right answer because it really is just a way to pile on made up requirements like global significance or bias. If too many US-centric stories really is the problem here then lets codify a fix like global/bias instead of keeping the

5089:

but I don't have time to write a script to comb through 5 years of ITN noms and try to find one posted in less than 20 minutes. I'm still trying to understand if the minimum wait proposed here is to give everyone a chance to respond or to keep "US-centric" items off the main page. If it's the former,

5069:

I think given there are probably 10 times as many US contributors as non-US contributors, I wouldn't be surprised that systemic bias will play a part in the discussion. Like how we spent 20 minutes discussing putting a blurb up for a dead US judge, as noted this would NEVER be the case for any other

4822:

Exactly, it was rapidly closed. 11 hours, or more like 10, of meaningful time is rapid. And Europeans had far fewer hours of meaningful time to participate. Americans had the entire evening, the time when editors are often most active on Knowledge (XXG). And no live item should be closed, ever. There

3647:

I know I have proposed this before with similar opposition as NOTBURO-type reasoning. But I do think this is a reminder to posting admins and participants that we should really still not rush to post a blurb on RDs that are strongly tied to a national factor when there hasn't really had much time for

2871:

Please note that Knowledge (XXG) is an encyclopedia, not a news ticker, and we are not obliged to promptly post major news development. Interested readers will surely come to read the article linked from the main page even a few hours later simply because the amount of information we offer can not be

2278:

We'd have to refactor the guidelines below which specifically contradict such a requirement but this would allow us to codify the real intent of the "minimum waiting period" suggested above - to keep "US-centric" stories off the main page - without needlessly delaying the posting of "non-US" stories.

680:

hasn't been considered, instead written off as 'well I haven't heard of it so it can't be good' or, crucially, 'they only got a nom because US shows couldn't', which isn't even true. And the users making that argument are plucking it from their own imaginations, since I don't think any of them are on

278:

those programmes are broadcast internationally. The rather blinkered "US is best on this" is just too tiresome to take seriously, particularly as BAFTA TV include co-productions, and many of the programmes in both sets of nominations are crewed and acted by professionals from both Britain and the US,

5770:

discussions are typically held open for at least 7 days. I don't see why 8 hours is unreasonable for something that hits the front page and reaches millions of eyes. 24 hours would make more sense imo, but 8 hours is a decent compromise I suppose. I don't read news that often, so I actually do first

5310:

has wide consensus here, but projects where cross-timezone perspectives are necessary--Meta being an example--don't allow snow closes. There's good reasons to be patient with nominations, but that unusual here. It would prevent mistakes and arguments if that difference is acknowledged, and a minimum

4866:

Compare the TikTok nomination: Nominated 2:27 UTC, closed 11:15 UTC, or nine hours of discussion. RBG's nom was on 23:41, posted as RD on 23:55 (article was GA), blurbed on 0:04, and closed 17:11 the next day, or almost 18 hours of discussion. If there was something rapidly done, it was posting, not

4851:

It was closed around midday of the U.S. East Coast and mid-morning of the West Coast, the time Americans would've piled on with supports. Americans could've argued it was closed too early as they could've piled on with even more supports. Europeans had more than enough time upon waking up until late

4531:

subject to debate, especially on phrasing and whether they should be pulled, and that discussions can only be closed when the item is no longer on the main page. It's also important that discussions remain open for more than a few hours so that people have a chance to offer their opinion, especially

4495:

for your responses, but I am going to have to stick to my view here. "Holding back" is not what I want, it's not what you want, and it's not what this proposal would create. Having nominations stay behind the front page, so to speak, for 24 hours would not cause those articles to be hidden or denied

2825:

slowing down the process arbitrarily. If a death receives immediate significant worldwide coverage and the article is in good shape, those editing at the time should be free to use their judgement. It's not like those two things happen together all that often, even. We don't need another rule when a

2681:

I want to keep the ITN Template as a template because it's easier to parse for some analytics stuff I'm hacking on. Lets subst the CE portal transclustion (which I like at ITN/C but IMO is useless in the archive) and maybe nuke the cot/cob which will preserve the content but lower the template count

2599:

so I'm going to go through the archives and remove the atop/abot tags on "closed" discussion so that the ITNTemplate renders correctly again and we're going to discontinue the harmful and unnecessary process of archiving nominations a few hours after being created. It's literally breaking Mediawiki

1846:

I'm not disputing that, but no one's making this argument after seeing boatloads upon boatloads of wall-to-wall coverage on The Boat Race watched by billions of people.... which I incidentally didn't see on English language sources for the TV BAFTAs. Kingsif is actually right on Korean awards shows.

1813:

I guess the point here is if one is making the argument that U.S. TV is big then UK TV is second-biggest but with quite a far distance so if we're posting the Emmys that nobody cares about, we'd post about the TV BAFTAs as well... that's not readily apparent at least in 2020. One could argue British

1555:

Different point, which is that TV seems to be dying, take a look at ratings for these things year-on-year. Instead of adding another one to counteract the Emmy's, I would say in a few years, just drop that as well. Its natural that as media evolves, things get dropped from wiki as much as gets added

1268:

I've now read the middle part of the comment, about global viewership of the awards ceremonies. Neither are usually available to watch outside of their respective broadcast nation. This year, because the Emmys are completely virtual, it's reported they will be broadcast online. But the BAFTAs didn't

241:

If you can't already tell, clicking through to the Knowledge (XXG) articles or researching statistics on these shows should give you a sense of the gaps in popularity and significance. Do the same for any category in any year and I think you will find a similar pattern. The reality is, for better or

5187:

Hilarious as usual, you're the one complaining about the global news stories (I believe you're particularly vexed by "bus-plunge-gate"). The point being made here is that the general usership perceive this to be American Knowledge (XXG). It's been the case for more than a decade, indeed we have a

5139:

Uh, no. That would be absurd. What I said was that there is no direct analogy for most of the "instant postings" for US items. You can find the odd one (like Notre Dame) which were truly EV-worthy, but no "subset" requirement should exist, that's the whole point. Yanks are in the vast majority,

4929:

There are 4.8 million people in NZ, and 24 million in Australia. Europe has 750 million people (many of whom speak English and use the English language Knowledge (XXG)), Africa (in the same time zones) 1.2 billion, then there a significant parts of Asia that were also asleep. Comparing parts of the

4737:

I wouldn't say such a ban would be required though some kind of penalty should be in place. This rule - necessary, as it is - can't be implemented without a good structure of consequences. IAR is a red button which shouldn't be pressed every time. Maybe if an Admin presses the IAR button, they have

4646:

Perhaps you mis-interpreted what I said. It wasn't nefarious, it was just "rushed through" (like, mega-rushed through like we've never seen before) as typifies the actions of those who think this is American Knowledge (XXG). In a time when RDs being posted as blurbs is considered contentious, this

4581:

Strongly object as much as you like but it's patently true. This judge death was posted within half an hour of proposal during a time when Europe was "asleep". By the time anyone was awake enough to object, it had overwhelming consensus from America and that was game over. Cry foul all you like,

4209:

to stipulate that "US-centric" stories must have global appeal or global reporting? If that's what the problem is then fine lets just codify the anti-US bias in the rules instead of coming up with these silly rules which in theory apply to everything but in practice apply only to stories pertaining

1787:

Given that this is EN.wikipedia.org, I do not see the need to necessarily focus on awards or ceremonies that do not have routine coverage in the non-English media from an ITN standpoint; in terms of having a standalone article, absolutely, let's have them as long as we can source them and we should

1245:

had "steep viewership decline" because of no sports. The disparity is real and big. The same applies to the Knowledge (XXG) pages that you're using as a metric for popularity: more Americans = more people who can watch the Emmys = more WP Emmy pageviews. That's why I pulled on international media -

1131:

canvassing. Your explanation here that you actually wanted to ping everyone from one side of the discussion is doubling down on it. Please don’t ping me to this again; given the knee-jerk opinions of “US only”, and the use of open fallacies to reinforce the cultural bias, it’s not an area I wish to

787:

in the UK. Given the prominence of streaming services and their thirst for content, quality British programming will find its way to the American airwaves (so to speak) and be eligible for Emmys. Quality American programming will never be eligible for the BAFTAs (yes, yes, joint productions aside).

778:

I believe the American and British entertainment production environments are both quite significant. There is no possible way to objectively declare which, if either, produces higher quality programming. Both distribute globally and find healthy audiences on foreign shores. The distinction between

494:

British television is recognized around the world as much as US television; just because it may not be watched as highly on first broadcast does not make it less significant. As we recognize the BAFTA film awards there's no reason not to already recognize the TV ones as well, as long as the article

4566:

I strongly object to the nefarious-sounding "posted in the middle of the night" terminology being bandied about here. There was nothing nefarious here. I have participated here at varying hours of the day and everyone else here is capable of doing so as well- not that that's required. Blurbs have

2910:

The main problem is that a quick posting practically prevents people from influencing the outcome and the decision's non-irrevirsibility is usually despised as a pathetic attempt to right wrongs. This is far from the equity of treatment that we strive to achieve. And if you carefully calculate the

2241:

If an item at ITNR needs clarifying, have the discussion there, not in the nomination. Items nominated which qualify for ITNR have already been vetted for significance. If the item shouldn't be at ITNR, the nomination is not the time to discuss that. Get consensus to remove it from ITNR first.

2084:

I'm not proposing a Russia carveout, and that may be a bad example, just that as you say, there are IAR-situations that we should be aware of that a single instance of a ITNR event is really not all that newsworthy for some reason. Which we don't need to document to ITN rules, just treat as an IAR

3548:

Exactly. That's why I'm saying it's a judgement call, not just to look at the !votes already cast, but to consider the overall picture and whether there's any conceivable reason someone might object to the posting. Any admin actively seeking to post ITN items should have enough knowledge to judge

2932:

would be a better measure, I think. I do take your point. I just don't think this is a chronic problem. The death of any other current sitting SC Justice, and really IMO any US Senator, even McConnell, I wouldn't support for a blurb. For me personally, there is no US athlete or celebrity that I'd

2768:

have raised concerns that sometimes decisions on posting blurbs are speedily made without taking into account the time differences, thus practically depriving many users of the right to actively participate in discussions and share their thoughts. In this context, a user suggested introduction of

2631:

If no one objects I can also strip out the CE portal transclusion from archived discussions pretty easily with a bit of Ruby. This board seems dead, reduced to bickering and infighting so if no one cares about the technical bits I'll just do whatever I feel like until I upset some admin and get a

2325:

I thought this was a joke proposal? But definitely not - any user from any country that is not the subject of the blurb could say "well it's not in the newspaper I'm reading and I don't care" and that singular argument could prevent anything from being blurbed ever again as it would fail complete

1964:

I earlier said that my vote was conditional on the outcome at INTC. While that was not posted, I feel this was a an "administrative stale" and had sufficient support. In light of other arguments made here, and the failed removal of the Emmys, I now believe ITN is (marginally) better off including

1407:

this appears to be dead in the water. Somehow, without any logic at all, the banal "Emmys" is a shoo-in for ITNR, while the BAFTAs don't cut it. If we needed an example of systemic bias, this is it. Close this down someone, it's really not a good look for Knowledge (XXG) to continually promote

1185:

per LaserLegs. This awards ceremony simply isn't of the same prestige or importance as the others mentioned - it focuses quite a lot on British TV, and it's fairly obvious that we shouldn't include awards ceremonies from every single country around the world, that would be bloat. The argument was

675:

is brought up. OK, shows not aired in the US will have a much lower viewership - which is perceived as being less popular - by default. The UK is much smaller. They're also going to covered in the US press and likely Knowledge (XXG) much less, because if they're not shown nobody is going to write

5711:

enough to warrant a blurb without needing to over-analyze the individual in the way we have been. In fact, trying to place well known people in a hierarchy with those deserving of a blurb above a certain line is turning ITN into more of an obit factory: if it wants to stay true to its purpose it

4898:

FWIW, I've been to HK, and they don't speak English. They speak more English in Bali than in Kowloon. We have our resident Australian who proudly waves the flag of #USbiaz but it seems that he's absent right now. Indians don't come to ITN unless there's an Indian nom, and in big numbers at that.

2036:

appropriate is that while the recurring event is presumed to be ITN-able each time it comes around, one specific instance may not be as relevant that time (Beyond the issue of article quality). As a hypothetical, we know Putin will probably stay president for life for all purposes, so that while

1828:

While audience size can play a role, for ITN its still about the coverage, and again, as en.wiki, what it gets in English sources for featuring on the main page ITN. Maybe the Korean TV shows draw a billion people when you factor in those that watch with subs but if narely a drop is mentioned in

1646:

because entertainment is such a big part of most people's lives it would be remiss to not include appropriate events at ITN/R, and while some may prefer listing e.g. the most-viewed show and film every year or audience awards, there are no entertainment events bigger than the Academy and British

1448:

Given the Americentric bias of Western Pop Culture (especially with television), it's natural that American ceremonies in that field take priority over those of other countries (barring, of course, international stuff like Eurovision). If we really must post other countries' awards, it should be

4790:

Unless the timestamps are deceiving me, it was posted 0:04 UTC, and discussion was closed at 17:11 UTC, or people had a full 17 hours to comment until the discussion was longer than RBG's article. Europeans had ~11 hours of daylight to participate in the discussion. To say that this was rapidly

4415:

We're not holding back articles. The articles are there. A link on the main page is just that, a link. Articles can be searched for and found through far more means than one link on the main page: nothing is being suppressed. The wider community should have an opportunity to support or oppose a

4099:

It should be damn clear that sometimes, particularly with the US media, that certain national stories are blown up with excessive coverage compared to the rest of the world, and to the relative basis of what ITN covers. For example, when Trump's impeachment stuff was going on in the House, that

3381:

That's true but there's a huge difference between influencing the outcome before and after posting similar to the "first come, first served" principle. As I noted above, post-posting opposition is usually despised as a pathetic attempt to right wrongs because the fact it's been already posed is

2010:

doubt that a nom is ITNR, that item should not be exempt from the significance discussion. Suggesting we add language to ITNR header (in graph 3) "if a reasonable argument is raised that the nominated article is not an listed item on this page, importance should be discussed in the nomination."

1570:

I agree with you. And, I think that is roughly what Andrew is saying as well, and I briefly picked up on, in my comment. We should really be investing our efforts in identifying what that next generation events are. E.g. Are these the virtual gaming championships? Are these the short form video

5204:

I opposed the bus plunge because the article was and remains a mostly orphaned disaster stub and I routinely oppose all incarnations of those. I empathize with your point being made, please try to appreciate how disheartening it is when "global significance" and "bias" are only trotted out for

3491:

I think we need some sort of guidance on this, because in my view the Ginsburg blurb was posted far too soon. (And that's not to criticise the admin who posted it, because currently we have no such guidance in effect). On the other hand though, something like the Notre Dame fire or other major

827:

You make some good points, but haven't addressed one key thing: if I can write another paragraph to lay it out fully? Besides the intricacies of the eligibility - which I feel ultimately comes down to personal opinions on if some national shows are as good as other national shows, and here our

1294:

I agree that this proposal is absurd when the most recent nomination failed to get posted. This demonstrates that scrutiny is needed and it shouldn't go through on the nod. In any case, I don't see why this award should get special treatment when it is so clearly promotional in nature. It

4204:

so is that what this really is? We're upset that a "US-centric" was story was posted (and remains posted) before sufficient non-US people got to complain about it? If that's the case, maybe the time limit is too broad? Perhaps it should only apply to "US-centric" stories? Or we can amend the

2362:

Maybe it's the heightened tensions, downplaying everything, or more time people have had in recent months but I think ITN is seeing more bias. I still think it's unintentional, but then users are applying posting criteria in perhaps not the best ways to support/oppose items they just LIKE or

1766:

The TV audience is kind of irrelevant. It's about the award ceremony being notable, and while TV audience is one metric, a bigger one is the impact and prestige, right? That's what gets it in the news, that's what makes the ceremony as its own event notable. There's nothing wrong with award

3866:. Certainly if President Trump were to fall down dead this afternoon, there would be no question that this was immediately blurb-worthy. Perhaps, however, we can delineate a hierarchy of cases where more studied consideration would be due, as with the deaths of retired actors and athletes. 4430:

It is holding back articles. Many people still look to the MP for information and hiding it from them artificially doesn't help them. We cannot accommodate everyone on this planet who might want to comment. People within the same country work odd shifts, different hours each day, family

3125:, that really would open up an issue of systematic bias. Plenty of non-Anglophone stories get fewer than a handful of votes. It is not a quorum that is the issue, but a reasonable percentage of the people who would be interested in commenting. A time-limit is a reasonable guide to that. — 872:. I don't have strong opinions on whether either of them should be on ITNR, but if one is, so should the other be. They're equally big deals in English-language television. The problem with these awards has been getting good enough prose article updates, not just tables of winners. 5638:

Oh I would agree, some nominations are obviously going to be posted and don't need to be delayed arbitrarily but here we are. 24h to post, 24h to close, equitable treatment for all noms for all persons around the globe. Seemed so obvious to me I'm not sure how we can oppose it.

2377:

Fine, then lets make "global significance" a hard requirement for all ITN noms so they can all be treated fairly. If the plan is to just suppress "US-centric" stories then fine, propose a hard limit or something don't hide it behind mandatory waiting periods and made up rules.

1851:. Again, different culture from what Caucasians are used to. Even pan-Asian cultural events are not that widely followed, probably because Asian countries hate each other for millennia. Well, we can still content ourselves with late breaking European election coverage in ITN. 1066:

Thanks for countering the blatant canvassing, Kingsif. As to comments like "is this for real": yes, of course it is. Countering knee-jerk bias is a positive step, particularly when it's based on fallacies like "the item failed to gain consensus at ITN/C" - deeply untrue: there

1918:) in the section below, "the arts are really important in everyday life, TV especially...it will always be of interest and in the news, this prevents the whole 'but TV isn't a disaster I don't care' discussion every year and lets ITN/C discuss quality if it gets nommed." 4823:

is no reason to close an item after 10 hours to prevent people from arguing that it should be pulled, after a very skewed initial discussion where the billions of people who live in Europe, Africa, the Middle East and most of Asia had no real opportunity to take part. --

5608:

We have to wait 24h. If this is really about giving everyone a voice and not keeping "us-centric" stories off the main page then 24h is necessary to make sure people in the US get to review noms about APAC before posting. It's just how it is, and the same for closing.

2677:

for just as much as is needed to fix the page. There probably needs more discussion on removing CE from the archives and the whole ITN process in general; it’s largely a historical carryover from when an ITN had to be in CE if I recall. 23:07, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

1647:

Academy's ceremonies for TV and film - and certainly none that try to be as quality-focused to establish true acclaim and excellence in the arts. I.e. it's not right to exclude the arts, and the majors are the ones to 'start with' - this is the only major not ITN/R.

4255:

here) need to be more prudent in posting such items, i.e. death blurbs, rather than going for a 'fastest finger first' even if there appears to be "overwhelming support" because such noms tend to get overwhelmed by supporters/followers of the person in most cases.

1805:

FWIW, most audiences of Korean dramas (who aren't Korean) consume the shows with English subtitles... or English dubbing on cellphones. You'd need to understand English to watch K-dramas. K-dramas are campy and are mostly for women, but could argue its audience is

5707:, I'm not sure such articles hold that weight any more. On the subject, I have to again point out that in recent months the bar to post a death as a blurb has become exponentially higher, I at least hope posting RBG reminds people that the death of someone can be 1985:

Can someone review the arguments and close this one way or the other? It just got archived, and while LL suggested to just let it roll off, it is an actual proposal without a resolution that could change something and I think it deserves to have someone call it.

293:

It’s to demonstrate that the most popular and well-known television shows in the Anglosphere (and perhaps the world) are typically found at the Emmys and not the BAFTA TV Awards. I don’t care which country is “best” as that’s too subjective to seriously discuss.

1200:

Just to add to the above point, I can see where the idea of "Matching the Emmys" comes from, and as a Brit myself I am usually completely onboard with attempts to combat US-centricism on the Wiki. However, it should be based on facts and evidence, not just an

892:

and now here in the shadows it's being deemed noteworthy enough for automatic inclusion in perpetuity? I don't think so. We've a "tradition" (right or wrong) of expecting a topic to pass ITN/C at least once before turning up here. Try again next year please.

119:: it is not just British productions, but co-productions, etc too (which is why some programmes are up for awards at both the Emmys and BATAs too). I fail to see any significant difference between the two, outside the silly nationalistic one at any rate. - 279:

as well as further afield (The Crown, for example, listed as an Emmy nom if a UK-US production, GoT was partly produced and filmed in N Ireland, etc). That such a narrow view is being used to block what would only be one ITN entry a year is a bit silly. -

4567:

been and can be pulled. I've done so myself. "Doesn't reflect the opinion of the global community" is your opinion, which you are entitled to, but that isn't clear. If you want to keep debates open while an item is posted, that is a different proposal.

3734:. 24 hours is the only acceptable time limit, any other time limit less than that means someone will be disenfranchised. FWIW, Korean, Portuguese and Chinese Knowledge (XXG) ITNs all have this super-domestic story only Unitedstatesians cared about so... 651:

BAFTAs suggests that it would be more accurate to judge the ceremonies with such a gap - which also covers all the US-UK co-productions, the dominant force in TV nowadays, that air in the UK later than in the US. For this matter, I'll point out that

2201:

You've been involved in those discussions. A few supports, and a mountain of mealy-mouth "we'll deal with it at ITNC" responses. We can't fix anything around here (see also the "ongoing" fiasco) because everyone pushes the problem to another space.

1424:

As much as I wish things were otherwise, the reality is that the US is a bigger country than we are, and its culture and influence has a global reach which far exceeds the difference in population. Despite the loss of political influence since the

329:

BAFTA TV means we should list only the US? Neither BAFTA TV nor Emmy (nor, for that matter Oscars and BAFTA film) take any account of "most popular and well-known" as part of their criteria: they look for the best. Popular or well-known ≠ best. -

242:

worse, the epicenter of English-language TV is very skewed towards Hollywood. Additionally, as I argued in the ITN/C nom, television simply has less long-term cachet than film, so I find it reasonable to only have one TV awards ceremony at ITN/R.

5188:"note" at another section of the main page to actually "allow" or "enable" 50% or more of that section to be American, "so stop complaining about it" (or don't even start, don't you dare...) You know all this, you've been around long enough. 4431:

committments, and so on. I've been on here at varying hours in the day depending on my schedule. I don't expect anyone to wait for the chance that I might comment. We have plently of after-the-fact comments and blurbs have been pulled after

3327:

My opinion is not special. It is just that some have demonstrated they don't have the required knowledge about ITN (they think it's a news ticker where we must rush to post ASAP) to have an informed option. Therefore theirs can be disregarded.

3648:

the "rest of the world" to speak up about it. This is not saying we wouldn't have posted RBG in the end of the day as a blurb, but it might not have been posted until 8-12+ hr out from the news of the death. Remember that rapid RD posting is

758:

ITNR adds should follow approval at ITNC when possible, as the visibility is greater and thus represents a more accurate read of consensus. Given there is a current nom open for this event (leaning support), we should follow the result there.

2169:

I'm not talking about a fight over if something is significant. I'm talking about a fight over if something actually is COVERED by ITNR. This happens all the time with the space exploration category, as the ITNR section is poorly defined.

2031:

event in broad terms is appropriate if its already listed at ITNR. Eg, the next time the Boat Race comes around, it would be inappropriate to question at ITNC why the Boat Race is listed at ITNR; that's a discussion to have at ITNR. What

2773:(this guarantees that people from different time zones could join while awake). For ITNR nominations, there is really no need to wait if the key articles are of sufficient quality. You are welcome with your thoughts on this proposal.-- 4496:

potential readers, in my opinion, and I hope that after all this to-and-fro, we can work on making ITN better for everyone. I rarely have such a good natured discussion on Wiki these days so thank you for disagreeing on good terms :)

2310:

No, a thousand times no. Very little would be posted. In addition, the proper way to address bias is not to suppress American stories, but to post more other stories. We shouldn't be targeting any specific country for suppression.

1829:

English RSes, its not really news for the en.wiki ITN main page. (This is basically why we don't simply use popularity, viewership, or similar counts as a sign of notability, because that doesn't always mean good sourcing follows). --

659:

nominated for a BAFTA this year, showing that it qualifies, but not in a major category (maybe all the BAFTA juries just didn't like it, maybe British TV has a lot to offer that the US audience by default don't know about) and so was

5104:

I think comparing the destruction of a globally historic landmark to the death of a US judge is apples and pears. But hey, YMMV. This is, after all, American Knowledge (XXG). I'm surprised the Notre Dame blurb didn't include the

1633:

While viewership may be declining, it's still not actually low. It's going to be a long time before any new media event gets anything like those viewing figures - and decades until it would reach the same level of notability. So to

4532:

as previous discussions are often treated as precedents in subsequent debates. As it stands now, U.S. editors had far more opportunity to participate in that discussion and it doesn't reflect the opinion of the global community. --

3897:, but what I'm not seeing here is any indication of understanding from American editors as to why what they have been doing is so very wrong. In the absence of this, their judgement cannot be trusted, and a hard rule is required. 1205:

approach. Does anyone have any evidence that these awards are even remotely comparable to the Emmys in global notability? Just to look at one example, the page views of our articles for the 2019 Emmys vs the 2019 BAFTA TV awards:

3260:

In the interests of balance, I think I should point out that the phenomenon of a quick consensus to post being followed by a consensus in the other direction is not a uniquely American phenomenon. There was a similar reaction at

2709:

I'm gonna start with the COT/CE/COB which will do about 90 per page and we can probably leave the the atop in place. Little regex should be easy enough I'll work on it tomorrow between meetings. Thanks for your feedback Stephen.

3075:, I certainly don't think it's "sneaky"! But I also don't think it's that rare either - it seems to happen increasingly to a greater or lesser extent on every UK/US news story for which no established posting precedent exists. — 4852:

afternoon to oppose. When it was nominated it was morning in Australia, and Indians had the opportunity to oppose through out their working day. Everyone had a fair share from when it was nominated up to when it was closed.

2132:

and all anyone can ever come up with is "what about Putin". Fuck Vladimir Putin there are 192 other countries that aren't run by Vladimir Putin and it is well past time to put the head of state/government absurdity to rest.

5485:, it is not, thus my suggestion that all noms must be subject to a 24-hour minimum. Any article, even FAs, benefit from the extra time given to ensure everything is up to snuff - decent prose, properly sourced, et cetera.-- 2154:

items listed at ITN/R are discussed outside the nom, the whole point is to prevent a recurring fight over "significance". If you disagree that something is ITN/R, take it here, and if you lose, then you lose. It happens.

2037:

Russia will have its' "elections" we know that the results are meaningless for all purposes. So while elections of heads of state are ITNR, we may argue this specific one for Russia is not really useful in this instance.

4708:

I'm posting this now" breaks the whole thing so the punishment needs to be automatic and severe. 30 day TBAN for ITN? Work it out (start a subsection if you want) and it'll need to be added to the admin instructions.

4304:. I do not care how notable or unprecedented something is. If we're going to apply a standard to nominations for the purpose of doing away with subjectivity, then we need to do it across the board. We are, after all, 579:

are one of the industry's top awards, we here at ITNC have generally not recognized VGs yet because broadly we don't have an award that has the same long-term implications as the BAFTAs in film/TV, Emmys, or Oscars.

5172:

Perhaps if more articles from other regions around the world were improved and nominated you'd not perceive the US as being "over represented"? Are any of the items in the box of poor quality or not "in the news"?

3424:

So, if there are 50 supports and no opposes for something when we're all awake, we still sit around for 8 hours? At which point all the admins have gone to bed themselves? We expect admins to make judgment calls.

5054:

So what? This nom is about giving everyone a voice right not keeping US-centric stories off the main page right? Are US based contributors less worthy? Should nationality be considered when evaluating consensus?

4029:

I'm not certain what that fact has to do with this matter. Not all 320 million of us are awake the same hours of the day; nor are the people in each and every country. It's not possible to accomodate everyone.

394:

Sorry, I’m still not clear on what you meant. I apologize for any contradictions or ambiguities in my replies. I’d be happy to try and clarify anything I wrote that was confusing, as I did not intend to mislead.

3913:

Please tell me why my judgment cannot be trusted. I don't consider the nationality of the person whose judgment I am evaluating. Maybe it is you who is not understanding why what is going on here is occurring.

2672:

Just tested by substituting a few at the top and and it seems to work in that some of August 11 is now rendered. The downside is that the stored page bytes are markedly increased. It’s probably worth running

2340:

This is sincere. We aaw with the TikTok nom as well contributors believe "global significance" is important. I just want to adhere to the guidelines, and modify then if they no longer represent the consensus.

808:, I would beg that the same could be applied around the world. No country has the best TV viewers. If we are to argue in defence of those British programs that don't make it across the pond, what then of the 1071:

a consensus to post, but it was stale before it developed fully. If the open unthinking bias of "US only" is the norm, (and it obviously is) then such fallacies are to be expected in its defence, I guess. -

5466:

And the answer is "no". But if we get tangled up in this debate - and it's one where I agree with your view that Knowledge (XXG) is NOT a news-ticker - then we're going to have to build a bigger talk page.

4757:

as arbitrary and unnecessary. It's rare that these quick postings happen and even when they do, the discussion remains open and if there is enough opposition the item will be pulled - it's happened before.

2696:

Sounds like a plan, and great to support your analytics. I'll revert my test. Do as you propose, and then perhaps subst as many atop/abot that are needed to render the remaining broken transcluded ITNs.

344:

I don’t understand how your first sentence relates to my argument. And it is not the job of ITN to decide what TV shows are best. We can only assess significance and extent of global news coverage, as per

3697:

this comes up every time something gets posted that others don't like. You all had your opposes anyway and guess what, it's still the box. If a particular admin goes off the rails, deal with that admin.

5242:

Systemic Bias is about checking yourself, not others. We are all biased, but if ITN was dominated by biased Yanks you wouldn't see multiple British sporting events contested by only two sides at ITNR.

5205:

US-centric stories. I made a proposal below to bolt "global significance" right into the requirements section, or maybe we could bring back minority topics I don't know. The fact is the US is also the

2006:

ITNR does not sidestep the question of significance, but documents that such question has been asked and debated, with the significance confirmed. I believe it should it go without saying if there is

115:

where nationalistic nonsense over "our television is better than anyone else's" is the reaction of some. There is much ignorance in that section on what the British Academy Television Awards actually

3677: 5306:

As an administrator who does not frequent ITN, it's not clear what an acceptable length of time is for consensus to develop. Guidance, even if non-binding, would be incredibly helpful to document.

5315:) is a reasonable way to do that. We have it for deletion discussions, move discussions, ban discussions, and other discussions where broad consensus is needed. It's not strange to have one here. 5285:. I don't see the need for any strict rule. There are usually enough veteran ITN editors around to prevent crass unnecessary and locally biased postings. I basically oppose on the same grounds as 3599:

You do realise that the Boston Tea Party is something that kids in the UK literally no NOTHING about? They're not taught it, no-one cares about it. It's literally a ZERO thing here. Just FYI.

1295:

represents the vested interests of old media which is losing ground to the new. I myself am watching YouTube increasingly because the content on the old broadcasting networks is stale and samey.

2398:

Please do not ... oppose an item because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive.

1876:. We need fewer recurring items, not more, so this would be a move in the wrong direction; I also don't believe this event is of such compelling significance that it needs to be on this list. 1814:

cinema, literature and music are big globally, that's why you can argue for posting the movie BAFTAs, whatever book awards UK does and the Brit Awards, but for the TV BAFTAs, it's a stretch.

788:

This definitively means the BAFTAs are drawing from a smaller pool of potential contenders and would thus potentially exclude more quality programming. Consider recent top BAFTA winners like

4550:

Is the US the only country in the world awake at 00:00 UTC? Do Canadians all have an earlier bed time than us? Do Australians and New Zealenders stay logged off until it’s nighttime there?

4449:"Holding back" sounds like an advance towards a news ticker, which ITN is not. If we wait 24 hours before publishing a newsworthy event, so what? This is, after all, an encyclopedia, not 4044:

You're not certain?? That's pretty naive. Obviously the practically instant blurb posting of the death of an American judge is evidence of this being American Knowledge (XXG). It would

1368:

per above and in particular GreatCaesarsGhost. I don't think that the fact that BATA has co-British-productions makes up for the very British and non-international nature of these awards.

170:

In support of my rationale at the ITN/C nomination that the Emmys are more important than their British counterparts, I offer as evidence the nominees for Best Drama at last year's awards:

5623:

No. Absolutely not needed. Some nominations are rather silly, and others are good-faith noms but the nominators don't know the notability standard for ITN. This is why SNOW close exists.

4353:

I will not be that person if this rule is implemented. In fact, I'll be the first to criticize the ones who try to flout this rule just for ol' Queenie's sake. And I'm a Commonwealther.--

2070:

cases, much like the assured notability for RDs - having these things defined outside of the local consensuses of ITN/C discussions does make for less acrimonious discussions overall. —

1615:. I would venture a guess to say that the chart for broadcast / network TV viewership would be similar as well. More reasons for us to accelerate our search for new-media events. Cheers. 1429:, Britain still punches above its weight in many respects, but I don't see the BAFTA TV awards as one of them. It isn't obvious to me that they are of similar importance to the Emmys. — 1250:

that your comment suggests doesn't exist is something discussed above, so it looks like you selectively ignored it. But, yes, in the US it gets rather comparable coverage with the Emmys.

2058:

I disagree that we should create a carve-out for Russian elections, or indeed elections from any other country, just because we think they may be illegitimate. That would be a breach of

1571:

awards etc etc. The problem is some of our attributions of importance still flows from the Cinema / TV age - which is alright, but, the world is for sure evolving. Cheers and Good luck.

4884:

Actually, while Europe is sleeping, it is middle of day in Australia and New Zealand, and English is an official language in former colonized lands like India, Singapore and Hong Kong.—

3928:

To be honest, I didn't expect such a baseless ad hominem from you. Where was your outrage when the Notre Dame fire got posted and had to be pulled because the article lacked an update?

4337:

Let’s be real here, many of the people pushing for this rule (not necessarily you) will be the first to say we should ignore it when Elizabeth (or Philip) inevitably kicks the bucket.

1113:

was canvassing for vote stacking. It would be the second time in as many days taht someone who knows nothing about me has claimed the ability to determine my motives and intentions. --

380:

My comment should be fairly clear, given the context of what you say. But, there again, your postings are self-contradictory, so I'm not entirely sure what your !vote is based on. -

4117:

I think you underestimate- not illogicaly- the amount of attention at least some Americans pay to the British Royal Family, especially since Meghan married into it. But I digress.

3161:, I think we can count on admins applying a time-based standard with appropriate common sense. I am against making things more complex than they need to be for obvious reasons. — 1242: 5579:

If we're going to forcibly keep debate open for 24h before posting something even if it seemed "obvious" then we need to wait 24h before closing even if that seems "obvious". --

1386:

Which of GCG's comments? Because he ended up conceding something along the lines of "TV isn't that notable so I think we should pick BAFTAs or Emmys, and I prefer the Emmys"...

5771:

find out about a lot of current events from ITN, so I understand the desire to have the front page be somewhat current, even though it's not supposed to be a news ticker :p --

2363:

DONTLIKE. (And I don't have anyone specific in mind, this is just how I'm seeing comments change) Hopefully it will calm down soon without any of these needs for intervention.

4383:

Knowledge (XXG) is not a news ticker. Having a 24-hour consultation window would be beneficial to the wider community. Trying to rush to the main page is not why ITN is here.

3967:

minimum of 8 hours. About the "if Trump were to fall dead" objection: until we agree that ITN is a news ticker and not part of an encyclopedia, this is not a valid objection.

2728:

from Anomie it's not the template count it's a byte count. We're going to have to just subst the ITN Candidate template (I'll learn to live with it or move on). Thoughts? --

4275:– Admins are supposed to use their best judgement when it comes to posting blurbs and sometimes mistakes happen. An arbitrary rule doesn't seem useful in this situation. ~ 5514:

If we're going to implement a minimum time for posting, that same minimum should apply for a "snow closing". Same duration so if it's 24h to post then it's 24h to close --

4614:

Um, amazing how you can make up so much bollocks, but well done! I'd say give it another go, but I'm afraid the best you'll come up with is "Europe=the world"!!! Inane.

1744:

Meh. Korean TV has a bigger audience in 2020 than Spanish, Belgian, Slovakian or Belizean TV combined. But yes, their awards culture is different from the West. Who knew?

2414:

That doesn't apply to "US-centric" stories in practice anyway so we'd have to remove it. Lets just have the guidelines reflect reality instead of disregarding them for "

636:(sorry for calling you out, it's for reference) are being used inaccurately. First, the nomination schedules are different, so it's hard to compare, but just looking at 2041:

is a fair argument for ITNC for the specific instance of an ITNR item due to the unique circumstances around that specific instance, and not due to the general ITNR. --

5206: 2537: 426:

Well worth reading what Kingsif writes below. Basically every single objection of yours is neatly dismissed, leaving a simple "US TV is better than UK TV" opinion.

2933:

support for a blurb, although I'm sure many would disagree. If Trump or Xi or the Queen of England died, though, I'd like to be able to report before 8 hours is up.

1810:(sorry North Koreans you can't watch). And its audiences are required to understand (and read very fast in some cases) English, just like American and British ones. 2445:. We don't have a rush of new postings such that we need to slow them down. Having greater restrictions will not help our already glacial turnover of blurbs. -- 1730:, which is an ITN requirement (and one of the main ITN/R focuses). After US and UK, you're looking at Spanish TV and Nordic Noir in terms of impact, quality, etc. 4598:

How provincial of you to think Europe=the world. And for the record, at least one user from the EU and one from NZ supported the nomination before it was posted.

3992:

Note I said "minimum". 24 hours is above the minimum. And of course, if this policy is implemented, we should admonish and refer to AN/I any admin who breaks it.

1313:

It failed as stale, with a greater than 2:1 support:oppose ratio. It was just not being attended to. The rest of your reason is literally just "I don't like TV".

984:

Strange. There are 5 supports here, and there were 9 at the ITN/C nom. And one of the supports here opposed the ITN/C: that's 5 more users you could have pinged.

3474:

for all blurbs, but not something as long as 8 hours. While corrections can be made to blurbs, we should aim to have the whole accurate story before it goes up.

2545: 2541: 2529: 2525: 4632:

It is certainly not true that there was a nefarious motive here, nothing like "let's keep those Brits or Aussies or Europeans from commenting and post now!!!"

2129: 2125: 3262: 2553: 2549: 3835:

either. There is no guarantee that an arbitrary time limit will fix the issue being mentioned nor any evidence that this is prevalent enough to need a fix. --

3108:, perhaps a different solution: A minimum number of comments, with a minimum proportion supporting? I could support something like that as a better solution. 1719: 2533: 1807: 598: 554: 970:

targeted at users who had opposed the exact same topic at ITN/C just a few weeks before. I didn't notify the supporters because they were here already. --

3301:

Just because others disagree with you does not mean their opinions should be disregarded any more than yours should be. What makes your opinion special?

3223:. A 30-min-nom-to-post discussion can by definition not build up a full discussion, even among users in a single time zone, and so cannot provide a real 2011:

Basically, whether an item is ITNR or not should not be a consensus discussion - if it is not clear and obvious that it qualifies, then it does not.

842:

Valid points. What was underlying my thoughts and unsaid is that all of these awards are somewhat trite and hopelessly subjective affairs, such that

553:

per above. And I'm going to add something below, but can we at the very least acknowledge that the BAFTA Film awards are in ITN/R, thus WP considers

515:

per Masem. As for "the epicenter of English-language TV is very skewed towards Hollywood", I think the BBC might have something to say about that.--

4681:

Remember the hours of the day aren't created equal. Some people are going to be more active at 10am compared to 10pm local time, others vice versa.

1146:

Cool so you agree you have no idea what my intentions or motivations were, and then doubled down on whining about "us-bias". Thanks for the blatant

2658:

Fair point, and either way it's a code change. Will suggest. As for the older ones, you ok with my stripping out the CE portal from months past? --

1090:

a little? Seriously there was a wall of support here with no rep from the people who had opposed the unsuccessful nom at ITN/C so I pinged them. --

94: 89: 84: 72: 67: 59: 3510:. It doesn't sound like they thought it was "likely to attract opposition". The suggested changes likely would not have changed anything here.— 1594:

With the exception of a massive spike in 2013 (ironically an unpopular ceremony), viewership of the Emmys has declined over the last 10 years.

1946: 1556:

in. I know this doesn't count as a reliable source, but I'm assuming very few friends even here watch Emmy's anymore, or just less and less.

5140:

yanks push the items they think are useful, yanks vote them in and yanks vote to keep them in. Simple. This is American Knowledge (XXG).

1467:

Funny that many international major roles and movies are actually fulfilled by UK individuals, even pretending to be yanks. Like good ol'

1458: 3403:

If there was a compiled list of past discussions where this would apply, we would have a better sense of how often this happens (or not).—

5375:. Again and again. No Boat Race comment? I begin to wonder if there are any genuinely useful contributions from you to this project. 2507:, Weirdly, everything above August 11th seems to be loading clean. So, I am wondering if there is a stray tag between August 12 and 11. 2765: 112: 3028:, I still don't really understand this objection. Eight hours post-nom is really not very much in the global scheme of things and it 2843:. One can readily imagine many situations in which it would be problematic if a major news development could not be posted promptly. 108: 4308:. Our goal is not to beat Fox News or CNN to the punch in terms of publishing a breaking news story; it's to ensure newsworthy and 1471:

who most yanks didn't even realise was English. And most of the cast of 24. It's all about the yanks but yet it's not. Funny.

192: 5726:

In the case of RBG, the notability of her death is incommensurable from a national standpoint due to its potential impact on the

5593:

Okay, but we most assuredly are not waiting 24h before posting something. 8 was the suggestion and it got taken to the woodshed.

3672:

Looking back at the blurb !votes shows this is much ado about nothing. A couple of opposes after the post were objecting to the

5393:

The stated purpose of the waiting period is to give people around the world the chance to comment. 90 minutes does not do that.

5563:

The principles and spirit matter more than literal wording, and sometimes improving Knowledge (XXG) requires making exceptions.

3680:. This never came close to being pulled for reasons other than bureaucratic procedure or non-existent minimums. Let's move on.— 107:

It seems rather odd to have one nation's television awards in the shape of the Emmys, and not to include others. Can I suggest

2266:

Considering the minimum time discussion above is really about "US-bias" I want to propose an alternate track. Let's amend the

5792: 4435:; I myself was involved in such an event. We don't need more rules, we need more nominations from other places to consider. 3629:

per GreatCaesarsGhost. Also there is no need to further complicate a process that is arbitrarily complicated to begin with.

1236: 495:

has the same quality update as we expect for award ceremonies (more than just of awards, some details on the ceremonies). --

4655:, we realise that other non-American contributors exist, outside Europe, just in low numbers compared to Europe, we're not 3585:

While I can agree with this in principle, how would you word "likely to be serious opposition" into objective guidelines?

1915: 740: 464: 417: 371: 316: 264: 220: 159: 5544:

A closed nom says in bold red text "Please do not modify it" ... 24h for post, 24h for close. Seems pretty sane to me. --

3981:

Why not a full 24 hours? Should we admonish and refer to AN/I any admin who violates the mandatory cooling off period? --

2185:

Then make a proposal pertinent to the specific failings, in this case what is covered in the space exploration category.

575:

BAFTA awards are notable for ITNR just yet. For example, while I know I would speak for the video games project that the

47: 17: 5674: 5415:

noms ITNR or otherwise without exception. If we are going to bow to this absurdity that's the only workable proposal. --

4401:

How does artificially holding back articles (based on an arbitrary time) that people might be looking for help readers?

2985: 2646:

Why not substitute the templates and save the result? Don’t remove atop and abot as there is rationale in the closing.

793: 576: 5596: 5532: 5432: 5344: 5245: 3436: 3387: 2916: 2877: 2778: 2205: 2173: 2014: 1968: 849: 815: 797: 762: 228: 5337:

Eight hours is a little crazy, and that nom is going nowhere. But 20 minutes is ridiculous, too. So how about we try

3357: 1613: 693: 4913:

Service workers in HK, generally no. White collar would read and write, speaking level varies on their background.—

1530:

Point of information: Bollywood isn't just TV, and it does have two awards in ITN/R. As a personal response, I find

532:"popular" programmes don't equate to "quality" programmes. BAFTA selects the latter, and there's no shame in that. 5704: 5456: 5429:

Okay but 8 hours is dead. So right now we're back to no minimum at all. I think something IS better than nothing.

5381: 5268: 5194: 5162: 5146: 5115: 5076: 5009: 4665: 4620: 4588: 4463: 4137: 4054: 4019: 3851: 3806: 3605: 2769:

minimum time of discussion before posting. I find this suggestion very sound and would like to propose introducing

2223: 2191: 1477: 1414: 538: 432: 38: 3765:

We give a bloody boat race every year when there's no pandemic a free pass, yet people get all riled up for this?

804:

was nominated, but lost to a program ineligible for BAFTA. - - - If we are to argue in favor of promoting British

5362: 4904: 4872: 4857: 4796: 3770: 3739: 1940: 1856: 1819: 1749: 1702: 1339: 1300: 3220: 1269:

do that, so there's no available comparison. We'll have to take the media coverage of the awards at face value.

5106: 5040:

I wonder if there's a major discrepancy between how US editors are voting on this, compared to non-US editors.

2495: 2124:

If Putin transfers all power to the minister of mines and assumes that role, we should put "minister of mines"

1454: 1373: 681:

the BAFTA juries. We're not here to decide if the selection process is solid, but if the ceremony is notable.

1592: 4842: 4813: 4763: 4280: 3634: 3426: 3272: 3234: 3168: 3132: 3082: 3043: 1697:

is a real thing in the 2010s (and 2020) but ITN is stuck in bullshit US vs UK drama to even recognize that.

957: 878: 520: 4251:

While I don't think a time limit is particularly necessary, this instance is indeed extraordinary. Admins (

1110: 967: 949: 5286: 4977: 3398: 3383: 2925: 2912: 2886: 2873: 2774: 2561: 1939:– ITN has slowed to a crawl. Per Kingsif and Calidum, let's give more non-sport nominations a chance. --- 3224: 5482: 5451: 5376: 5263: 5189: 5157: 5141: 5125:

So should only a subset of nominations be subject to a 24 hour waiting period and if so which subset? --

5110: 5071: 5004: 4728: 4660: 4615: 4583: 4458: 4132: 4049: 4014: 3801: 3600: 2848: 2470: 2218: 2186: 1472: 1409: 533: 427: 188: 5086: 1017: 4228:

We’re posting news items on the front page of a website, not launching nuclear weapons. Jesus Christ.

3748: 3356:: Not at all. Posts have been pulled before based on continued discussions after the an initial post. 3036:

issue, to me at least is in cases like this where very few users have actually been able to comment. —

889: 5565:

You really should read the close as "Please do not modify it (if it's going to be a waste of time)".—

5358: 4989:

this has been open for 2 days now and gotten 26 !votes - time to refer it to requests for closure? --

4900: 4868: 4853: 4792: 3944:

Not outraged, just disappointed. I was willing to flip my !vote if some understanding was expressed.

3766: 3735: 3652:

an acceptable option though as long as there a quality article and concensus is there for posting. --

3354:... depriving many users of the right to actively participate in discussions and share their thoughts 2128:

and move on. We have this utterly baffling fixation with "head of state" around here when there is a

1952: 1852: 1815: 1745: 1698: 1561: 1335: 1296: 1055: 913: 224: 4305: 3832: 3452: 1202: 5644: 5614: 5584: 5549: 5519: 5472: 5420: 5321: 5293: 5219: 5178: 5130: 5095: 5060: 5024: 4994: 4743: 4714: 4501: 4421: 4388: 4215: 4152: 4090: 3986: 3785: 3756: 3720: 3703: 2733: 2715: 2687: 2663: 2637: 2622: 2605: 2578: 2504: 2491: 2480: 2423: 2383: 2346: 2284: 2160: 2138: 1505: 1450: 1369: 1155: 1118: 1095: 1041: 1005: 975: 939: 898: 809: 5041: 4682: 3993: 3968: 3676:

determination, not really offering a substantive objection to the blurb's merits. Sort of akin to

3586: 2596: 1847:

They probably didn't copy the post-WWII awards shows in the West because maybe they were too busy

557:

as an awarding body to be notable - some of the "arguments" at the ITN/C were just slating BAFTA.

5795: 5776: 5712:

should be looking at the media response and if the death is notable rather than run of the mill.

4838: 4809: 4759: 4276: 4261: 4182: 3950: 3903: 3630: 3289: 3267: 3229: 3202:

any arbitrary minimum discussion time, as I have in the past. There is no problem here to solve.

3163: 3149: 3141: 3127: 3113: 3105: 3096: 3077: 3063: 3052: 3038: 2994: 2938: 2894: 2831: 2451: 2248: 1715: 1693:

awards shows. Those shows routinely get bigger audiences than British or Indian TV(!) worldwide.

1525: 1137: 1077: 953: 873: 516: 385: 335: 284: 124: 5372: 3430: 5798: 5780: 5750: 5721: 5697: 5648: 5633: 5618: 5603: 5588: 5574: 5553: 5539: 5523: 5501: 5476: 5461: 5439: 5424: 5402: 5386: 5366: 5351: 5326: 5298: 5273: 5252: 5223: 5199: 5182: 5167: 5151: 5134: 5120: 5099: 5081: 5064: 5049: 5028: 5014: 4998: 4981: 4964: 4939: 4922: 4908: 4893: 4876: 4861: 4846: 4832: 4817: 4800: 4785: 4767: 4747: 4732: 4718: 4690: 4670: 4641: 4625: 4609: 4593: 4576: 4561: 4541: 4505: 4482: 4468: 4444: 4425: 4410: 4392: 4369: 4348: 4328: 4296:

nominations. All of them. ITN/R and Non-ITN/R. This includes deaths of titanic figures such as

4284: 4265: 4239: 4219: 4187: 4170: 4156: 4142: 4126: 4112: 4094: 4080: 4059: 4039: 4024: 4001: 3976: 3955: 3939: 3923: 3908: 3881: 3858: 3811: 3789: 3774: 3760: 3743: 3724: 3707: 3689: 3664: 3638: 3610: 3594: 3580: 3562: 3543: 3519: 3501: 3483: 3466: 3443: 3412: 3391: 3369: 3337: 3310: 3293: 3276: 3255: 3238: 3211: 3172: 3153: 3136: 3117: 3100: 3086: 3067: 3047: 2999: 2977: 2942: 2920: 2898: 2881: 2852: 2835: 2817: 2800: 2782: 2737: 2719: 2704: 2691: 2667: 2653: 2641: 2626: 2609: 2582: 2565: 2516: 2499: 2484: 2458: 2427: 2409: 2387: 2372: 2350: 2335: 2320: 2305: 2288: 2255: 2228: 2212: 2196: 2180: 2164: 2142: 2115: 2101: 2079: 2053: 2021: 1995: 1975: 1956: 1929: 1899: 1880: 1860: 1841: 1823: 1800: 1776: 1753: 1739: 1706: 1674: 1656: 1624: 1603: 1580: 1565: 1543: 1509: 1482: 1462: 1438: 1419: 1395: 1377: 1360: 1343: 1322: 1304: 1278: 1259: 1218: 1195: 1159: 1141: 1122: 1081: 1059: 1045: 1031: 993: 979: 961: 943: 902: 880: 856: 837: 822: 769: 744: 705: 610: 592: 566: 543: 524: 507: 468: 437: 421: 389: 375: 339: 320: 288: 274:

I'm not sure what the list of the nominations is supposed to prove, but it's fairly clear that

268: 163: 128: 5744: 5717: 5691: 5570: 5495: 5045: 4973: 4935: 4918: 4889: 4828: 4781: 4686: 4537: 4363: 4322: 4166: 3997: 3972: 3685: 3590: 3576: 3558: 3515: 3497: 3479: 3408: 3365: 2965: 2701: 2650: 2557: 2405: 2368: 2331: 2111: 2075: 1991: 1909: 1772: 1735: 1652: 1599: 1539: 1434: 1391: 1318: 1274: 1255: 1214: 1191: 1027: 989: 833: 736: 701: 606: 562: 460: 413: 367: 312: 260: 155: 5307: 4652: 3673: 3382:

misused as a starting point and a strong argument against (normally, there are exceptions).--

3284:, that is the second time you've assumed bad faith in this issue. Warning left on user talk. 2393: 2059: 1022:

those who left comments at the ITN/C who weren't invited and haven't already commented here.

688:

reported on the results before the BBC, i.e. the channel that broadcasted the ceremony, did.

5630: 5398: 5357:

How about this: No posting of anything except for ITNR and RDs between 22:00 and 6:00 UTC.

4960: 4724: 4637: 4572: 4478: 4440: 4406: 4122: 4035: 3919: 3890: 3876: 3568: 3306: 3207: 2866: 2844: 2813: 2316: 1718:- this uncited article for a ceremony that regularly doesn't present half of its awards? Or 5763: 5558: 5312: 4705: 4432: 4206: 2588: 2267: 2067: 1689:

Want to beat TV-centric English-language news coverage bias? This won't fly, but post some

1147: 1087: 684:

On that note, I have to reiterate from the ITN/C that US outlets were covering the BAFTAs.

346: 5731: 4416:

posting on the main page, and we need to be aware of any timezone bias, US- or otherwise.

4297: 4252: 4108: 3660: 3539: 3333: 3251: 2973: 2097: 2049: 1877: 1837: 1796: 1637: 1557: 1051: 1001: 588: 503: 196: 179: 5767: 5210: 2791:- Even a lower limit of 5 or 6 hours would be better than where we are at the moment. -- 1248:

evidence that these awards are even remotely comparable to the Emmys in global notability

1238:), while for the week of June 8 (the only one I could find) the US peak was 9.4 million ( 4085:

Why would we need admins from different regions? It's either in the news or it's not. --

3263:

Knowledge (XXG):In the news/Candidates/June 2020#(Closed) 2020 Forbury Gardens stabbings

5640: 5610: 5580: 5545: 5515: 5468: 5416: 5318: 5290: 5215: 5174: 5126: 5091: 5056: 5020: 4990: 4739: 4710: 4497: 4417: 4384: 4301: 4211: 4148: 4086: 4076: 3982: 3843: 3781: 3752: 3716: 3699: 2729: 2711: 2683: 2659: 2633: 2618: 2601: 2574: 2512: 2476: 2419: 2379: 2357: 2342: 2280: 2156: 2134: 1670: 1620: 1576: 1501: 1356: 1151: 1114: 1091: 1037: 971: 935: 894: 789: 5789: 5772: 4899:

There are too few Singaporeans, I don't think I encountered anyone from SG in ITN/C.

4257: 4177: 3945: 3898: 3894: 3285: 3158: 3145: 3122: 3109: 3092: 3072: 3059: 3025: 2989: 2934: 2905: 2890: 2862: 2827: 2796: 2446: 2415: 2243: 1133: 1104: 1073: 1009: 381: 331: 280: 184: 120: 2089:

want to document that the appropriateness of a listed ITNR should not be at ITNC. --

5736: 5713: 5683: 5566: 5487: 5408: 4931: 4930:

world with literally billions of people to 4 million people in NZ is ridiculous. --

4914: 4885: 4824: 4805: 4777: 4599: 4551: 4533: 4355: 4338: 4314: 4229: 4162: 3929: 3681: 3572: 3554: 3511: 3493: 3475: 3456: 3404: 3376: 3361: 2911:

average time of posting nominations, it is well beyond the proposed minimum time.--

2698: 2647: 2401: 2364: 2327: 2295: 2107: 2071: 1987: 1919: 1905: 1889: 1768: 1731: 1690: 1648: 1595: 1535: 1489: 1430: 1387: 1314: 1270: 1251: 1232: 1210: 1187: 1023: 985: 921: 829: 720: 697: 633: 602: 558: 444: 397: 351: 296: 244: 139: 3219:, either the 8 hours proposed or some other minimum time. We are an encyclopedia, 5019:

No rush, didn't realize there was a guideline in place. Thanks for clarifying. --

5394: 4956: 4647:

one took the yankee biscuit, less than 30 minutes from nom to full blurb. When

4633: 4568: 4490: 4474: 4436: 4402: 4118: 4031: 3915: 3867: 3549:

that, and I find it hard to imagine that many would consider the posting of RBG

3302: 3203: 3032:

not even need to be binding where there is a very strong consensus to post. The

2809: 2312: 1694: 1468: 1426: 1013: 801: 215: 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

4048:

work for any other individual of any other nationality on Earth, we know that.

2524:

Too many templates. Per the category, it is also happening at the archives for

4201: 4101: 3653: 3535: 3329: 3298: 3281: 3247: 2969: 2090: 2042: 1848: 1830: 1789: 1207: 934:

who opposed the nom at ITN/C on notability grounds to have a voice here too --

581: 496: 200: 3091:

Sorry, that was a snarky joke not directed at you, I shouldn't have said it.

1532:

American ceremonies in that field take priority over those of other countries

4659:

you know), it's simple irony that an Amurican will get a free pass to ITN.

4072: 3837: 2508: 1666: 1641: 1616: 1572: 1352: 929: 204: 2617:

to see if they can strip out the CE transclusion from the archive pages. --

718:

These are very convincing arguments. I have changed my !vote accordingly.

4450: 2792: 1493: 1239: 4723:

Let's not. That would take this horrendous idea and make it even worse.

2066:. I do agree that ITN/R is pretty much irrefutable though, barring huge 4454: 2725: 2614: 2469:

Anyone know why none of the templates rendered in the August archives?

800:, which were eligible for but not even nominated for Emmys. Top winner 325:

SO that fact that UK-US co-productions are nominated at both the Emmys

4131:

I thought Meg was from Canadia, a place of which no yank dare speak?

5727: 4473:

ITN is not a news ticker, but it should also be timely and relevant.

2471:

https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates/August_2020

3429:. We can say the RBG was posted to quickly without jumping to this 2326:

global interest. This is a rule creep that would harm the project.

5214:

discussion open long enough for people to erect a wall of text. --

1888:. Anything to keep ITN from turning into a doom and gloom ticker. 4738:

to get a second admin to okay a nomination for a certain period?

1127:

When someone pings everyone from one side of a discussion, it is

5003:

Typically, requests for comment run for 14 days. Why the rush?

779:

the Emmy and BAFTA to me is that the Emmy awards those programs

113:

Knowledge (XXG):In the news/Candidates#British Academy TV awards

3715:

minimum must be for 24h and for all noms ITNR and RD as well --

1534:

to be objectionable, I'm sure you've read why above already ;)

3451:

per many of the comments above, particularly those concerning

1612:

Yup. Seems like the Oscars are having the same issue as well.

1109:

please describe the methodology you used to determine that my

25: 1334:

as not posted this year. Supporters can try again next year.

5209:

in the world so we're going to get more articles and better

3732:

Support 24 hours, oppose any other time limit less than that

2027:

What should not be happening at ITNC is the question of the

1449:

those of India if they have them, with Bollywood and all. –

3831:", yes Knowledge (XXG) is not news, but Knowledge (XXG) is 2771:

minimum time of 8 hours before posting non-ITNR nominations

5156:

Right now, 50% of ITN is AMERICAN-centric. Say no more.

5339:

a 90 minute waiting period between nomination and posting

4176:

Canada eh? Mounties eh? Moose eh? Heritage buildings eh?

3678:

Knowledge (XXG):Don't revert due solely to "no consensus"

3508:

There appears to be overwhelming support for a full blurb

1720:

another one of the 15 TV awards ceremonies in South Korea

664:(which it has for the past three years, natch). Equally, 103:(Attention) Add British Academy Television Awards to ITNR 2274:

The event is considered significant to a global audience

3530:

Expect that there was then very significant opposition

2592: 2063: 668:

took more noms at the Emmys this year than the BAFTAs.

783:

in the US, where the BAFTA is concerned with programs

5109:

of the tragedy, nor the square-footage of the fire.

4808:

You are completely wrong, as Howard the Duck says.--

4651:

of Europe are sleeping (and Calidum, no need to be a

1808:

far bigger from outside its homeland than from within

5734:

comparison. Globally, it's relatively meaningless.--

5677:

is now its own article, which perhaps might be some

1726:self-aggrandizing. No apparent notability in these 1492:is English until I read he fooled the producers of 1111:

Knowledge (XXG):Canvassing#Appropriate_notification

968:

Knowledge (XXG):Canvassing#Appropriate_notification

111:are added to the regular list. It would help avoid 4837:That's an interesting definition of "rapidly." -- 4147:Oh that's not true, no one speaks of Canada.... -- 2002:There should be no debate about if an item is ITNR 4955:: An arbitrary solution in want of a problem. - 3836: 1496:during his audition. You Brits really excel at 597:Agreed - for clarity, I've added a wikilink to 5289:further above (not their last comment :-). --- 2270:criteria to stipulate a 3rd hard requirement: 1231:I think you missed the point to that comment, 4704:ok so if we go through with this, the first " 2465:Templates not rendered in the August archives 8: 5762:. (I'll just continue the !vote list here.) 5529:Unneeded as anyone can reopen a closed nom. 5087:the Notre Dame fire was posted in 52 minutes 2106:Yep, fair enough. Fully agree with this. — 5681:evidence as to why a blurb was warranted.-- 5407:Yeah the only equitable proposal so far is 5090:then US-based people are "everyone" too. -- 599:British Academy of Film and Television Arts 5673:Although it is being proposed for merger, 620: 571:I would just be careful that we don't say 5450:question here is: is ITN a news ticker? 2930:when the article is already in good shape 2492:This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang 2126:in the green box on this table for Russia 844:we should post as few of them as possible 601:, as the body and not individual awards. 2760:Introducing minimum time before posting 5562: 4013:this isn't American Knowledge (XXG). 3507: 3353: 2397: 1531: 1247: 1086:Blatant canvassing? Oh come on, maybe 948:Er, you can't do that - it's textbook 672: 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 5333:minimum time before posting part deux 4312:articles are sent to the main page.-- 3057:, aren't doing anything "sneaky" lol 846:. Given the two, I prefer the Emmys. 7: 2964:That would be a bit stale since the 2490:Huh, very weird. No idea why though 5207:largest english speaking population 2573:We know it's too many templates? -- 4210:to countries found undesirable. -- 24: 3889:With reluctance. I do agree with 2615:started a discussion at AnomieBOT 2217:Well time to call it a day then. 2130:list of who is actually in charge 890:failed to gain consensus at ITN/C 109:British Academy Television Awards 29: 18:Knowledge (XXG) talk:In the news 2766:discussion on an ITN nomination 810:many other domestic award shows 632:The 'examples' listed above by 5751:13:22, 22 September 2020 (UTC) 5722:13:04, 22 September 2020 (UTC) 5698:12:19, 22 September 2020 (UTC) 5649:16:12, 22 September 2020 (UTC) 5634:15:11, 22 September 2020 (UTC) 5619:12:14, 22 September 2020 (UTC) 5604:11:46, 22 September 2020 (UTC) 5589:10:37, 22 September 2020 (UTC) 5575:02:33, 22 September 2020 (UTC) 5554:01:13, 22 September 2020 (UTC) 5540:00:42, 22 September 2020 (UTC) 5524:23:01, 21 September 2020 (UTC) 5502:12:26, 22 September 2020 (UTC) 5477:23:13, 21 September 2020 (UTC) 5462:22:52, 21 September 2020 (UTC) 5440:00:39, 22 September 2020 (UTC) 5425:22:48, 21 September 2020 (UTC) 5403:22:34, 21 September 2020 (UTC) 5387:21:48, 21 September 2020 (UTC) 5367:21:08, 21 September 2020 (UTC) 5352:20:42, 21 September 2020 (UTC) 5299:19:11, 22 September 2020 (UTC) 5274:21:44, 22 September 2020 (UTC) 5253:11:52, 22 September 2020 (UTC) 5224:23:47, 21 September 2020 (UTC) 5200:23:35, 21 September 2020 (UTC) 5183:23:25, 21 September 2020 (UTC) 5168:23:06, 21 September 2020 (UTC) 5152:23:03, 21 September 2020 (UTC) 5135:22:59, 21 September 2020 (UTC) 5121:22:51, 21 September 2020 (UTC) 5100:22:21, 21 September 2020 (UTC) 5082:21:52, 21 September 2020 (UTC) 5065:21:02, 21 September 2020 (UTC) 5050:20:19, 21 September 2020 (UTC) 5029:20:11, 21 September 2020 (UTC) 5015:19:55, 21 September 2020 (UTC) 4999:19:52, 21 September 2020 (UTC) 4982:08:09, 21 September 2020 (UTC) 4965:05:31, 21 September 2020 (UTC) 4940:21:50, 21 September 2020 (UTC) 4923:16:57, 21 September 2020 (UTC) 4909:15:25, 21 September 2020 (UTC) 4894:13:55, 21 September 2020 (UTC) 4877:13:39, 21 September 2020 (UTC) 4862:13:33, 21 September 2020 (UTC) 4847:13:28, 21 September 2020 (UTC) 4833:13:12, 21 September 2020 (UTC) 4818:13:07, 21 September 2020 (UTC) 4801:11:54, 21 September 2020 (UTC) 4786:11:43, 21 September 2020 (UTC) 4768:01:28, 21 September 2020 (UTC) 4748:07:02, 21 September 2020 (UTC) 4733:01:06, 21 September 2020 (UTC) 4719:00:37, 21 September 2020 (UTC) 4691:20:19, 21 September 2020 (UTC) 4671:20:52, 20 September 2020 (UTC) 4642:20:34, 20 September 2020 (UTC) 4626:20:52, 20 September 2020 (UTC) 4610:20:30, 20 September 2020 (UTC) 4594:20:24, 20 September 2020 (UTC) 4582:but that was how it happened. 4577:20:21, 20 September 2020 (UTC) 4562:20:16, 20 September 2020 (UTC) 4542:20:07, 20 September 2020 (UTC) 4506:20:30, 20 September 2020 (UTC) 4483:20:23, 20 September 2020 (UTC) 4469:20:19, 20 September 2020 (UTC) 4445:19:56, 20 September 2020 (UTC) 4426:18:49, 20 September 2020 (UTC) 4411:18:38, 20 September 2020 (UTC) 4393:18:32, 20 September 2020 (UTC) 4370:19:08, 20 September 2020 (UTC) 4349:18:57, 20 September 2020 (UTC) 4329:17:10, 20 September 2020 (UTC) 4285:05:02, 20 September 2020 (UTC) 4266:02:55, 20 September 2020 (UTC) 4240:00:19, 20 September 2020 (UTC) 4220:00:00, 20 September 2020 (UTC) 4188:23:09, 20 September 2020 (UTC) 4171:03:48, 20 September 2020 (UTC) 4157:23:55, 19 September 2020 (UTC) 4143:23:27, 19 September 2020 (UTC) 4127:23:24, 19 September 2020 (UTC) 4113:23:11, 19 September 2020 (UTC) 4095:23:06, 19 September 2020 (UTC) 4081:22:55, 19 September 2020 (UTC) 4060:23:37, 19 September 2020 (UTC) 4040:23:27, 19 September 2020 (UTC) 4025:22:51, 19 September 2020 (UTC) 4002:22:48, 19 September 2020 (UTC) 3977:22:41, 19 September 2020 (UTC) 3956:23:09, 20 September 2020 (UTC) 3940:04:59, 20 September 2020 (UTC) 3924:22:07, 19 September 2020 (UTC) 3909:21:53, 19 September 2020 (UTC) 3882:21:27, 19 September 2020 (UTC) 3859:20:47, 19 September 2020 (UTC) 3827:ITN is supposed to be "in the 3812:22:50, 19 September 2020 (UTC) 3790:20:29, 19 September 2020 (UTC) 3775:20:24, 19 September 2020 (UTC) 3761:20:20, 19 September 2020 (UTC) 3744:20:19, 19 September 2020 (UTC) 3725:10:39, 22 September 2020 (UTC) 3708:19:42, 19 September 2020 (UTC) 3690:18:33, 19 September 2020 (UTC) 3665:17:29, 19 September 2020 (UTC) 3639:16:04, 19 September 2020 (UTC) 3611:23:26, 19 September 2020 (UTC) 3595:22:52, 19 September 2020 (UTC) 3581:17:19, 19 September 2020 (UTC) 3563:16:59, 19 September 2020 (UTC) 3544:15:51, 19 September 2020 (UTC) 3520:15:23, 19 September 2020 (UTC) 3502:14:43, 19 September 2020 (UTC) 3484:14:36, 19 September 2020 (UTC) 3467:14:04, 19 September 2020 (UTC) 3444:13:53, 19 September 2020 (UTC) 3413:13:38, 19 September 2020 (UTC) 3392:13:05, 19 September 2020 (UTC) 3370:12:57, 19 September 2020 (UTC) 3338:15:51, 19 September 2020 (UTC) 3311:14:23, 19 September 2020 (UTC) 3294:13:31, 19 September 2020 (UTC) 3277:13:03, 19 September 2020 (UTC) 3256:12:54, 19 September 2020 (UTC) 3239:12:48, 19 September 2020 (UTC) 3212:12:38, 19 September 2020 (UTC) 3173:15:19, 19 September 2020 (UTC) 3154:14:22, 19 September 2020 (UTC) 3137:14:05, 19 September 2020 (UTC) 3118:13:56, 19 September 2020 (UTC) 3101:13:53, 19 September 2020 (UTC) 3087:13:49, 19 September 2020 (UTC) 3068:13:44, 19 September 2020 (UTC) 3048:12:56, 19 September 2020 (UTC) 3000:01:57, 21 September 2020 (UTC) 2978:12:55, 19 September 2020 (UTC) 2943:12:30, 19 September 2020 (UTC) 2921:12:21, 19 September 2020 (UTC) 2899:12:05, 19 September 2020 (UTC) 2882:11:58, 19 September 2020 (UTC) 2853:11:51, 19 September 2020 (UTC) 2836:11:38, 19 September 2020 (UTC) 2818:11:35, 19 September 2020 (UTC) 2801:11:20, 19 September 2020 (UTC) 2783:11:00, 19 September 2020 (UTC) 2738:21:06, 29 September 2020 (UTC) 2720:00:14, 29 September 2020 (UTC) 2705:23:29, 28 September 2020 (UTC) 2692:23:16, 28 September 2020 (UTC) 2668:22:57, 28 September 2020 (UTC) 2654:22:46, 28 September 2020 (UTC) 2642:22:21, 28 September 2020 (UTC) 2627:22:19, 28 September 2020 (UTC) 2610:22:08, 28 September 2020 (UTC) 2600:just stop doing it already. -- 2583:14:57, 28 September 2020 (UTC) 2566:21:50, 26 September 2020 (UTC) 2517:16:06, 25 September 2020 (UTC) 2500:15:04, 25 September 2020 (UTC) 2485:20:51, 24 September 2020 (UTC) 2459:14:13, 29 September 2020 (UTC) 2428:09:59, 23 September 2020 (UTC) 2410:01:17, 23 September 2020 (UTC) 2388:00:47, 23 September 2020 (UTC) 2373:13:07, 22 September 2020 (UTC) 2351:11:22, 20 September 2020 (UTC) 2336:11:11, 20 September 2020 (UTC) 2321:07:22, 20 September 2020 (UTC) 2306:00:21, 20 September 2020 (UTC) 2289:00:07, 20 September 2020 (UTC) 2256:14:10, 29 September 2020 (UTC) 2229:22:10, 28 September 2020 (UTC) 2213:14:02, 28 September 2020 (UTC) 2197:09:30, 28 September 2020 (UTC) 2181:01:47, 28 September 2020 (UTC) 2165:23:08, 27 September 2020 (UTC) 2143:23:24, 27 September 2020 (UTC) 2116:19:03, 26 September 2020 (UTC) 2102:18:28, 26 September 2020 (UTC) 2080:18:25, 26 September 2020 (UTC) 2054:15:31, 26 September 2020 (UTC) 2022:14:45, 26 September 2020 (UTC) 1996:22:09, 28 September 2020 (UTC) 1976:01:31, 19 September 2020 (UTC) 1957:17:36, 14 September 2020 (UTC) 1132:participate in any further. - 1: 5510:minimum time for closing noms 3567:Meh, bad blood dates back to 1777:20:16, 9 September 2020 (UTC) 1050:Appreciate the ping Kingsif! 5675:death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg 2826:blurb can simply be pulled. 2262:Global significance criteria 794:The End of the F***ing World 694:live posting the whole event 577:British Academy Games Awards 5799:06:46, 3 October 2020 (UTC) 5781:16:45, 2 October 2020 (UTC) 5327:03:58, 4 October 2020 (UTC) 5259:IT HAD TO HAPPEN KLAXON!!!! 4205:"significance" criteria at 3797:IT HAD TO HAPPEN KLAXON!!!! 2632:unilateral TBAN applied. -- 1930:16:53, 21 August 2020 (UTC) 1904:I'd also like to add, from 1900:15:24, 21 August 2020 (UTC) 1881:16:37, 18 August 2020 (UTC) 1861:19:04, 14 August 2020 (UTC) 1842:18:55, 14 August 2020 (UTC) 1824:18:45, 14 August 2020 (UTC) 1801:17:46, 14 August 2020 (UTC) 1754:13:37, 14 August 2020 (UTC) 1740:13:28, 14 August 2020 (UTC) 1707:12:58, 14 August 2020 (UTC) 1675:01:02, 14 August 2020 (UTC) 1657:00:51, 14 August 2020 (UTC) 1625:00:31, 14 August 2020 (UTC) 1604:00:14, 14 August 2020 (UTC) 1581:23:52, 13 August 2020 (UTC) 1566:23:46, 13 August 2020 (UTC) 1544:23:37, 13 August 2020 (UTC) 1510:01:36, 14 August 2020 (UTC) 1483:23:36, 13 August 2020 (UTC) 1463:23:18, 13 August 2020 (UTC) 1439:10:30, 14 August 2020 (UTC) 1420:22:57, 13 August 2020 (UTC) 1396:22:52, 13 August 2020 (UTC) 1378:22:35, 13 August 2020 (UTC) 1361:17:50, 13 August 2020 (UTC) 1344:12:46, 13 August 2020 (UTC) 1323:22:36, 13 August 2020 (UTC) 1305:10:38, 13 August 2020 (UTC) 1279:22:52, 13 August 2020 (UTC) 1260:22:36, 13 August 2020 (UTC) 1219:12:12, 13 August 2020 (UTC) 1196:10:32, 13 August 2020 (UTC) 1160:22:14, 14 August 2020 (UTC) 1142:21:56, 14 August 2020 (UTC) 1123:21:48, 14 August 2020 (UTC) 1082:13:55, 14 August 2020 (UTC) 1060:23:46, 13 August 2020 (UTC) 1046:23:19, 13 August 2020 (UTC) 1032:23:06, 13 August 2020 (UTC) 994:22:41, 13 August 2020 (UTC) 980:13:49, 13 August 2020 (UTC) 962:12:43, 13 August 2020 (UTC) 944:10:25, 13 August 2020 (UTC) 903:10:22, 13 August 2020 (UTC) 888:is this for real? The item 673:popularity and significance 625:Further comments by Kingsif 539:Stay indoors, stay safe!!!! 433:Stay indoors, stay safe!!!! 5815: 5070:country on planet Earth. 1241:): in a week the LA Times 881:10:10, 6 August 2020 (UTC) 857:11:07, 6 August 2020 (UTC) 838:20:13, 5 August 2020 (UTC) 823:19:57, 5 August 2020 (UTC) 770:17:03, 5 August 2020 (UTC) 745:21:48, 4 August 2020 (UTC) 706:21:37, 4 August 2020 (UTC) 611:22:51, 4 August 2020 (UTC) 593:22:46, 4 August 2020 (UTC) 567:21:37, 4 August 2020 (UTC) 544:21:35, 4 August 2020 (UTC) 525:20:26, 4 August 2020 (UTC) 508:20:21, 4 August 2020 (UTC) 469:21:48, 4 August 2020 (UTC) 438:21:43, 4 August 2020 (UTC) 422:21:28, 4 August 2020 (UTC) 390:21:19, 4 August 2020 (UTC) 376:21:15, 4 August 2020 (UTC) 340:20:50, 4 August 2020 (UTC) 321:20:17, 4 August 2020 (UTC) 289:20:08, 4 August 2020 (UTC) 269:17:34, 4 August 2020 (UTC) 164:21:48, 4 August 2020 (UTC) 129:16:20, 4 August 2020 (UTC) 4791:closed is a blatant lie. 2872:easily found elsewhere.-- 678:because they deserve them 5411:suggesting 24 hours for 4867:closing the discussion. 4292:only if this applies to 3780:Oh no, don't go there -- 3506:The poster had written: 2595:that there is in fact a 1036:Cool, thanks Kingsif. -- 5669:arbitrary section break 3800:"OH THE HUMANITY!!!". 3427:Hard cases make bad law 2984:Nonsense Sir. The last 2764:Some users in a recent 1965:this than omitting it. 5457:Hands! Face! Space!!!! 5382:Hands! Face! Space!!!! 5269:Hands! Face! Space!!!! 5262:"OH THE HUMANITY!!!". 5195:Hands! Face! Space!!!! 5163:Hands! Face! Space!!!! 5147:Hands! Face! Space!!!! 5116:Hands! Face! Space!!!! 5077:Hands! Face! Space!!!! 5010:Hands! Face! Space!!!! 4666:Hands! Face! Space!!!! 4621:Hands! Face! Space!!!! 4589:Hands! Face! Space!!!! 4464:Hands! Face! Space!!!! 4161:Nor speaks Canadian. — 4138:Hands! Face! Space!!!! 4055:Hands! Face! Space!!!! 4020:Hands! Face! Space!!!! 3807:Hands! Face! Space!!!! 3606:Hands! Face! Space!!!! 2224:Hands! Face! Space!!!! 2192:Hands! Face! Space!!!! 1591:Stats for Al's point: 1478:Hands! Face! Space!!!! 1415:Hands! Face! Space!!!! 42:of past discussions. 5705:Death of Naya Rivera 5703:We have a draft of 4290:Conditional support 2928:, the average time 2268:WP:ITN#Significance 2064:posted the last one 671:Then the matter of 193:The Handmaid's Tale 4774:didn't remain open 1849:killing each other 1716:Korea Drama Awards 1332:Close as not added 5748: 5695: 5601: 5598:GreatCaesarsGhost 5537: 5534:GreatCaesarsGhost 5499: 5460: 5437: 5434:GreatCaesarsGhost 5385: 5349: 5346:GreatCaesarsGhost 5311:time (subject to 5296: 5272: 5250: 5247:GreatCaesarsGhost 5198: 5166: 5150: 5119: 5080: 5013: 4669: 4624: 4592: 4467: 4433:consensus changed 4367: 4326: 4190: 4141: 4058: 4023: 3810: 3792: 3609: 3441: 3438:GreatCaesarsGhost 3399:Kiril Simeonovski 3384:Kiril Simeonovski 3358:WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY 3002: 2980: 2926:Kiril Simeonovski 2913:Kiril Simeonovski 2887:Kiril Simeonovski 2874:Kiril Simeonovski 2775:Kiril Simeonovski 2227: 2210: 2207:GreatCaesarsGhost 2195: 2178: 2175:GreatCaesarsGhost 2062:. And indeed, we 2019: 2016:GreatCaesarsGhost 1973: 1970:GreatCaesarsGhost 1529: 1512: 1488:I didn't realize 1481: 1418: 854: 851:GreatCaesarsGhost 820: 817:GreatCaesarsGhost 767: 764:GreatCaesarsGhost 712: 711: 542: 436: 100: 99: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 5806: 5766:discussions and 5742: 5689: 5629: 5599: 5595: 5535: 5531: 5493: 5483:The Rambling Man 5454: 5452:The Rambling Man 5435: 5431: 5379: 5377:The Rambling Man 5347: 5343: 5325: 5294: 5266: 5264:The Rambling Man 5248: 5244: 5192: 5190:The Rambling Man 5160: 5158:The Rambling Man 5144: 5142:The Rambling Man 5113: 5111:The Rambling Man 5074: 5072:The Rambling Man 5007: 5005:The Rambling Man 4663: 4661:The Rambling Man 4618: 4616:The Rambling Man 4607: 4586: 4584:The Rambling Man 4559: 4494: 4461: 4459:The Rambling Man 4361: 4346: 4320: 4237: 4185: 4180: 4175: 4135: 4133:The Rambling Man 4105: 4052: 4050:The Rambling Man 4017: 4015:The Rambling Man 3953: 3948: 3937: 3906: 3901: 3874: 3857: 3854: 3850: 3846: 3840: 3804: 3802:The Rambling Man 3779: 3657: 3603: 3601:The Rambling Man 3464: 3439: 3435: 3402: 3380: 3244:Strongly support 2997: 2992: 2986:queen of England 2983: 2966:queen of England 2963: 2909: 2870: 2449: 2396:already states: 2361: 2303: 2294:Absolutely not. 2246: 2221: 2219:The Rambling Man 2208: 2204: 2189: 2187:The Rambling Man 2176: 2172: 2094: 2046: 2017: 2013: 1971: 1967: 1949: 1943: 1927: 1897: 1834: 1793: 1728:award ceremonies 1645: 1523: 1487: 1475: 1473:The Rambling Man 1412: 1410:The Rambling Man 1370:Dan the Animator 1108: 1021: 933: 925: 917: 852: 848: 818: 814: 765: 761: 732: 729: 726: 723: 642: 621: 585: 536: 534:The Rambling Man 500: 456: 453: 450: 447: 430: 428:The Rambling Man 409: 406: 403: 400: 363: 360: 357: 354: 308: 305: 302: 299: 256: 253: 250: 247: 151: 148: 145: 142: 81: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 5814: 5813: 5809: 5808: 5807: 5805: 5804: 5803: 5732:Merrick Garland 5671: 5627: 5597: 5533: 5512: 5481:In my opinion, 5475: 5433: 5359:Howard the Duck 5345: 5335: 5316: 5261: 5260: 5246: 4901:Howard the Duck 4869:Howard the Duck 4854:Howard the Duck 4793:Howard the Duck 4772:The discussion 4746: 4600: 4552: 4504: 4488: 4424: 4391: 4339: 4306:not a newspaper 4298:Stephen Hawking 4230: 4183: 4178: 4103: 3951: 3946: 3930: 3904: 3899: 3868: 3852: 3848: 3844: 3838: 3799: 3798: 3767:Howard the Duck 3736:Howard the Duck 3655: 3551:uncontroversial 3534:it was posted. 3457: 3437: 3396: 3374: 3221:not a newspaper 2995: 2990: 2903: 2860: 2762: 2467: 2447: 2355: 2296: 2264: 2244: 2206: 2174: 2092: 2085:situation. We 2044: 2015: 2004: 1969: 1953:Coffeeandcrumbs 1947: 1941: 1920: 1890: 1853:Howard the Duck 1832: 1816:Howard the Duck 1791: 1746:Howard the Duck 1699:Howard the Duck 1635: 1336:Howard the Duck 1102: 999: 927: 919: 914:Andrew Davidson 911: 870:Match the Emmys 850: 816: 798:Patrick Melrose 763: 730: 727: 724: 721: 713: 654:Game of Thrones 640: 626: 583: 498: 454: 451: 448: 445: 407: 404: 401: 398: 361: 358: 355: 352: 306: 303: 300: 297: 254: 251: 248: 245: 197:Stranger Things 180:Game of Thrones 149: 146: 143: 140: 105: 77: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 5812: 5810: 5802: 5801: 5786:Strong Support 5783: 5760:Strong Support 5756: 5755: 5754: 5753: 5670: 5667: 5666: 5665: 5664: 5663: 5662: 5661: 5660: 5659: 5658: 5657: 5656: 5655: 5654: 5653: 5652: 5651: 5511: 5508: 5507: 5506: 5505: 5504: 5479: 5471: 5444: 5443: 5442: 5427: 5390: 5389: 5356: 5334: 5331: 5330: 5329: 5301: 5280: 5279: 5278: 5277: 5276: 5258: 5257: 5240: 5239: 5238: 5237: 5236: 5235: 5234: 5233: 5232: 5231: 5230: 5229: 5228: 5227: 5226: 5185: 5154: 5107:arrondissement 5035: 5034: 5033: 5032: 5031: 4984: 4967: 4950: 4949: 4948: 4947: 4946: 4945: 4944: 4943: 4942: 4927: 4926: 4925: 4879: 4864: 4849: 4820: 4803: 4752: 4751: 4750: 4742: 4735: 4698: 4697: 4696: 4695: 4694: 4693: 4679: 4678: 4677: 4676: 4675: 4674: 4673: 4630: 4629: 4628: 4545: 4544: 4521: 4520: 4519: 4518: 4517: 4516: 4515: 4514: 4513: 4512: 4511: 4510: 4509: 4508: 4500: 4420: 4396: 4395: 4387: 4377: 4376: 4375: 4374: 4373: 4372: 4332: 4331: 4302:Paul McCartney 4287: 4269: 4268: 4245: 4244: 4243: 4242: 4226: 4225: 4224: 4223: 4222: 4199: 4198: 4197: 4196: 4195: 4194: 4193: 4192: 4191: 4066: 4065: 4064: 4063: 4062: 4008: 4007: 4006: 4005: 4004: 3962: 3961: 3960: 3959: 3958: 3926: 3884: 3864:Leaning oppose 3861: 3822: 3821: 3820: 3819: 3818: 3817: 3816: 3815: 3814: 3796: 3795: 3729: 3728: 3727: 3692: 3667: 3642: 3622: 3621: 3620: 3619: 3618: 3617: 3616: 3615: 3614: 3613: 3583: 3569:that tea party 3525: 3524: 3523: 3522: 3486: 3469: 3446: 3419: 3418: 3417: 3416: 3415: 3347: 3346: 3345: 3344: 3343: 3342: 3341: 3340: 3318: 3317: 3316: 3315: 3314: 3313: 3279: 3241: 3214: 3197: 3196: 3195: 3194: 3193: 3192: 3191: 3190: 3189: 3188: 3187: 3186: 3185: 3184: 3183: 3182: 3181: 3180: 3179: 3178: 3177: 3176: 3175: 3014: 3013: 3012: 3011: 3010: 3009: 3008: 3007: 3006: 3005: 3004: 3003: 2988:died in 1714. 2968:died in 1603. 2952: 2951: 2950: 2949: 2948: 2947: 2946: 2945: 2855: 2838: 2820: 2803: 2761: 2758: 2757: 2756: 2755: 2754: 2753: 2752: 2751: 2750: 2749: 2748: 2747: 2746: 2745: 2744: 2743: 2742: 2741: 2740: 2722: 2629: 2612: 2522: 2521: 2520: 2519: 2505:Orbitalbuzzsaw 2466: 2463: 2462: 2461: 2440: 2439: 2438: 2437: 2436: 2435: 2434: 2433: 2432: 2431: 2430: 2323: 2308: 2276: 2275: 2263: 2260: 2259: 2258: 2239: 2238: 2237: 2236: 2235: 2234: 2233: 2232: 2231: 2148: 2147: 2146: 2145: 2122: 2121: 2120: 2119: 2118: 2003: 2000: 1999: 1998: 1979: 1978: 1959: 1934: 1933: 1932: 1883: 1870: 1869: 1868: 1867: 1866: 1865: 1864: 1863: 1811: 1785: 1784: 1783: 1782: 1781: 1780: 1779: 1759: 1758: 1757: 1756: 1710: 1709: 1686: 1685: 1684: 1683: 1682: 1681: 1680: 1679: 1678: 1677: 1660: 1659: 1628: 1627: 1607: 1606: 1586: 1585: 1584: 1583: 1549: 1548: 1547: 1546: 1518: 1517: 1516: 1515: 1514: 1513: 1451:John M Wolfson 1443: 1442: 1441: 1401: 1400: 1399: 1398: 1381: 1380: 1363: 1346: 1328: 1327: 1326: 1325: 1308: 1307: 1288: 1287: 1286: 1285: 1284: 1283: 1282: 1281: 1263: 1262: 1224: 1223: 1222: 1221: 1179: 1178: 1177: 1176: 1175: 1174: 1173: 1172: 1171: 1170: 1169: 1168: 1167: 1166: 1165: 1164: 1163: 1162: 1099: 1064: 1063: 1062: 1006:John M Wolfson 996: 966:Easily passes 906: 905: 883: 866: 865: 864: 863: 862: 861: 860: 859: 790:Peaky Blinders 773: 772: 750: 749: 748: 747: 710: 709: 628: 627: 624: 619: 618: 617: 616: 615: 614: 613: 547: 546: 527: 510: 488: 487: 486: 485: 484: 483: 482: 481: 480: 479: 478: 477: 476: 475: 474: 473: 472: 471: 232: 231: 208: 207: 173: 172: 104: 101: 98: 97: 92: 87: 82: 75: 70: 65: 62: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 5811: 5800: 5797: 5794: 5791: 5787: 5784: 5782: 5778: 5774: 5769: 5765: 5761: 5758: 5757: 5752: 5749: 5746: 5739: 5738: 5733: 5729: 5725: 5724: 5723: 5719: 5715: 5710: 5706: 5702: 5701: 5700: 5699: 5696: 5693: 5686: 5685: 5680: 5679:ex post facto 5676: 5668: 5650: 5646: 5642: 5637: 5636: 5635: 5632: 5626: 5622: 5621: 5620: 5616: 5612: 5607: 5606: 5605: 5602: 5600: 5592: 5591: 5590: 5586: 5582: 5578: 5577: 5576: 5572: 5568: 5564: 5560: 5557: 5556: 5555: 5551: 5547: 5543: 5542: 5541: 5538: 5536: 5528: 5527: 5526: 5525: 5521: 5517: 5509: 5503: 5500: 5497: 5490: 5489: 5484: 5480: 5478: 5474: 5470: 5465: 5464: 5463: 5458: 5453: 5449: 5445: 5441: 5438: 5436: 5428: 5426: 5422: 5418: 5414: 5410: 5406: 5405: 5404: 5400: 5396: 5392: 5391: 5388: 5383: 5378: 5374: 5371: 5370: 5369: 5368: 5364: 5360: 5354: 5353: 5350: 5348: 5340: 5332: 5328: 5323: 5320: 5314: 5309: 5305: 5302: 5300: 5297: 5292: 5288: 5284: 5281: 5275: 5270: 5265: 5256: 5255: 5254: 5251: 5249: 5241: 5225: 5221: 5217: 5212: 5208: 5203: 5202: 5201: 5196: 5191: 5186: 5184: 5180: 5176: 5171: 5170: 5169: 5164: 5159: 5155: 5153: 5148: 5143: 5138: 5137: 5136: 5132: 5128: 5124: 5123: 5122: 5117: 5112: 5108: 5103: 5102: 5101: 5097: 5093: 5088: 5085: 5084: 5083: 5078: 5073: 5068: 5067: 5066: 5062: 5058: 5053: 5052: 5051: 5047: 5043: 5039: 5036: 5030: 5026: 5022: 5018: 5017: 5016: 5011: 5006: 5002: 5001: 5000: 4996: 4992: 4988: 4985: 4983: 4979: 4975: 4971: 4968: 4966: 4962: 4958: 4954: 4951: 4941: 4937: 4933: 4928: 4924: 4920: 4916: 4912: 4911: 4910: 4906: 4902: 4897: 4896: 4895: 4891: 4887: 4883: 4880: 4878: 4874: 4870: 4865: 4863: 4859: 4855: 4850: 4848: 4844: 4840: 4836: 4835: 4834: 4830: 4826: 4821: 4819: 4815: 4811: 4807: 4804: 4802: 4798: 4794: 4789: 4788: 4787: 4783: 4779: 4775: 4771: 4770: 4769: 4765: 4761: 4756: 4753: 4749: 4745: 4741: 4736: 4734: 4730: 4726: 4722: 4721: 4720: 4716: 4712: 4707: 4703: 4700: 4699: 4692: 4688: 4684: 4680: 4672: 4667: 4662: 4658: 4654: 4650: 4645: 4644: 4643: 4639: 4635: 4631: 4627: 4622: 4617: 4613: 4612: 4611: 4608: 4606: 4605: 4597: 4596: 4595: 4590: 4585: 4580: 4579: 4578: 4574: 4570: 4565: 4564: 4563: 4560: 4558: 4557: 4549: 4548: 4547: 4546: 4543: 4539: 4535: 4530: 4526: 4523: 4522: 4507: 4503: 4499: 4492: 4486: 4485: 4484: 4480: 4476: 4472: 4471: 4470: 4465: 4460: 4456: 4452: 4448: 4447: 4446: 4442: 4438: 4434: 4429: 4428: 4427: 4423: 4419: 4414: 4413: 4412: 4408: 4404: 4400: 4399: 4398: 4397: 4394: 4390: 4386: 4382: 4379: 4378: 4371: 4368: 4365: 4358: 4357: 4352: 4351: 4350: 4347: 4345: 4344: 4336: 4335: 4334: 4333: 4330: 4327: 4324: 4317: 4316: 4311: 4307: 4303: 4299: 4295: 4291: 4288: 4286: 4282: 4278: 4277:Cyclonebiskit 4274: 4271: 4270: 4267: 4263: 4259: 4254: 4250: 4247: 4246: 4241: 4238: 4236: 4235: 4227: 4221: 4217: 4213: 4208: 4203: 4200: 4189: 4186: 4181: 4174: 4173: 4172: 4168: 4164: 4160: 4159: 4158: 4154: 4150: 4146: 4145: 4144: 4139: 4134: 4130: 4129: 4128: 4124: 4120: 4116: 4115: 4114: 4110: 4106: 4098: 4097: 4096: 4092: 4088: 4084: 4083: 4082: 4078: 4074: 4070: 4067: 4061: 4056: 4051: 4047: 4043: 4042: 4041: 4037: 4033: 4028: 4027: 4026: 4021: 4016: 4012: 4009: 4003: 3999: 3995: 3991: 3990: 3988: 3984: 3980: 3979: 3978: 3974: 3970: 3966: 3963: 3957: 3954: 3949: 3943: 3942: 3941: 3938: 3936: 3935: 3927: 3925: 3921: 3917: 3912: 3911: 3910: 3907: 3902: 3896: 3892: 3888: 3885: 3883: 3880: 3879: 3875: 3873: 3872: 3865: 3862: 3860: 3855: 3847: 3841: 3834: 3830: 3826: 3823: 3813: 3808: 3803: 3794: 3793: 3791: 3787: 3783: 3778: 3777: 3776: 3772: 3768: 3764: 3763: 3762: 3758: 3754: 3750: 3747: 3746: 3745: 3741: 3737: 3733: 3730: 3726: 3722: 3718: 3714: 3711: 3710: 3709: 3705: 3701: 3696: 3693: 3691: 3687: 3683: 3679: 3675: 3671: 3668: 3666: 3662: 3658: 3651: 3646: 3643: 3641: 3640: 3636: 3632: 3631:ZettaComposer 3628: 3624: 3623: 3612: 3607: 3602: 3598: 3597: 3596: 3592: 3588: 3584: 3582: 3578: 3574: 3570: 3566: 3565: 3564: 3560: 3556: 3552: 3547: 3546: 3545: 3541: 3537: 3533: 3529: 3528: 3527: 3526: 3521: 3517: 3513: 3509: 3505: 3504: 3503: 3499: 3495: 3490: 3487: 3485: 3481: 3477: 3473: 3470: 3468: 3465: 3463: 3462: 3454: 3450: 3447: 3445: 3442: 3440: 3432: 3428: 3423: 3420: 3414: 3410: 3406: 3400: 3395: 3394: 3393: 3389: 3385: 3378: 3373: 3372: 3371: 3367: 3363: 3359: 3355: 3352: 3349: 3348: 3339: 3335: 3331: 3326: 3325: 3324: 3323: 3322: 3321: 3320: 3319: 3312: 3308: 3304: 3300: 3297: 3296: 3295: 3291: 3287: 3283: 3280: 3278: 3274: 3270: 3269: 3268:Brigade Piron 3264: 3259: 3258: 3257: 3253: 3249: 3245: 3242: 3240: 3236: 3232: 3231: 3230:Brigade Piron 3226: 3222: 3218: 3215: 3213: 3209: 3205: 3201: 3198: 3174: 3170: 3166: 3165: 3164:Brigade Piron 3160: 3157: 3156: 3155: 3151: 3147: 3143: 3142:Brigade Piron 3140: 3139: 3138: 3134: 3130: 3129: 3128:Brigade Piron 3124: 3121: 3120: 3119: 3115: 3111: 3107: 3106:Brigade Piron 3104: 3103: 3102: 3098: 3094: 3090: 3089: 3088: 3084: 3080: 3079: 3078:Brigade Piron 3074: 3071: 3070: 3069: 3065: 3061: 3058: 3054: 3053:Brigade Piron 3051: 3050: 3049: 3045: 3041: 3040: 3039:Brigade Piron 3035: 3031: 3027: 3024: 3023: 3022: 3021: 3020: 3019: 3018: 3017: 3016: 3015: 3001: 2998: 2993: 2987: 2982: 2981: 2979: 2975: 2971: 2967: 2962: 2961: 2960: 2959: 2958: 2957: 2956: 2955: 2954: 2953: 2944: 2940: 2936: 2931: 2927: 2924: 2923: 2922: 2918: 2914: 2907: 2902: 2901: 2900: 2896: 2892: 2888: 2885: 2884: 2883: 2879: 2875: 2868: 2864: 2859: 2856: 2854: 2850: 2846: 2842: 2839: 2837: 2833: 2829: 2824: 2821: 2819: 2815: 2811: 2807: 2804: 2802: 2798: 2794: 2790: 2787: 2786: 2785: 2784: 2780: 2776: 2772: 2767: 2759: 2739: 2735: 2731: 2727: 2723: 2721: 2717: 2713: 2708: 2707: 2706: 2703: 2700: 2695: 2694: 2693: 2689: 2685: 2680: 2679: 2676: 2675:s/{{/{{subst: 2671: 2670: 2669: 2665: 2661: 2657: 2656: 2655: 2652: 2649: 2645: 2644: 2643: 2639: 2635: 2630: 2628: 2624: 2620: 2616: 2613: 2611: 2607: 2603: 2598: 2594: 2590: 2586: 2585: 2584: 2580: 2576: 2572: 2571: 2570: 2569: 2568: 2567: 2563: 2559: 2555: 2551: 2547: 2543: 2539: 2535: 2531: 2527: 2518: 2514: 2510: 2506: 2503: 2502: 2501: 2497: 2493: 2489: 2488: 2487: 2486: 2482: 2478: 2473: 2472: 2464: 2460: 2457: 2456: 2455: 2450: 2444: 2441: 2429: 2425: 2421: 2417: 2413: 2412: 2411: 2407: 2403: 2399: 2395: 2391: 2390: 2389: 2385: 2381: 2376: 2375: 2374: 2370: 2366: 2359: 2354: 2353: 2352: 2348: 2344: 2339: 2338: 2337: 2333: 2329: 2324: 2322: 2318: 2314: 2309: 2307: 2304: 2302: 2301: 2293: 2292: 2291: 2290: 2286: 2282: 2273: 2272: 2271: 2269: 2261: 2257: 2254: 2253: 2252: 2247: 2240: 2230: 2225: 2220: 2216: 2215: 2214: 2211: 2209: 2200: 2199: 2198: 2193: 2188: 2184: 2183: 2182: 2179: 2177: 2168: 2167: 2166: 2162: 2158: 2153: 2150: 2149: 2144: 2140: 2136: 2131: 2127: 2123: 2117: 2113: 2109: 2105: 2104: 2103: 2099: 2095: 2088: 2083: 2082: 2081: 2077: 2073: 2069: 2065: 2061: 2057: 2056: 2055: 2051: 2047: 2040: 2035: 2030: 2026: 2025: 2024: 2023: 2020: 2018: 2009: 2001: 1997: 1993: 1989: 1984: 1981: 1980: 1977: 1974: 1972: 1963: 1960: 1958: 1954: 1951: 1944: 1938: 1935: 1931: 1928: 1926: 1925: 1917: 1914: 1911: 1907: 1903: 1902: 1901: 1898: 1896: 1895: 1887: 1884: 1882: 1879: 1875: 1872: 1871: 1862: 1858: 1854: 1850: 1845: 1844: 1843: 1839: 1835: 1827: 1826: 1825: 1821: 1817: 1812: 1809: 1804: 1803: 1802: 1798: 1794: 1786: 1778: 1774: 1770: 1765: 1764: 1763: 1762: 1761: 1760: 1755: 1751: 1747: 1743: 1742: 1741: 1737: 1733: 1729: 1725: 1721: 1717: 1714: 1713: 1712: 1711: 1708: 1704: 1700: 1696: 1692: 1688: 1687: 1676: 1672: 1668: 1664: 1663: 1662: 1661: 1658: 1654: 1650: 1643: 1639: 1632: 1631: 1630: 1629: 1626: 1622: 1618: 1614: 1611: 1610: 1609: 1608: 1605: 1601: 1597: 1593: 1590: 1589: 1588: 1587: 1582: 1578: 1574: 1569: 1568: 1567: 1563: 1559: 1554: 1551: 1550: 1545: 1541: 1537: 1533: 1527: 1526:edit conflict 1522: 1521: 1520: 1519: 1511: 1507: 1503: 1499: 1495: 1491: 1486: 1485: 1484: 1479: 1474: 1470: 1466: 1465: 1464: 1460: 1456: 1452: 1447: 1444: 1440: 1436: 1432: 1428: 1423: 1422: 1421: 1416: 1411: 1406: 1403: 1402: 1397: 1393: 1389: 1385: 1384: 1383: 1382: 1379: 1375: 1371: 1367: 1364: 1362: 1358: 1354: 1350: 1347: 1345: 1341: 1337: 1333: 1330: 1329: 1324: 1320: 1316: 1312: 1311: 1310: 1309: 1306: 1302: 1298: 1293: 1290: 1289: 1280: 1276: 1272: 1267: 1266: 1265: 1264: 1261: 1257: 1253: 1249: 1244: 1240: 1237: 1234: 1230: 1229: 1228: 1227: 1226: 1225: 1220: 1216: 1212: 1208: 1204: 1199: 1198: 1197: 1193: 1189: 1184: 1181: 1180: 1161: 1157: 1153: 1149: 1145: 1144: 1143: 1139: 1135: 1130: 1126: 1125: 1124: 1120: 1116: 1112: 1106: 1100: 1097: 1093: 1089: 1085: 1084: 1083: 1079: 1075: 1070: 1065: 1061: 1057: 1053: 1049: 1048: 1047: 1043: 1039: 1035: 1034: 1033: 1029: 1025: 1019: 1015: 1011: 1007: 1003: 997: 995: 991: 987: 983: 982: 981: 977: 973: 969: 965: 964: 963: 959: 955: 951: 950:WP:CANVASSING 947: 946: 945: 941: 937: 931: 923: 915: 910: 909: 908: 907: 904: 900: 896: 891: 887: 886:Strong Oppose 884: 882: 879: 877: 876: 875:Modest Genius 871: 868: 867: 858: 855: 853: 845: 841: 840: 839: 835: 831: 826: 825: 824: 821: 819: 811: 807: 803: 799: 795: 791: 786: 782: 777: 776: 775: 774: 771: 768: 766: 757: 756: 752: 751: 746: 742: 738: 734: 733: 717: 716: 715: 714: 708: 707: 703: 699: 695: 691: 687: 682: 679: 674: 669: 667: 663: 658: 655: 650: 646: 639: 635: 630: 629: 623: 622: 612: 608: 604: 600: 596: 595: 594: 590: 586: 578: 574: 570: 569: 568: 564: 560: 556: 552: 549: 548: 545: 540: 535: 531: 528: 526: 522: 518: 514: 511: 509: 505: 501: 493: 490: 489: 470: 466: 462: 458: 457: 441: 440: 439: 434: 429: 425: 424: 423: 419: 415: 411: 410: 393: 392: 391: 387: 383: 379: 378: 377: 373: 369: 365: 364: 348: 343: 342: 341: 337: 333: 328: 324: 323: 322: 318: 314: 310: 309: 292: 291: 290: 286: 282: 277: 273: 272: 271: 270: 266: 262: 258: 257: 239: 238: 236: 235: 233: 230: 226: 222: 218: 217: 212: 211: 209: 206: 202: 198: 194: 190: 186: 185:The Americans 182: 181: 176: 175: 171: 169: 165: 161: 157: 153: 152: 137:per Kingsif. 136: 133: 132: 131: 130: 126: 122: 118: 114: 110: 102: 96: 93: 91: 88: 86: 83: 80: 76: 74: 71: 69: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 5785: 5759: 5741: 5735: 5708: 5688: 5682: 5678: 5672: 5624: 5594: 5530: 5513: 5492: 5486: 5447: 5446:Clearly the 5430: 5412: 5355: 5342: 5338: 5336: 5303: 5282: 5243: 5037: 4986: 4974:Nohomersryan 4969: 4952: 4881: 4773: 4754: 4701: 4656: 4649:the majority 4648: 4603: 4601: 4555: 4553: 4528: 4524: 4380: 4360: 4354: 4342: 4340: 4319: 4313: 4310:high-quality 4309: 4293: 4289: 4272: 4248: 4233: 4231: 4068: 4045: 4010: 3964: 3933: 3931: 3886: 3877: 3870: 3869: 3863: 3828: 3824: 3731: 3712: 3694: 3669: 3649: 3644: 3626: 3625: 3550: 3531: 3488: 3471: 3460: 3458: 3448: 3434: 3421: 3350: 3266: 3243: 3228: 3225:WP:CONSENSUS 3216: 3199: 3162: 3126: 3076: 3056: 3037: 3033: 3029: 2929: 2857: 2840: 2822: 2805: 2788: 2770: 2763: 2674: 2558:Nohomersryan 2538:October 2019 2523: 2474: 2468: 2453: 2452: 2442: 2299: 2297: 2277: 2265: 2250: 2249: 2203: 2171: 2151: 2086: 2038: 2033: 2028: 2012: 2007: 2005: 1982: 1966: 1961: 1936: 1923: 1921: 1912: 1893: 1891: 1885: 1873: 1727: 1723: 1691:Korean drama 1552: 1500:like us...-- 1497: 1490:Dominic West 1445: 1404: 1374:Commons Room 1365: 1348: 1331: 1291: 1182: 1128: 1068: 1018:130.233.3.21 885: 874: 869: 847: 843: 813: 805: 784: 780: 760: 754: 753: 719: 689: 685: 683: 677: 670: 665: 661: 656: 653: 648: 644: 637: 631: 572: 550: 529: 512: 491: 443: 396: 350: 326: 295: 275: 243: 240: 237: 234: 214: 210: 178: 174: 167: 166: 138: 134: 116: 106: 78: 43: 37: 5628:Destroyeraa 4725:Newyorkbrad 3891:Newyorkbrad 2867:Newyorkbrad 2845:Newyorkbrad 2587:I asked at 2418:" cases. -- 2392:Just do as 1695:Korean wave 1553:Weak Oppose 1469:Hugh Laurie 1427:Suez Crisis 1408:this bias. 802:Killing Eve 755:Conditional 666:Killing Eve 649:this year's 645:last year's 643:s sweep at 216:Killing Eve 36:This is an 4882:Time zones 4253:CaptainEek 3833:WP:NOTBURO 3670:Postmortem 3453:WP:NOTBURO 2546:April 2020 2542:March 2020 2530:April 2018 2526:March 2018 2008:reasonable 1878:Neutrality 1638:Albertaont 1558:Albertaont 1246:the exact 1203:WP:ILIKEIT 1101:Seriously 1052:Albertaont 1002:Albertaont 647:Emmys and 213:BAFTA TV- 201:This is Us 95:Archive 80 90:Archive 79 85:Archive 78 79:Archive 77 73:Archive 76 68:Archive 75 60:Archive 70 5641:LaserLegs 5611:LaserLegs 5581:LaserLegs 5546:LaserLegs 5516:LaserLegs 5417:LaserLegs 5291:Sluzzelin 5216:LaserLegs 5175:LaserLegs 5127:LaserLegs 5092:LaserLegs 5057:LaserLegs 5021:LaserLegs 4991:LaserLegs 4711:LaserLegs 4212:LaserLegs 4184:(discuss) 4149:LaserLegs 4087:LaserLegs 3983:LaserLegs 3952:(discuss) 3905:(discuss) 3782:LaserLegs 3753:LaserLegs 3717:LaserLegs 3700:LaserLegs 3286:—valereee 3146:—valereee 3110:—valereee 3093:—valereee 3060:—valereee 2996:(discuss) 2935:—valereee 2891:—valereee 2828:—valereee 2730:LaserLegs 2712:LaserLegs 2684:LaserLegs 2660:LaserLegs 2634:LaserLegs 2619:LaserLegs 2602:LaserLegs 2597:WP:TLIMIT 2575:LaserLegs 2554:July 2020 2550:June 2020 2477:LaserLegs 2420:LaserLegs 2380:LaserLegs 2358:LaserLegs 2343:LaserLegs 2281:LaserLegs 2157:LaserLegs 2135:LaserLegs 2029:recurring 1502:LaserLegs 1152:LaserLegs 1115:LaserLegs 1092:LaserLegs 1038:LaserLegs 972:LaserLegs 936:LaserLegs 895:LaserLegs 662:The Crown 638:Chernobyl 221:Bodyguard 205:Westworld 189:The Crown 5773:Ununseti 5373:WP:POINT 5322:a·po·des 4702:Question 4451:Wikinews 4258:Gotitbro 4179:Hawkeye7 3947:Hawkeye7 3900:Hawkeye7 3895:valereee 3431:WP:CREEP 3159:Valereee 3123:Valereee 3073:Valereee 3026:Valereee 2991:Hawkeye7 2906:Valereee 2863:Valereee 2726:response 2724:I got a 2534:May 2018 1916:contribs 1494:The Wire 1459:contribs 1134:SchroCat 1129:de facto 1105:SchroCat 1074:SchroCat 1010:SchroCat 998:Pinging 785:produced 741:contribs 686:Deadline 465:contribs 442:Agreed. 418:contribs 382:SchroCat 372:contribs 332:SchroCat 317:contribs 281:SchroCat 265:contribs 225:Informer 160:contribs 121:SchroCat 5737:WaltCip 5714:Kingsif 5684:WaltCip 5567:Bagumba 5488:WaltCip 5469:doktorb 5409:WaltCip 5308:WP:SNOW 5304:Support 5042:Banedon 5038:Comment 4987:Comment 4932:Tataral 4915:Bagumba 4886:Bagumba 4825:Tataral 4806:Tataral 4778:Tataral 4740:doktorb 4683:Banedon 4657:stoopid 4653:WP:DICK 4604:Calidum 4556:Calidum 4534:Tataral 4525:Support 4498:doktorb 4487:Thanks 4455:Reuters 4418:doktorb 4385:doktorb 4381:Support 4356:WaltCip 4343:Calidum 4315:WaltCip 4249:Comment 4234:Calidum 4163:Bagumba 4069:Comment 4011:Support 3994:Banedon 3969:Banedon 3965:Support 3934:Calidum 3887:Support 3749:mos def 3713:Comment 3682:Bagumba 3674:WP:SNOW 3645:Comment 3587:Banedon 3573:Bagumba 3555:Amakuru 3512:Bagumba 3494:Amakuru 3489:Comment 3476:Kingsif 3472:Support 3461:Calidum 3405:Bagumba 3377:Bagumba 3362:Bagumba 3217:Support 2858:Comment 2806:Support 2789:Support 2593:learned 2416:special 2402:Bagumba 2394:WP:ITNC 2365:Kingsif 2328:Kingsif 2300:Calidum 2108:Amakuru 2072:Amakuru 2060:WP:NPOV 1988:Kingsif 1983:Comment 1962:Support 1937:Support 1924:Calidum 1906:Kingsif 1894:Calidum 1886:Support 1769:Kingsif 1732:Kingsif 1649:Kingsif 1596:Kingsif 1536:Kingsif 1431:Amakuru 1405:Comment 1388:Kingsif 1315:Kingsif 1271:Kingsif 1252:Kingsif 1233:Amakuru 1211:Amakuru 1188:Amakuru 1024:Kingsif 1016:, and 986:Kingsif 922:Amakuru 830:Kingsif 698:Kingsif 690:Variety 634:Bzweebl 603:Kingsif 559:Kingsif 551:Support 530:Support 513:Support 492:Support 229:Save Me 177:Emmys- 135:Support 39:archive 5764:WP:AfD 5728:SCOTUS 5559:WP:5P5 5395:331dot 5313:WP:IAR 5283:Oppose 4970:Oppose 4957:Kudzu1 4953:Oppose 4755:Oppose 4706:WP:IAR 4634:331dot 4569:331dot 4529:always 4491:331dot 4475:331dot 4437:331dot 4403:331dot 4273:Oppose 4207:WP:ITN 4119:331dot 4032:331dot 3916:331dot 3871:BD2412 3825:Oppose 3695:Oppose 3650:always 3627:Oppose 3449:Oppose 3422:Oppose 3351:Oppose 3303:331dot 3204:331dot 3200:Oppose 2841:Oppose 2823:Oppose 2810:Hebsen 2589:WP:VPT 2552:, and 2448:Jayron 2443:Oppose 2313:331dot 2245:Jayron 2152:Oppose 2068:WP:IAR 1874:Oppose 1498:acting 1446:Oppose 1366:Oppose 1349:Oppose 1297:Andrew 1292:Oppose 1183:Oppose 1148:WP:ABF 1088:WP:AGF 1014:331dot 806:voters 347:WP:ITN 168:Oppose 5768:WP:RM 5473:words 5211:WP:RS 4744:words 4502:words 4422:words 4389:words 4202:Masem 4046:never 3536:Fgf10 3532:after 3330:Fgf10 3299:Fgf10 3282:Fgf10 3248:Fgf10 3030:might 2970:Fgf10 1945:& 781:aired 555:BAFTA 16:< 5777:talk 5745:talk 5718:talk 5709:news 5692:talk 5645:talk 5615:talk 5585:talk 5571:talk 5550:talk 5520:talk 5496:talk 5448:only 5421:talk 5399:talk 5363:talk 5319:Wug· 5295:talk 5220:talk 5179:talk 5131:talk 5096:talk 5061:talk 5046:talk 5025:talk 4995:talk 4978:talk 4961:talk 4936:talk 4919:talk 4905:talk 4890:talk 4873:talk 4858:talk 4843:talk 4839:P-K3 4829:talk 4814:talk 4810:P-K3 4797:talk 4782:talk 4764:talk 4760:P-K3 4729:talk 4715:talk 4687:talk 4638:talk 4573:talk 4538:talk 4479:talk 4441:talk 4407:talk 4364:talk 4323:talk 4281:chat 4262:talk 4216:talk 4167:talk 4153:talk 4123:talk 4104:asem 4091:talk 4077:talk 4073:Ktin 4036:talk 3998:talk 3987:talk 3973:talk 3920:talk 3893:and 3839:qedk 3829:news 3786:talk 3771:talk 3757:talk 3740:talk 3721:talk 3704:talk 3686:talk 3656:asem 3635:talk 3591:talk 3577:talk 3559:talk 3540:talk 3516:talk 3498:talk 3480:talk 3409:talk 3388:talk 3366:talk 3334:talk 3307:talk 3290:talk 3273:talk 3252:talk 3235:talk 3208:talk 3169:talk 3150:talk 3133:talk 3114:talk 3097:talk 3083:talk 3064:talk 3044:talk 3034:real 2974:talk 2939:talk 2917:talk 2895:talk 2878:talk 2865:and 2849:talk 2832:talk 2814:talk 2797:talk 2779:talk 2734:talk 2716:talk 2699:Step 2688:talk 2664:talk 2648:Step 2638:talk 2623:talk 2606:talk 2591:and 2579:talk 2562:talk 2513:talk 2509:Ktin 2496:talk 2481:talk 2424:talk 2406:talk 2384:talk 2369:talk 2347:talk 2332:talk 2317:talk 2285:talk 2161:talk 2139:talk 2112:talk 2093:asem 2076:talk 2045:asem 2039:That 1992:talk 1910:talk 1857:talk 1833:asem 1820:talk 1792:asem 1773:talk 1750:talk 1736:talk 1703:talk 1671:talk 1667:Ktin 1653:talk 1642:Ktin 1640:and 1621:talk 1617:Ktin 1600:talk 1577:talk 1573:Ktin 1562:talk 1540:talk 1506:talk 1455:talk 1435:talk 1392:talk 1357:talk 1353:Ktin 1340:talk 1319:talk 1301:talk 1275:talk 1256:talk 1243:said 1215:talk 1192:talk 1156:talk 1138:talk 1119:talk 1096:talk 1078:talk 1056:talk 1042:talk 1028:talk 990:talk 976:talk 958:talk 954:P-K3 940:talk 930:Ktin 899:talk 834:talk 796:and 737:talk 702:talk 692:was 607:talk 584:asem 563:talk 521:talk 517:P-K3 499:asem 461:talk 414:talk 386:talk 368:talk 336:talk 313:talk 285:talk 261:talk 156:talk 125:talk 5796:ich 5793:v!v 5413:all 5287:GCG 4602:-- 4554:-- 4457:. 4453:or 4341:-- 4300:or 4294:ALL 4232:-- 3932:-- 3459:-- 3265:. — 3227:. — 2793:KTC 2702:hen 2651:hen 2298:-- 1922:-- 1892:-- 1299:🐉( 1069:was 657:was 573:all 327:and 276:all 5790:Le 5779:) 5720:) 5647:) 5639:-- 5631:🌀 5617:) 5609:-- 5587:) 5573:) 5561:: 5552:) 5522:) 5423:) 5401:) 5365:) 5341:? 5317:— 5222:) 5181:) 5173:-- 5133:) 5098:) 5063:) 5055:-- 5048:) 5027:) 4997:) 4980:) 4963:) 4938:) 4921:) 4907:) 4892:) 4875:) 4860:) 4845:) 4831:) 4816:) 4799:) 4784:) 4766:) 4731:) 4717:) 4709:-- 4689:) 4640:) 4575:) 4540:) 4481:) 4443:) 4409:) 4283:) 4264:) 4218:) 4169:) 4155:) 4125:) 4111:) 4093:) 4079:) 4038:) 4000:) 3989:) 3975:) 3922:) 3788:) 3773:) 3759:) 3751:-- 3742:) 3723:) 3706:) 3698:-- 3688:) 3663:) 3637:) 3593:) 3579:) 3571:.— 3561:) 3542:) 3518:) 3500:) 3482:) 3433:. 3411:) 3390:) 3368:) 3360:.— 3336:) 3309:) 3292:) 3275:) 3254:) 3237:) 3210:) 3171:) 3152:) 3135:) 3116:) 3099:) 3085:) 3066:) 3046:) 2976:) 2941:) 2919:) 2897:) 2880:) 2851:) 2834:) 2816:) 2799:) 2781:) 2736:) 2718:) 2710:-- 2690:) 2682:-- 2666:) 2640:) 2625:) 2608:) 2581:) 2564:) 2556:. 2548:, 2544:, 2540:, 2536:, 2532:, 2528:, 2515:) 2498:) 2483:) 2475:-- 2454:32 2426:) 2408:) 2386:) 2378:-- 2371:) 2349:) 2341:-- 2334:) 2319:) 2287:) 2279:-- 2251:32 2242:-- 2163:) 2155:-- 2141:) 2133:-- 2114:) 2100:) 2087:do 2078:) 2052:) 2034:is 1994:) 1955:) 1859:) 1840:) 1822:) 1799:) 1775:) 1752:) 1738:) 1724:is 1705:) 1673:) 1655:) 1623:) 1602:) 1579:) 1564:) 1542:) 1508:) 1461:) 1457:• 1437:) 1394:) 1376:) 1359:) 1342:) 1321:) 1303:) 1277:) 1258:) 1217:) 1194:) 1158:) 1150:-- 1140:) 1121:) 1080:) 1058:) 1044:) 1030:) 1012:, 1008:, 1004:, 992:) 978:) 960:) 952:. 942:) 926:, 918:, 901:) 893:-- 836:) 812:? 792:, 743:) 739:• 731:bl 728:ee 725:zw 704:) 609:) 591:) 580:-- 565:) 523:) 506:) 467:) 463:• 455:bl 452:ee 449:zw 420:) 416:• 408:bl 405:ee 402:zw 388:) 374:) 370:• 362:bl 359:ee 356:zw 349:. 338:) 319:) 315:• 307:bl 304:ee 301:zw 287:) 267:) 263:• 255:bl 252:ee 249:zw 227:, 223:, 219:, 203:, 199:, 195:, 191:, 187:, 183:, 162:) 158:• 150:bl 147:ee 144:zw 127:) 117:is 64:← 5775:( 5747:) 5743:( 5740:- 5716:( 5694:) 5690:( 5687:- 5643:( 5625:~ 5613:( 5583:( 5569:( 5548:( 5518:( 5498:) 5494:( 5491:- 5459:) 5455:( 5419:( 5397:( 5384:) 5380:( 5361:( 5324: 5271:) 5267:( 5218:( 5197:) 5193:( 5177:( 5165:) 5161:( 5149:) 5145:( 5129:( 5118:) 5114:( 5094:( 5079:) 5075:( 5059:( 5044:( 5023:( 5012:) 5008:( 4993:( 4976:( 4959:( 4934:( 4917:( 4903:( 4888:( 4871:( 4856:( 4841:( 4827:( 4812:( 4795:( 4780:( 4762:( 4727:( 4713:( 4685:( 4668:) 4664:( 4636:( 4623:) 4619:( 4591:) 4587:( 4571:( 4536:( 4493:: 4489:@ 4477:( 4466:) 4462:( 4439:( 4405:( 4366:) 4362:( 4359:- 4325:) 4321:( 4318:- 4279:( 4260:( 4214:( 4165:( 4151:( 4140:) 4136:( 4121:( 4109:t 4107:( 4102:M 4089:( 4075:( 4057:) 4053:( 4034:( 4022:) 4018:( 3996:( 3985:( 3971:( 3918:( 3878:T 3856:) 3853:c 3849:愛 3845:t 3842:( 3809:) 3805:( 3784:( 3769:( 3755:( 3738:( 3719:( 3702:( 3684:( 3661:t 3659:( 3654:M 3633:( 3608:) 3604:( 3589:( 3575:( 3557:( 3538:( 3514:( 3496:( 3478:( 3407:( 3401:: 3397:@ 3386:( 3379:: 3375:@ 3364:( 3332:( 3305:( 3288:( 3271:( 3250:( 3233:( 3206:( 3167:( 3148:( 3131:( 3112:( 3095:( 3081:( 3062:( 3042:( 2972:( 2937:( 2915:( 2908:: 2904:@ 2893:( 2876:( 2869:: 2861:@ 2847:( 2830:( 2812:( 2795:( 2777:( 2732:( 2714:( 2686:( 2662:( 2636:( 2621:( 2604:( 2577:( 2560:( 2511:( 2494:( 2479:( 2422:( 2404:( 2400:— 2382:( 2367:( 2360:: 2356:@ 2345:( 2330:( 2315:( 2283:( 2226:) 2222:( 2194:) 2190:( 2159:( 2137:( 2110:( 2098:t 2096:( 2091:M 2074:( 2050:t 2048:( 2043:M 1990:( 1950:( 1948:C 1942:C 1913:· 1908:( 1855:( 1838:t 1836:( 1831:M 1818:( 1797:t 1795:( 1790:M 1771:( 1748:( 1734:( 1701:( 1669:( 1651:( 1644:: 1636:@ 1619:( 1598:( 1575:( 1560:( 1538:( 1528:) 1524:( 1504:( 1480:) 1476:( 1453:( 1433:( 1417:) 1413:( 1390:( 1372:( 1355:( 1338:( 1317:( 1273:( 1254:( 1213:( 1190:( 1154:( 1136:( 1117:( 1107:: 1103:@ 1098:) 1094:( 1076:( 1054:( 1040:( 1026:( 1020:: 1000:@ 988:( 974:( 956:( 938:( 932:: 928:@ 924:: 920:@ 916:: 912:@ 897:( 832:( 735:( 722:B 700:( 641:' 605:( 589:t 587:( 582:M 561:( 541:) 537:( 519:( 504:t 502:( 497:M 459:( 446:B 435:) 431:( 412:( 399:B 384:( 366:( 353:B 334:( 311:( 298:B 283:( 259:( 246:B 154:( 141:B 123:( 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge (XXG)

talk:In the news/Archive 77 - Knowledge (XXG)

Index