Search all star plus actress xxx PhotosSearch all star plus actress xxx XXX VideosSearch all star plus actress xxx HD VideosSearch all star plus actress xxx Indian VideosSearch all star plus actress xxx MP4 VideosSearch all star plus actress xxx Indian ImagesSearch all star plus actress xxx Leaked VideosSearch all star plus actress xxx Leaked PicsSearch all star plus actress xxx XXX Posts
Xxx Of Star Plus Actresses
Search xxx star plus actress gopi modi sex naika moyuri xxx ve PhotosSearch xxx star plus actress gopi modi sex naika moyuri xxx ve XXX VideosSearch xxx star plus actress gopi modi sex naika moyuri xxx ve HD VideosSearch xxx star plus actress gopi modi sex naika moyuri xxx ve Indian VideosSearch xxx star plus actress gopi modi sex naika moyuri xxx ve MP4 VideosSearch xxx star plus actress gopi modi sex naika moyuri xxx ve Indian ImagesSearch xxx star plus actress gopi modi sex naika moyuri xxx ve Leaked VideosSearch xxx star plus actress gopi modi sex naika moyuri xxx ve Leaked PicsSearch xxx star plus actress gopi modi sex naika moyuri xxx ve XXX Posts
Search xxx star plus actress asta sex pew fok PhotosSearch xxx star plus actress asta sex pew fok XXX VideosSearch xxx star plus actress asta sex pew fok HD VideosSearch xxx star plus actress asta sex pew fok Indian VideosSearch xxx star plus actress asta sex pew fok MP4 VideosSearch xxx star plus actress asta sex pew fok Indian ImagesSearch xxx star plus actress asta sex pew fok Leaked VideosSearch xxx star plus actress asta sex pew fok Leaked PicsSearch xxx star plus actress asta sex pew fok XXX Posts
Given the overlap of saucer separation, saucer section and stardrive section, it would make sense to consider merging them : they all seem to basically contain overlapping information about saucer separation, and it's hard really to imagine how to restructure them otherwise. Even a saucer landing seems tied in with the concept of saucer separation. Any thoughts? I note quite a lot of the stuff here is original research, anyway. Morwen - Talk 16:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd like to start working on this area, but I wanted confirmation on structure. I'm guessing it should consist of Vulcan words used in the many series and movies (with a separate non-canon section for the novels, of course). However, very few of the words are directly defined within episodes or movies. How should I go about indicating the differences among:
I'm new to Wiki and don't know much about the rules, so if someone could either give me instruction or direct me to a link, I'll start adding to the project. Thanks.SkepticalGal 19:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd like to bring this subject up again, as I believe it to be significant. Why precisely are we referring to the Romulan ships of TOS and ENT as "Birds of Prey?" They were never identified by that name on either of those shows and Paramount (the owners and operators of the Star Trek franchise and mythos) does not recognize that name for that ship. The term is conjectural and is used by fandom. Some months ago, I did mention this when I added this fact into the trivia section of the Romulan starships article, but I believe it is important to at least consider puting that data into the sections pertaining to the ships themselves, as it will make Wikipedia appear even more objective and impartial toward Star Trek. Darin Wagner 14:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I just created Template:Memory Alpha, using Template:FreeContentMeta. This is part of a larger project of trying to promote other free content sites that offer information on fictional topics in the hopes that we can start using the differences between ourselves and sites like Memory Alpha to our advantage, moving in-universe content and stuff primarily of interest to fans instead of generalists to those sites. (Obviously Memory Alpha is harder here because it's not GFDL)
Okay. I had an idea, but realized it would kinda snowball, perhaps, into some other ideas. Or at least jack up the disambig text we have for the various Star Trek starship Enterprise articles. Hence picking this forum to try to take them all on en masse.
I noticed some peculiarities on the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Star_Trek page, specifically the list of recent changes. David Ogden Stiers showed up as a recently, Star Trek related article to get edited, but I can find no tags on his page that would seem to link him to Trek, so how does the project page track him? And it isn't showing my recent edits to Beverly Crusher, Wesley Crusher, or William Riker but it lists my million-plus edits to Borg. Any clues or answers? StarHOG (Talk) 18:50, 19 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry to be bringing up yet another concern, but do editors here feel it's appropriate to note that characters or episodes should be noted for having appeared on a Top X list regardless of how far down that list they placed? For instance, is it notable if an episode was considered 95th best on a list of top 100? I know there's a lot of Trek out there these days, but my instincts say that anything beyond the top 25 or so probably isn't all that notable. Looking for a consensus before I start rolling back edits. Thanks. DonIago (talk) 13:27, 25 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Langworthy Cornerstone's new pilot scheme for a business school to help local people take their first steps in self-employment is to be launched on 10th December. Offering `pre-self-employment' support, anyone who has an idea for a business but the very thought puts them off can get free help with skills, support and networking, plus an incredibly cheap office.
One of the best sights in Salford all year is the annual Santa Scooter Run in which hundreds of bikes and their `Santa' riders start at the Henry Bod pub on Manchester Road and ride to The Christie in Withington to deliver presents. Not to be missed. And bring a present to put in the sleigh...
Judy Holt, who plays Scary Mary Jackson in ITV's Scott and Bailey, comes to Salford this week starring in The Box of Tricks, which centres on two brothers and is a play `that makes you appreciate your family'...
Over five hundred people attended last night's vigil in Piccadilly Gardens to show solidarity with France after the shocking terrorist attacks in Paris on Friday. People from Salford, Manchester and beyond, plus French people living in the region, lit candles and brought flowers.
Top Salford rapper Red Venom is to lead a Hip Hop versus Cancer twelve hour fundraiser and awareness event at the live room next Sunday, with around two dozen rappers, graffiti artists, DJs, beatboxers and break dancers starring in a family friendly atmosphere. Special guest is Bronx legend, Donald D, from Ice-T's Rhyme Syndicate.
The deletion discussion Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Micheal_Fitzgerald has been started to determine notability of an actor that is based only on IMDB, and address other concerns with building the Frankenstein WP:DBTF. You are invited to help reach consensus. Bagumba (talk) 08:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wait, so this has now been magically implemented? Three people agree on something and suddenly it's consensus? That seems ludicrous. While the spirit behind this table design is commendable, the design itself is an overall negative, in my opinion. We should list the credits in chronological order, yet that isn't the prime set of information? Then what's the use of listing them in chronological order? This may increase the accessibility for vision-impaired users, but it decreases the accessibility for everyone else; it's not only a reading comprehension problem, but also an editing problem, as this design further complicates the editing of filmographies. Has there been a consensus elsewhere that I'm not aware of? If there is, that's how we work and it's fine; if there isn't, this seems like something that needs to be discussed by more than a few people before we start telling editors this is how it should be done, and it ends up spread across a ton of articles, without consensus, especially considering that we're telling editors that either table is acceptable. This project needs more consistency, not less. Chickenmonkey 04:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm kind of confused by how the discussion here has veered toward nomenclature. What would be the substantive rationale for dividing female and male actors (/actresses) into two categories to begin with? Is the issue that it doesn't sound right that actresses are included in an "actor" category? That could be solved by simply renaming the categories to be "actors and actresses". I haven't really seen any justification for dividing the category into two - all I see are justifications for renaming a category. (And for the record, I slightly prefer actor to actress, but don't feel strongly one way or the other. I do feel somewhat strongly that the categories should not be split by gender but am open to being convinced--though I haven't seen any argument so far here that would explain a split.) Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:04, 18 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm working on List_of_entertainers_from_Montana, hoping to get it to FL soon. I'm having trouble with lots of those listed, especially the lesser known people, in that they don't seem to have quality refs for every point in the list (year born/died, Montana connection, notability). What sources are considered suitable for a FL/FA? Some of the ones I often come across are filmreference, Rovi/All Movie Guide (which I've seen used by NYT), TV.com, TV Guide, imdb, fandango, classicreels, ovguide, starpulse, etc. What sources could I use and probably not have to worry about them getting beat up at FLC? Thanks PumpkinSky talk 02:11, 6 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
When mentioning a film someone has starred in, is it appropriate to very briefly describe the film in a sentence? Or is this unneccessary when each film has its own page? I feel like it is a nice thing to do, since a lot of people won't be bothered to look at each individual film page, but is it frowned upon as too much detail? --Lobo512 (talk) 17:59, 14 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply] 2ff7e9595c
Comments