Talk:Count Iblis

This article was nominated for deletion on 18 October 2019. The result of the discussion was redirect.

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character

Science Fiction Low‑importance

	Speculative fiction portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Television: Battlestar Galactica

	Television portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision
	This redirect is supported by the Battlestar Galactica task force.

Demonic appearance

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The demonic appearance of Count Iblis somewhat resembles the Imperious Leader, maybe this should be noted Davidac18643 19:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Heat

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Having some discussion about the definition of heat, work, etc for open systems in the Talk:Heat and Talk:Conservation of energy articles, and your opinion is one that is respected by both sides. (maybe not agreed with, though :) Your input would be appreciated. PAR (talk) 06:35, 9 March 2013 (UTC)Reply