text:
Talk:Star Wars Holiday Special

"The" Star Wars Holiday Special
Shouldn't this article be called The Star Wars Holiday Special rather than Star Wars Holiday Special?

Agree Czechia2016 (talk) 00:57, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Canon Error?
"The only element from the holiday special where the canonicity is disputed is its claim that Chief Bast survived the destruction of the first Death Star from A New Hope."

I believe Greedo exists in the special, after being killed in Episode IV. 206.124.7.150 (talk) 19:59, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You need to provide proof from a reliable source that it's Greedo and not simply a character of the same race. 68.146.64.9 (talk) 03:35, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the Rodian character that appears in the special is named Bludlow, although I wouldn't be at all surprised if the costume was identical to the one created to represent Greedo. Even so, it's not the same character. MaxVolume (talk) 06:22, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

They produced it using same props that Lucas gave them access to. So although Greedo does physically appear from a storyline standpoint it can't be Greedo as he had already been shot. Kav2001c (talk) 16:14, 2 August 2020 (UTC)kav2001c

Only Once?
It's not entirely correct that the special was broadcast in its entirety only once. Unfortunately I can't give precise details, having been rather small at the time, but in or around 1978/79 I saw the special in its entirety on television in New Zealand. At the very least, I'd imagine this would also mean that it was probably broadcast in Australia, and perhaps also England. Te Irirangi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.154.97.226 (talk) 08:15, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

IN ANSWER TO ABOVE: Hi, I am Australian and my best friend and I saw it on Australian free to Air TV at the time, we often talked about it growing up with fond memories. we were in the country and had only two TV stations, ABC (Australian Broadcasting Commission - which is the government financed station, similar to UK's BBC) and GWN (Golden West Network - Local country Commercial station). Hope that helps some. Ari — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.231.249.100 (talk) 11:29, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

 * Yes, it was broadcast on Network TEN in Australia. I had a recording of it on U-Matic tape at the time, that has since been damaged beyond repair. I daresay TEN still has the original 2" broadcast copy in their library/vault... wish I knew somebody who worked there! BTW, I believe the "aired only once" claim refers to the United States only; not world-wide. PSB136 (talk) 14:25, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

 * I'm sure that somewhere I read that it was broadcast a second time in the USA, but only on one station deep in rural southeastern Idaho and the last program before sign-off. Why? So it could qualify for some awards nominations. Bizzybody (talk) 00:15, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

I remember watching this on Australian TV in the early 80's. This was definitely broadcast more than once. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.125.172.2 (talk) 09:37, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Re Australia and UK. I saw this on Australian TV during a family holiday. Would have been August 1979 (worked out rough date as we heard the news of Lord Mountbatten's assassination on 27/08/79 as we were flying back to the UK, and we were there for about 3 1/2 weeks prior). It was shown with a suitability rating roughly equivalent to the UK's PG (something like "this show is not suitable for very young children", to which my dad responded "this show isn't suitable for anyone!") Definitely wasn't shown in the UK - all my friends were jealous that I'd seen it and I was occasionally asked to describe it in as much detail as I could remember. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.135.254 (talk) 13:21, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

 * Your memory as to where, when and whether it was broadcast is not a reliable source. To say anything about the show being broadcast will need a reliable source. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 23:25, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * True, but information like this is often helpful for people searching for reliable sources. The anonymous user has given us a likely timeframe for an Australian broadcast (correctly providing it here on the talk page and not adding it to the article) so if someone now wants to look through TV listings for the month of August 1979, they might just find it. Then we could have the reliable source the article needs. - Pro hib it O ni o ns (T) 07:17, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Ebay vs IOFFER
I see that Ebay is on the article from where pirated video/DVD versions of the special is available and also peer to peer file sharing is on here as well under "Availability". IOffer also has pirated DVD copies of this special for sale through it's various sellers on it's site. I feel that IOFFER should be on the article under "Availability" regarding how it can be sought by collectors because if you were to look on that site and type in the search "The Star Wars Holiday Special" and click the search icon, there are lots of copies for sale on the site through their various sellers. I think that it is important that IOFFER also be added.

What do any of you think? Thoughts and comments are appreciated Frschoonover (talk) 01:44, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 17:56, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

The Star Wars Holiday Special → Star Wars Holiday Special – Some sources omit "The" or added either "infamous" or "1978" between "the" and "Star", like news articles and books. George Ho (talk) 03:05, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

 * The title card in the film itself says The Star Wars Holiday Special... The Wookieepedian (talk) 13:28, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

 * Another image of the title card (since the above link appears to be broken), showing "The": https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/41HyG-UAFoL._SX466_.jpg A145GI15I95 (talk) 00:10, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

 * I would prefer the page name include the idiomatic "The" from the title card. It's only omitted for convenience when "the" doesn't fit into the sentence, as in the above examples. UpdateNerd (talk) 00:24, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Move?

 * Someone moved it, although BDD dropped "The" and closed the request. George Ho (talk) 06:40, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Simply not uncontroversial. Page had been earlier moved as part of a move discussion in which only one person (the nominator here) took part. Another editor has moved it back again, therefore it can't be uncontroversial. Additionally, I've just declined a move protection request for both pages at WP:RPP. There needs to be another move discussion before these pages are moved again. Ged  UK  13:05, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * , I think what you say above is incorrect. Controversial/uncontroversial applies to whether a move should be allowed to go ahead without an RM, or if an RM is required. In this case, an RM took place and nobody responded to it, so it was closed as move. From that moment onwards, the new accepted title is the result of the move. So if somebody later comes along and decides they didn't like the move, it's not for them to just move it back to its former title, they must initiate a new move request. I agree it would have been nice to see a relist of this for a further week, but that would be an issue for move review, not a reason to move it back unilaterally. The legitimate home of this article is now Star Wars Holiday Special. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 17:00, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * There's a confusion here. What I wrote above was what I wrote on the Technical Moves request, which is solely about uncontroversial moves. Moves requested on that page need to be uncontroversial, and by it's nature, and the fact that we need a discussion here, it clearly isn't. I didn't post that here, nor did I intend it to be included in a discussion about where the page should be. I have no particular opinion either way; merely that there's a consensus. Ged  UK  11:16, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

 * I just put the page back at the title that reflects the outcome of the requested move discussion that just closed a couple of days ago (i.e., I put it back at Star Wars Holiday Special). If The Wookieepedian or someone else doesn't like the outcome of the requested move, they should make their case for a move review or, if there is something new to say, submit another move request. They shouldn't just unilaterally move the article. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:22, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * As I pointed out above, the film itself says The Star Wars Holiday Special. The Wookieepedian (talk) 05:21, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Not good enough. An officiality is not a mere reason to oppose the move. Per WP:AT, a title does not have to be an official name. One of the names must be most common. --George Ho (talk) 05:28, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * As Johnny Carson would say, "I did not know that". In that case, BDD is correct in moving the page. The Wookieepedian (talk) 05:34, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * does that mean you're now happy with the move? — Amakuru (talk) 07:36, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not happy about it, but I do agree with it now, if that makes sense. BDD has a point about how outside sources refer to the film. The Wookieepedian (talk) 08:28, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I reverted the move on grounds of procedure, not personal opinion about the merits. However, it may also be worth noticing that the File:StarWarsHS.jpg promotional poster does not seem to include the "The". —BarrelProof (talk) 11:43, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It does; the font size for "The" is very small and almost illegible to read. --George Ho (talk) 21:36, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow – that tiny spec is a "The"? I guess it's there, but to me it also illustrates the degree of importance that the producers put on their "The". —BarrelProof (talk) 22:06, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * If you mean the white text at the lower-left of "W" of "Wars", then that's actually the "TM" symbol for "Star Wars", not "The". PSB136 (talk) 14:42, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I’d suggest reverting under WP:UCN, simply because, to the best of my knowledge, nobody has ever referred to it simply as Star Wars Holiday Special. Yes, it’s been referred to as the infamous Star Wars Holiday Special, or the 1978 Star Wars Holiday Special, but nobody’s simply said, “Hey, did you ever hear about Star Wars Holiday Special?” My counter-argument is simply that it’d sound clunky if you ever tried to say “the infamous The Star Wars Holiday Special”. Should we also change The Lord of the Rings to just Lord of the Rings? To be honest, Lord of the Rings is actually much more common than Star Wars Holiday Special. Or, if we wanna make it really simple, just make it LOTR. 184.5.182.220 (talk) 08:22, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Lucas involvement
For lack of a better term, there's a "plot hole" in this article. It states that Lucas had little if any involvement in the Special, quoting him as saying others made it. Yet, that doesn't explain the Boba Fett cartoon. Surely Lucas had to have been intimately involved in the making of that segment, given that not only does it feature a major character two years before his film debut, but even back in 1978 I remember people speculating that Nelvana might be lining up to do a spin-off animated series or standalone special. So while I can accept that Lucas may not have been involved in, say, the decision to have Carrie Fisher sing the theme song, or the Harvey Korman comedy skit, there must be something in the myriad of reliable sources relating to Star Wars to flesh out his involvement in the cartoon. Including whether there was ever any plans for a spin-off at that time (Nelvana, of course, went on to do the Droids and Ewoks cartoon series only a few years later so obviously Lucasfilm didn't hold anything against them!). 68.146.70.124 (talk) 16:20, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

 * I edited the main article to quote Patty Maloney ("Lumpy") who stated that Lucas did indeed approve the "dailies" of each day's shooting... so he certainly did see Carrie singing and so on... and yet let it stay in. Further, the Muppet Show episode of Star Wars had the same look and feel as the SWHS, with C3PO doing a Fred Astaire Dance, the mighty Chewbacca dancing, Luke gargling a song... all as lame and cringe-worthy as Carrie and Korman in the SWHS. My vote is that he liked what he saw, and so repeated the variety-show concept in the Muppets; but then reneged later when the public ridiculed it. He should just man up and confess that it was all his fault. :) PSB136 (talk) 14:32, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Posters don't use "The"
Looking at the derivative version of the poster, I mistakenly assumed that it used "The". (closeup of the original) As it turns out, it didn't. Neither did the other poster. Although the opening includes "The", I am very sure that the decision to drop "The" is correct. The current infobox image uses "TM" in a teeny-tiny small font (and hard to see). --George Ho (talk) 19:40, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * There are no posters. These are ads from TV Guide.  The show itself uses "The" and the announce actually says "The Star Wars Holiday Special".  As has been noted, it is *never* referred to as "Star Wars Holiday Special".24.149.45.52 (talk) 00:31, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 21 June 2016

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: The nominator is inclined to agree that the "The" is unnecessary. The title without the "The" is unlikely to gain consensus per WP:THE. Discussion's already had above a while ago. Not moved. (non-admin closure) — Andy W.  ( talk  · ctb) 22:57, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Star Wars Holiday Special → The Star Wars Holiday Special – The RM that I created three years ago resulted in omission of "The". Majority opposed it, but I see it hasn't been re-proposed then. Maybe they are confused with the template, but I don't know. I don't want to raise the issue again, even when the handling of it is calm. However, while I still think "The" is unnecessary, if adding the "The" again is what it takes to satisfy the fanbase, I'll do it for the fanbase, regardless of my feelings and thoughts about this. Sources: Book 1 Book2 Book3 Book4 Inquisitr Forbes CNET The Mary Sue Tech Times. Popular Mechanics doesn't use the title in full. George Ho (talk) 01:38, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Tentatively support but generally without backbone and willing to crumble with appropriate citation to Wikipedia policy or guideline - I'm not seeing any particular fanbase push to rename the article ... although I suppose I haven't scrolled up the talk page. Oh, I see it now. All the sources I've seen treat the product as Star Wars Holiday Special, without inclusion of The as a proper part of the title. Even if the production itself busts out a "The" (as I think one editor above asserts), this seems similar to e.g. The Washington Post and Los Angeles Times, where it's simply appropriate at Wikipedia to ditch the opening "the". Well, darn: The Washington Post includes "The" in the article name and it appears in the paper's flag; Los Angeles Times omits a "The" (even though it's ordinarily referred to with one) but it doesn't appear in the publication's flag. Now I'm just puzzled. IMDb uses a "The", as does a Mental Floss oral history, and apparently so too did an article in the official Star Wars Insider magazine and the special's official press kit. Regarding the linked articles above: I can imagine plenty of publication style guides suggesting omitting the "The" to avoid awkward flow (which I can appreciate having slammed into a lot of awkward phrases like "the The Clone Wars TV show") ... but mid-article flow is distinct from our article titling. Any relevant guideline or policy direction there? --EEMIV (talk) 00:28, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

 * Oppose - as the original proposer of the move in this direction, why have you changed your mind three years later? I'm not seeing any great ongoing angst on the part of people who discussed the mvoe at the time. And as far as I can see, most sources including those cited in this move request do not capitalise or italicise "the" in running text regarding this, so per WP:THE we should not include the definite article. — Amakuru (talk) 08:44, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:THE.  Anarchyte  ( work  |  talk )   09:12, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Kenny Baker in the film?
I noticed that the imdb pagefor this movie includes a credit for Kenny Baker as R2-D2, whereas this article said he was not involved. There is no source for this claim though.Paintrayn89 (talk) 16:14, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm confused about this. On the one hand, IMDb credits Kenny Baker for everything, even ones where he didn't actually appear like The Making of Star Wars and the appearances on Sesame Street an The Muppet Show. On the other hand, it does seem to be generally accepted that he was in the special ( and ). The easiest way to find out would be to watch the special and see if the two-legged Kenny Baker version actually appear instead of just the three-legged prop version, but that's easier said than done. CamelCase (MyTalk | ConTribs) 00:20, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The special itself narrates "R2-D2 as R2-D2", making it clear that Kenny wasn't it - in direct comparison to the narration of "Anthony Daniels as C-3PO". Kenny's name also isn't listed in the credits.
 * It also would be original research, primary sourcing, and unverifiable (you can't ref a fact to "just watch the show and see for yourself"). You can't use IMDb as a source on a disputed statement of fact, particularly on a subject where they are known to be mistaken. The two refs you cite are identical so one is just a mirror and neither look very trustworthy for vetting obscure statements of fact. I would not include Baker. Herostratus (talk) 01:02, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I didn't really mean them as sources, but more of a reflection of the fact that most fans seem to think he was in the special. It makes me suspect that there was some Lucasfilm announcement that we missed. Although I did watch the special, and I'm pretty sure he isn't in it. CamelCase (MyTalk | ConTribs) 20:50, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Star Wars Holiday Special. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050528090452/http://www.staticmultimedia.com/content/film/features/feature_1115643931 to http://www.staticmultimedia.com/content/film/features/feature_1115643931
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051103040257/http://www.starwars.com/episode-ii/bts/me2/9.html to http://www.starwars.com/episode-ii/bts/me2/9.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061230030727/http://www.starwars.com/welcome/about/news/f20041222/indexp4.html to http://www.starwars.com/welcome/about/news/f20041222/indexp4.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080517050749/http://www.starwars.com/hyperspace/member/kessel/f20031119/index.html to http://www.starwars.com/hyperspace/member/kessel/f20031119/index.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://smdb.kb.se/catalog/search?q=%22stj%C3%A4rnornas%20krig%20och%20fred%22%20typ%3Atv%20datum%3A1978-2013&x=0&y=0

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:03, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Repeated re-adding of probable comedy skit as though it was a serious interview
Do you mind me asking, have you ever watched an episode of Conan? Or specifically this episode?

We always need to be skeptical of claims that all the content of his any of his interviews were meant seriously, because it was (and to my understanding still is) a very comedy-heavy talk show where even the "serious" interviews contain no end of tongue-in-cheek. You would not add to the Al Gore article that he once said in an interview on Late Night that the correct address for a former vice-president was "Your Adequacy".

The second source you added here does not actually make the claim that everything in the interview was meant to be serious. If you want to remove everything in the paragraph except exactly what that source says (that Ford appeared on Conan in 2006 and claimed never to have seen the special), be my guest. (Also worth noting -- even combined, the sources verify probably less than half the content you re-added.)

Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 10:36, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * By the way: even the new source is tongue-in-cheek. The description in Empire makes it abundantly clear that Conan was not trying to be "helpful" by running the clip. He was poking fun at Ford, and I am fairly certain Ford was in on the joke. The simple fact is that all the sources either give only one basic fact about the interview or make it clear that it was meant in good fun: Empire can describe the tongue-in-cheek interview in tongue-in-cheek fashion themselves, but if they seriously implied that Ford assaulted O'Brien there would be heck to pay so for that one point they had to point out that it was a joke. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 10:41, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I watch Conan, and yes I watched that portion of the episode on youtube here: [cut]
 * It looks unscripted to me, unlike the usual fashion that they do when they're running a sketch. The original source describes the content accurately, and it's about as serious of an interview as you could possibly expect from a late night talk show. Also, in the new source, the author begins the paragraph talking about interviewers perspective, and even the paragraph preceding it talks about interviews regarding the special. So, it's obvious from the context that they are talking strictly about interviews. BTW, did Al Gore really say that? Huggums537 (talk) 13:22, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Missed this, but yeah, Gore totally said that. It was in 2002 or 2003, in the lead up to the Iraq War. I was in a real Conan phase and had taped the episode and watched it multiple times, or left it on as background noise, so I can quote some of the interview from memory, which is good because legal copies of old episodes of Late Night with Conan O'Brien are apparently extremely hard to come by (read: attributing anything to the primary source is a violation of WP:V, since one would likely need to watch a pirated copy or personally contact NBC to verify it).
 * As for "Your Adequacy", he was joking. Because that's what interviewees do on Conan. And Conan led him into it by asking what he was supposed to address Gore as, so it was really obvious that either (1) it was entirely sincere and Al Gore actually meant that his formal title as a former VP is "Your Adequacy", or (2) it was not only a joke, but one that had been set up in advance between Conan's people and Gore's, if not Conan and Gore personally.
 * Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 11:41, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the link, but you should know that posting links to bootleg YouTube videos is not allowed per WP:ELNEVER. I have therefore edited your post accordingly. Now I can see for myself and confirm that yes, it was a planned comedy bit. It was not the way we present it, as a super-serious, extremely awkward interview moment. Not at all.
 * You are missing the point when you say it "looks unscripted". Everyone who goes on Conan knows they are likely to get ribbed and poked fun at, and Ford was either aware of exactly what Conan was going to do and planned his reaction to get a laugh out of the audience, or thought up a funny reaction on the spot, or (and this is the worst option for our purposes) the whole thing was discussed in advance between either Ford or Ford's people and either Conan or Conan's people. By comparing it to "running a sketch", you are missing the point of my comparing it to the Al Gore interview where Gore said he looked into it and discovered that people are meant to refer to him (and by extension various other LPs) as "Your Adequacy". We could say he "claimed" to have researched the proper etiquette, but it's really obvious that the whole thing was meant as a joke because it's Conan.
 * This is like citing a satirical internet review show as serious criticism of a piece of media -- everyone knows The Angry Video Game Nerd doesn't actually think every game he reviews is terrible, or that Super Mario Bros 3 is satanic, and if you tried to add that to the articles on those games you would be reverted.
 * And then there's the question of how you just "accidentally came across" an edit I made three months prior, a few minutes after posting a sarcastic attack against me on the MOS:FILM talk page. It's extremely difficult to take this as a good-faith disagreement when you obviously trawled through my talk page and/or contribs looking for an edit of mine that you could revert, and if you are not acting in good faith then I am wasting my time trying to convince you with solid arguments like the above, because making me waste my time trying to convince you when you are not willing to change your mind is apparently the whole point.
 * Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 20:37, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * By the way: Since two editors had already agreed to the removal and it was stable that way for three months, per WP:CONSENSUS, WP:PRESERVE and WP:BRD and virtually everything else (WP:BURDEN springs to mind), your edit should be reverted and the text should stay out while being discussed. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 20:39, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Reinserted youtube link because it's allowed in talk pages for discussion purposes on a primary source based on Fair use, but not allowed in articles per WP:ELNEVER/WP:EL (both are same page). WP:ELNEVER is just a small section of WP:EL, and the WP:EL page as a whole, (including WP:ELNEVER) talks about links "in the body of an article", not talk pages. From WP:EL: "they should not normally be placed in the body of an article.", "information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright", "content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article", "external links should not be used in the body of an article". So, it's very clear they are forbidding the linking "in articles", to say nothing of talk pages. Also I think you misunderstood a "few minutes after posting...". If you go back and check, you will see that it looks like a few minutes at first, but it's actually about 24 hours. You said that you could care less about my edits here, and asked me to leave you alone, which I've tried to do. I sincerely apologize if you mistook the edit at MOS as anything other than an attack. I understand I'm highly critical, and given our history, it's understandable how you would not see it any other way. However, I went on to be supportive with the very next edit, and then you could see I was very civil, and even complimentary on your talk page. I'm working very hard to make amends here, although it's understandable how you may not fully trust it. I want to build a good reputation on Wikipedia, and I can't very well do that unless I can learn to establish good diplomatic relations with everyone here. That requires me to rethink the good faith assumptions I failed to give up in the past. You obviously have something to say about this, or else you wouldn't bring it up on an article talk page totally unrelated to the topic. So, we are going to clear it up right now because it does seem important to you. Also, I think the text should stay in since you did agree to tag it with a citation needed, and wait to see if anybody provides sources. I found some sources. If you're not happy with those, I can try to find some better ones. Huggums537 (talk) 03:43, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Huggums537, no means no. No, that EL says something about what can be in articles doesn't mean that the rules don't apply outside of articles. Sorry, but duh--no, the content is not free, and fair use policies don't allow such links. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 14:38, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * See also WP:COPYLINK, a subset of the copyright policy, which states without qualification that if you know or reasonably suspect that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:03, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * First of all the, "Sorry, but duh--no" comment is condescending, and an editor of your good standing should know it is inappropriate. Also, "no means no", is not a discussion, it's a dictatorship, also inappropriate. If this were any other video I might agree with everyone. However, if anyone bothered to look, this 3 minute segment of Conan also happens to be the primary source for the content in question. I might have even used it as a source for some quotations in the content per WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD "Sometimes, a primary source is even the best possible source, such as when you are supporting a direct quotation", and WP:PRIMARYCARE "The film itself is an acceptable primary source for information about the plot and the names of the characters.". Furthermore, WP:EL states, "...these external-link guidelines do not apply to citations to reliable sources...", and "This guideline does not apply to inline citations or general references, ...". If we just simply were not allowed to use, or discuss certain sources, then those quotations would not exist, and I could just go about Wikipedia removing sources here and there only because they contained a trademarked image, and then tell them hijiri and drmies told me copyright violations are not allowed on Wikipedia period. "no means no". Huggums537 (talk) 21:13, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Here's an example: Suppose we were talking about an article on a documentary, and someone wanted to add a 3 minute clip of the film as a primary source for a direct quotation from the documentary. However, it gets brought up for discussion on the talk page. So, the person wanting to add the material provides the source for peers to review. How would that be any different? I feel like my use here is legitimate. If it were under nefarious looking circumstances, then you shouldn't consider it further, but that just isn't the case here. It does, however, feel like hijiri is only crying copyright as a strategy to prevent the source from being reviewed by others so they can't see for themselves that this is in fact an interview, as the sources I provided suggests. Huggums537 (talk) 22:19, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * "Duh" because your argument ("ELNEVER" ONLY APPLIES TO EL) is nonsensical. My status has nothing to do with it. No means no--you don't get it, there is nothing to discuss here. We're not talking about some guideline here, we're talking about linking to copyrighted content. WHICH YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO DO. If someone wants to add a 3-minute clip of a film and it's copyright-protected the answer is NO THEY CAN'T DO THAT. I don't know why you are confusing a rule about copyright with a discussion about content. Drmies (talk) 22:23, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * "Duh" was in no way a proper explanation as to why my argument was "nonsensical". I don't know what meaningful purpose it serves to state the obvious, that I "don't get it", but I do know that I DON'T get it. I already stated that I feel that my actions are legitimate, and provided multiple quotes from guidelines as to why I feel justified in doing so. You, however, started off by being condescending, and still have yet to provide anything useful that might help me understand how to "get it", other than basically screaming in bold, "NO YOU CAN'T". And, I'm the one being accused of making nonsensical arguments? Well, I might be new here, but at least I provided something for an argument that could either be proved, disproved, or discussed. For you to resort to name-calling my legitimate attempts to justify my position as "nonsensical", is just further insulting. The only one to add any value to this discussion, other than myself, was Writ Keeper, who provided us with WP:COPYLINK, which also says, "Since most recently-created works are copyrighted, almost any Wikipedia article which cites its sources will link to copyrighted material.", "It is not necessary to obtain the permission of a copyright holder before linking to copyrighted material,...", and "In some cases, fair use guidelines may allow them to be used irrespective of any copyright claims". So, I keep finding material in the guidelines that makes me think this is legitimate usage. Huggums537 (talk) 00:14, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

There's a difference, though, between "linking to things that are copyrighted" (allowed and indeed unavoidable) and "linking to things that violate someone else's copyright" (*never* allowed, per COPYLINK). Nobody would object if you were linking to a video legitimately posted by its creator/copyright holder. But linking to a random person uploading a video that isn't theirs to Youtube is *never* allowed: not because the video is copyrighted, but because the uploader is violating that copyright.

And for the record, the policy on copyright, as a policy with legal ramifications for the WMF, is *not* up for debate. It's one of the very few things on Wikipedia that is not subject to consensus. Copyright really is a dictatorship, not a democracy, because to do otherwise could expose the project at large to serious legal consequences. So if we seem draconian, it's because we have to be. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 00:38, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I can see a difference there. So, my theory is actually correct. I would only need to find the video clip directly from the Conan website, or something like that. It would be the exact same video, just coming from a different source, if I understand you correctly. I'm still unsure that a youtube user uploading a 3 minute segment of a Conan show is actually violating copyright, and isn't fair use itself. However, it appears that the consensus here is that the video is violating copyright. So, would you agree there is also a difference between debating the copyright policy, and debating if there has been a violation of that policy? Thank you for at least acknowledging a discussion on the matter. Also, I disagree that anyone just has to be "draconian" about copyright (or other) policy when there is always another approach. Although, I do understand the thinking behind it. Huggums537 (talk) 03:00, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * This is hardly "consensus"--it's more like law. Drmies (talk) 04:06, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Huggums, you still don't seem to understand. You are allowed cite primary sources, no matter how you accessed them, but if said access was to bootleg copies online you are not allowed link them anywhere on-wiki. It would have been more of a grey area if you had said to me "I saw the clip, and you can too. There's a bootleg upload on a certain video hosting site, and just Googling the obvious search terms will bring it up", but linking to bootleg YouTube uploads is absolutely never acceptable. I told you this before, but you didn't listen, even going so far as to reinsert the link, and now you have only pulled back because an admin said the same thing I did. I should not have to go get an admin every time you won't listen to me explaining our policies and guidelines to you, nor should I have to open a noticeboard discussion every time you won't listen either.
 * Anyway, you are allowed cite primary sources, even ones you only accessed via bootleg copies, but in this case your primary source is a satirical "bit" from a comedy talk show, and no rational viewer would take it as a serious expression of Ford's sincere feelings about the topic. Yeah, he probably doesn't like it, and might even be embarrassed about it (although Fisher and Daniels certainly weren't), but the way it's made out in the Late Night interview (and consequently the way we make it out because we foolishly take the Late Night interview at face value) it's like some horrible, traumatic experience that has haunted his nightmares for decades. One of the secondary sources you located hardly supported any of the material in our article, and the other was clearly just as satirical as the interview itself, only pointing out that they were joking when not doing so would be defamatory.
 * By the way -- you are very unlikely to find a legitimate upload of the clip "directly from the Conan website", since the copyright for old episodes of Late Night almost certainly remains at NBC, and Conan had a rather public dispute with NBC over his hosting of The Tonight Show back in 2009/2010. Your not being aware of this makes me highly skeptical of your claim, above, that Yes, I watch Conan. This adds strength to my original theory that you were not being entirely truthful when you claimed here that you had accidentally stumbled across my edits to this page you had never edited before, three months after the fact, during which time a dozen other edits had been made to the page, and your stumbling across it just happened to coincide with your disputing with me over a passage in MOS:FILM. You are trying to weave together a story that you have always been a fan of Conan O'Brien and were following this article on an obscure piece of Star Wars media from the start, but it simply doesn't hold up under scrutiny. I suppose next you are going to tell me that you came to this article back in June (and somehow kept quiet until September) since you were following SF Debris's retrospective of the production of The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi and have always been a fan of Charles Sonnenburg (sp?), and use that as an excuse to revert this edit? I had a user once hound me with an obviously false excuse that he had a whole load of interests in common wih me, despite his constantly getting factual details wrong that no one who actually shared my research interests would get wrong. It didn't work out well for them. You made it apparent on Talk:Guardians of the Galaxy (film) (among other places) that you hadn't even seen the films in question (or else you were deliberately "playing dumb" in order to get me to waste time explaining everything about the films to you, which is almost worse), and now you are getting really basic biographical facts about a television personality you claim to "watch" wrong. No one who just happened to know about this topic because they were a Conan fan would think that the show that was on air in 2006 and is referred to as "Conan" is the same entity as the Conan that currently has its own website.
 * Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 05:33, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with the edit reversion Drmies recently made here to restore the pruned TV appearance and corrected citation that was edited earlier. I think it's a fair compromise. Although, I see the "nonsense" tag remains despite my having politely asked otherwise, and I have no idea what the implied meaning of "you will need permission" is supposed to be. Huggums537 (talk) 09:26, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I still agree with User:Drmies edit per comment above. However, there was some remaining unsourced content that was missed during "the pruning", and I took the liberty of removing it myself. Huggums537 (talk) 10:00, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd like to point out that two days ago, at the top of this thread, I proposed the edit Drmies wound up implementing (If you want to remove everything in the paragraph except exactly what that source says (that Ford appeared on Conan in 2006 and claimed never to have seen the special), be my guest.) and Huggums showed no interest in the proposal at the time. Also, the edit he now claims to agree with was a direct revert of his own edit here. I can't figure out how any of this makes sense. Huggums, do you understand the policy, now that Drmies has explained it? Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 11:41, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm fully cognizant of being in agreement with a direct reversion to my own edit. That much should be obvious by the fact that I even assisted Drmies with the additional removal of unsourced content that was missed during the reversion of my edit. It makes sense if you make the consideration that my viewpoint simply changed, and now I agree. Hijiri, I would ask you to stop patronizing me, but I don't think it would do any good. Huggums537 (talk) 13:28, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not patronizing you. I'm explaining policy to you when you apparently don't understand it, as I did back in July and for much of this month. I really can't figure out how when I explain the policy to you, you respond with sarcastic attacks and condescension as you did here (even going so far as to make an unsubtle jab at me in a discussion that didn't even involve me more than a week later), but when Drmies does the same you give up and recognize that he is right in his agreeing with what I had been telling you all along. I also find it incredibly convenient that you stopped attacking me directly as soon as two admins showed up.
 * I would ask you to stop hounding my edits and looking for any excuse to fight with me, but I don't think it would do any good.
 * Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 22:09, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * So, I think you're jealous of Drmies then? At least, that was the only meaningful thing I read into those statements anyway. I never would think that's true if you hadn't mentioned it your last comment AND the one before it. I hope it's OK for me to read into that since you are allowed to read into innocent comments as attacks and such. And, you're lecturing me on policy? Huggums537 (talk) 04:14, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Dsitributor?
Pinging the user who originally added that the distributor was Disney when they bought Lucasfilm. As per the common understanding of the purchase (reffed and removed by IP/Huggums) Disney acquired all the distribution rights of the Star Wars films from Lucasfilm with the exception of the six films in the original trilogy and specifically all content originally aired on television. As this special was originally aired on television and it is not one of the films in the first two trilogies, it is clearly under the purview of Disney's distribution rights. The IP's argument that "Disney did not distribute this" is moot because one need not have distributed to be the entity legally allowed to. This assertion is actually original research, in my opinion. Huggums did not provide any rational for removing this content either. But the panoply of data suggests it's Disney's content, for instance whenever a version is uploaded to YouTube the copyright team that takes it down saying it's theirs is Disney, "This video contains content from Disney, who has blocked it on copyright grounds.". I know that's not admissable on its face, but there's nothing to suggest that this one special is somehow exempt from Disney's purchase, or, even more bizarre, actually counts as one of the six films in the first two trilogies. JesseRafe (talk) 17:39, 13 December 2017 (UTC) PAGE ]]) 15:46, 19 December 2017 (UTC) PAGE ]]) 16:59, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm weary of this debate. Your sources do not support the claim. I suggest removing them by restoring the original STATUSQUO and adding a citation needed tag for someone to add a reliable source that actually supports the claim. This will make everyone (except maybe the IP user) happy. I will be done with the debate, JesseRafe will have the beloved content, and perhaps the baseless attacks against me will then stop. Also, I would kindly ask you to strike my name from the false statement "reffed and removed by IP/Huggums" per WP:BLP. Huggums537 (talk) 20:26, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * There's something you should know: As of yesterday, 20th Century Fox Television is now the property of The Walt Disney Company. AdamDeanHall (talk) 14:19, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks AdanDeanHall for that interesting information. Perhaps we can restore the content reflecting that new change along with a citation needed tag. Huggums537 (talk) 16:01, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Making all of this Mickey Mouse, more or less. Jonathunder (talk) 16:04, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Doesn't really change the status of this film, which was already always with Disney. The distributor should be restored and there should not be a citation needed tag because for the umpteenth time, refs do not go in the infobox. JesseRafe (talk) 16:33, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * All information added must be reliably sourced and there are other ways of sourcing other than putting it in the infobox such as inline attribution and footnotes... Huggums537 (talk) 17:17, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * JesseRafe The sock puppet investigation has now closed in my favor. I'll ask you kindly one last time to strike or remove the defamatory remark about me. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 20:48, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No, Disney and fox have made a purchase agreement, but the sale has NOT gone through and it's not even clear if the DoJ will allow it due to antitrust concerns. --Ahecht ([[User_talk:Ahecht|TALK
 * I'm going to remove the line. Disputed info shouldn't be in the infobox, as complex issues such as who distributes a show that has only been aired once and never distributed again would better be described in the prose of the article. Per MOS:IBX, Some items in infoboxes may not be readily available or not available at all, such as the producers of an album or film. In these cases it is better to provide available information while concealing fields for which information may not be available. There aren't any reliable sources claiming that Disney-ABC is the distributor, but MeTV, a TV network who are in a position to know who distributes content, credited it to 20th Century Fox Television in a 2016 article, IMDB lists CBS, etc. --Ahecht ([[User_talk:Ahecht|TALK
 * Ahecht, please seek consensus before singularly making changes. I agree with your decision, but we should give Jesse and Adam a chance to respond before making changes. I'm going to revert your edit if it hasn't been done so already until we reach a consensus on this. Thanks for your input and participation. Also, JesseRafe was mostly right that it didn't really matter much either way since the issue here was that, though it's logical enough to combine all of JesseRafe's sources to come to the conclusion that Disney (is rightfully) the distributor even though none of the sources explicitly state that fact, so doing is expressly forbidden by policy as the very first specified form of synthesis, which generally constitutes original research. That is why we removed those sources and added the citation needed tag as a compromise. However, since Jesse pointed out that sources don't go in boxes and you brought up that this info should be in the proseline, I suggest we move it to the proseline. Huggums537 (talk) 17:46, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

 * One-off TV specials don't have "distributors" outside the broadcast networks that show them. A license-holder is not the same as a distributor. Removing unsourced, erroneous text accordingly. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 02:59, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 14 December 2017
The sentence "It was also broadcast in New Zealand on TVNZ and in Australia on the Seven Network." is an uncited claim and I believe needs a tag.-- Tenebrae (talk) 19:33, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree with request. Huggums537 (talk) 20:15, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:02, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Star Wars Holiday Special. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051020072824/http://starwarsgalaxies.station.sony.com/content.jsp?page=Wookiee%20Life%20Day to http://starwarsgalaxies.station.sony.com/content.jsp?page=Wookiee%20Life%20Day

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:06, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

ABC News citation
I've tagged this "better source" needs. It misspells Carol Burnett as "Burnette", erroneously claims Art Carney, Diahann Carroll and Bea Arthur only made cameo appearances, and also appears to repeat a purported Maxim quote that only appears on Wikipedia and sources using Wikipedia to make that claim. I don't have time at the moment, but there's nothing in that article that can't be cited to better, more accurate sources.--Tenebrae (talk) 19:06, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Article is Repetitive
There are assertions that appear multiple times within the article. An example is the repeated note that the Boba Fett animated short is considered the best part of the special. We get it. It doesn't have to be said over and over.

I don't have time to clean this up now (hit-and-run complaint, I know), but if anyone can strip out the redundancies, the article will be improved. Cernansky (talk) 19:10, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

YouTube
The article implies that copies of the Holiday Special are hard to locate and need to involve "underground" sources. However, there appear to be several versions floating around on YouTube for unrestricted public viewership (herre is one: Likely copyright violation link removed, per WP:COPYVIOEL. ). --Legis (talk - contribs) 16:22, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

 * The special is copyrighted. Only the copyright owner (or their licensee) can distribute the work legally. So, for example, in the link you provided, "DJameyson" who posted the video would need to have either clearly owned the copyright to the special, been licensed by the owner or be using the work in compliance with fair use provisions. There is no indication any of these apply (and strong reason to believe they do not), so I removed the link per WP:COPYVIOEL. Most likely, that particular post will be taken down at some point when YouTube gets a DMCA takedown notice. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 19:47, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Did Lucas retain the rights to this?
I have heard this repeated in fan circles ever since the sale LucasFilm to Disney but I have never heard an official conformation or denial. Can anyone clear this up? 2601:188:C502:7F50:1523:DB39:6D7B:9CE0 (talk) 03:49, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

This was not Boba Fett’s introduction in the Star Wars Universe
Boba Fett actually made his first appearance in Star Wars: A New Hope at the end of a scene where Han Solo talks with Jabba The Hutt about his bounty 216.223.198.134 (talk) 03:29, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * That was added in the 1997 Special Edition. Raymond1922 (talk) 15:55, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Cultural Impact, Etc. …
Not sure if this is relevant or not … but, Disneyland,Anaheim, during the winter holidays, sells all sorts of “Life Day” souvenirs - shirts, mugs, ornaments - in their Star Wars area. So, love or hate the special, it’s definitely still being referenced. ( Experienced first hand in January 2023.) 75.107.41.198 (talk) 19:22, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Community reference?
Wouldn’t say the Inspector Spacetime special is “ a clear nod to the Star Wars Holiday Special” as Inspector Spacetime is a parody of Dr. Who, which has numerous holiday specials. 75.108.235.183 (talk) 17:33, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Star Wars Holiday Special


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ned (Scottish)1

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep, strong suggestion to merge and redirect. Dmcdevit·t 06:54, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Ned (Scottish)
See Votes for deletion/Charva. If variants of chav should be merged and redirected to there, this shouldn't be made to be an exception. Charva allegedly has NPOV issues, but that isn't deletion criteria - these many be ok POV-wise, but its as notable a variant as charva, so it should be merged and redirected per consensus there. Hedley 00:08, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect with/to chav in line with Charva VfD. --Sanguinus 00:13, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The reasons given by some editors for merging charva with chav involve the assertion that the two are just two words for the same thing. To be "in line with" that, "ned" and "chav" would have to be two words for the same thing.  Is that your assertion? Uncle G 08:49, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge with townie or chav or whatever. —Ashley Y 02:57, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep This is an important, if undesirable, part of Scottish culture and should be kept. I do not regard a ned as being the same as a chav although there are some obvious similarities. --Colin Angus Mackay 07:15, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * This is Votes for deletion. Please don't nominate things here for deletion when you do not actually wish anything to be deleted.  Merger does not involve deletion at any stage, and has its own set of tags, separate from  . Uncle G 08:49, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. --WikiFan04Talk 5:13, 20 Jul 2005 (CDT)
 * Keep Scottish English terms are distinct from English English terms and this is a good article. CalJW 10:36, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * We don't have separate articles for things just because there may be two or more distinct terms for them. We don't have separate articles, one for each of the terms, for things for which there are multiple distinct Commonwealth English and United States English terms, for example.  We have separate articles when the actual things themselves are different.  Is it your assertion that a ned and a chav are two distinct things? Uncle G 12:16, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I would make that assertion. There are many cultural subtlties that make them different. If this article were to be merged into the chav article then either the many of the subtlties would be lost or it would overwhelm the receiving article making it quite much longer than it already is, possibly drowning out other important information. --Colin Angus Mackay
 * Merge and redirect to Chav. There are only very minor regional differences between the description for Ned here and how I would describe a Townie in SW England or a Chav in SE England. Just becuase it is a Scottish English dialect word doens't make it any more notable than a Westcountry English dialect word or an Estuary English dialect word. The word Townie has more than one use, but the "Urban context 2" should be merged into the Chav article as well. Thryduulf 12:12, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - IMO they are sufficiently different to warrant seperate articles. -- Lochaber 13:40, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep quite a good article actually and not quite the same as chav. PatGallacher 16:26, 2005 July 20 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree with Colin; the cultural differences are big enough to warrant two separate articles. Mendor 19:06, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect As an Englishman in Scotland who's seen his fair share of both chavs and neds - they really are just the same thing, but with a different appellation; the minor differences north of the border (Buckfast etc.) can be mentioned in a "Regional Differences" subsection of the unified page. Qwghlm 23:14, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * I think you may be missing some of the subtlties. It is like a Japanese person not being able to distinguish the L and R from each other, a Spaniard the V and B, or even many Englishmen with the CH and CK in Scots words. There is a definite difference if you have an ear for it. --Colin Angus Mackay 06:13, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I find it hard to appreciate the subtleties when being threatened at a bus stop at night by them, never mind what side of the border I'm on :| Seriously, though, most of the distinctive features of a stereotypical chav/ned: the clothing, baseball caps, the jewellery, rubbish cars, menacing dogs, anti-social behaviour 'are the same no matter where you are (isn't that the point of the chav stereotype - that they're everywhere you go in the country?), and both articles concerned replicate each other a great deal. There are minor differences, just as there are regional differences within England, but the broad features are essentially the same. Merge the articles, and discuss regional differences within the single one. Qwghlm 09:43, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect - all these near synonyms needs to be in the same place. Secretlondon 19:39, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect. If we're merging charva we should do the same with this one. They are all regional variations on approximately the same theme. Of course there will be differences, and these can be discussed in the article, but I don't regard them as sufficiently distinct concepts to warrant seperate articles. — Trilobite (Talk) 01:11, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge/redir as above. Radiant_ >|< 14:11, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Chav, SqueakBox 00:12, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Always considered this to be a worthy article. Should chav be merged with white trash? DirectorStratton 23:11, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Gustaf Sobin

Gustaf Sobin (November 15, 1935 – July 7, 2005) was a U.S.-born poet and author who spent most of his adult life in France. Originally from Boston, Sobin attended the Choate School, Brown University, and moved to Paris in 1962. Eventually he settled in the village of Goult, Provence, where he remained for over forty years, publishing more than a dozen books of poetry, four novels, a children's story, and two compilations of essays.

Sobin maintained his expatriate status until his death in July, 2005 of pancreatic cancer at the age of 69.

Life and work
After studies with René Char, Gustaf Sobin developed a poetic style that relies heavily on assonance and consonance, as well as other methods of the sonic organization of speech. He published many books across different genres: fiction, essays, and translations (including a translation of Henri Michaux's Ideograms in China, a prose poem about Chinese orthography). More recent translations include The Brittle Age and Returning Upland, two volumes from Char's work of the mid to late 1960s that Sobin chose to translate in full, published posthumously in 2009, side by side with Char's French text.

Among his many books are Breath's Burials (poetry, New Directions, 1995), Luminous Debris (1999) and Ladder of Shadows (2008) (essays, University of California Press), and Collected Poetry (2010). Among his works of fiction are the novels The Fly Truffler (about the art of truffle-hunting in Southern France), and In Pursuit of a Vanishing Star, which is a chronicle of a brief period of Greta Garbo's early acting career.

Gustaf Sobin was survived by his wife, Susannah Bott, his daughter Esther, his son Gabriel, an older brother Harris (now deceased), of Phoenix, Arizona, and his devoted cousin, Mikki Ansin of Cambridge, Massachusetts. Sobin's brother Harris, an architect and architectural historian, designed the rehabilitation of Gustaf Sobin's residence and two additions for a historic stone cocoonery in Provence, France.

Before his death, Sobin named U.S. poets Andrew Joron and Andrew Zawacki as the co-executors of his literary estate.

Select bibliography

 * The Tale of the Yellow Triangle. With illustrations by Jolaine Meyer and text by Gustaf Sobin. G. Braziller (1973).
 * Gustaf Sobin. A reading, February 7, 1996, in the Modern Languages Auditorium, sponsored by The University of Arizona Poetry Center.
 * Ideograms in China. Henri Michaux, translated from the French by Gustaf Sobin. New Directions (2002).
 * The Brittle Age and Returning Upland. Rene Char. Translated by Gustaf Sobin. Counterpath (2009).

 * Poetry
 * Wind Chrysalid's Rattle. Montemora Supplement NY, 1980.
 * Caesurae: Midsummer. Blue Guitar Books/Shearsman Supplement, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 1981.
 * Celebration of the Sound Through. Montemora Supplement, NY, 1982.
 * Carnets 1979-1982. Shearsman Books, 1984.
 * Nile. Oasis/Shearsman, London UK, 1984.
 * The Earth As Air. New Directions, NY, 1984.
 * Miniatures. (Cadmus Editions, San Francisco, 1986: 200 copies, privately distributed)
 * Voyaging Portraits. New Directions, NY, 1988.
 * Blown Letters, Driven Alphabets. Shearsman Books, Plymouth, UK, 1994.
 * Breath's Burials. New Directions, NY, 1995.
 * By the Bias of Sound: Selected Poems 1974-1994. Talisman House, Jersey City, NJ, 1995.
 * A World of Letters: Poems. Arcturus Editions (1998).
 * Towards the Blanched Alphabets (Talisman House, 1998. 123pp, h/c & pb)
 * Articles of Light & Elation (Cadmus, 1998. 50pp)
 * In the Name of the Neither (Talisman House, 2002. 57pp, pb)
 * The Places as Preludes (Talisman House, 2005, 76pp, pb)
 * Collected Poems (Talisman House, 2010, 756pp, pb)

 * Prose, fiction & essays
 * Venus Blue (Bloomsbury, London, 1991, out of print) - novel
 * Dark Mirrors (Bloomsbury, 1992, out of print) - novel
 * The Fly-Truffler (Norton, New York, 1999) - novel
 * Luminous Debris: Reflecting on Vestige in Provence and Languedoc (University of California Press, 1999. 247pp, pb) - essays
 * In Pursuit of a Vanishing Star (Norton, NY, 2002) - novel
 * Ladder of Shadows: Reflecting on Medieval Vestige in Provence and Languedoc (University of California Press, 2009. 208pp. pb, hc) - essays- companion volume to Luminous Debris
 * Aura: Last Essays. Counterpath, 2009.

title: Gustaf Sobin


text: User talk:24.11.212.245

title: User talk:24.11.212.245


text:
Citroën Picasso

Picasso is a term that in the Citroën range from 1999 to 2018 referred to minivans and compact MPVs.

Citroën bought permission to use this name through a very strict contract.

For twenty years, there have been various vehicles bearing this name:

title: Citroën Picasso


text: Talk:Washington State Route 16

title: Talk:Washington State Route 16


text:
Constance Gordon-Cumming

Constance Frederica “Eka” Gordon-Cumming (26 May 1837 – 4 September 1924) was a Scottish travel writer and painter. Born in a wealthy family, she travelled around the world and painted described scenes and life as she saw them. She was a friend and influencer of the travel writers and artists Marianne North and Isabella Bird.

Biography
Eka's grandfather Sir Alexander Cumming inherited the wealth of his wife and the name and arms of Gordon of Gordonstoun in 1804 and used the hyphenated double surname which was not consistently used by family members. She was born on 26 May 1837 at Altyre, near Forres in Scotland, the 12th child of a wealthy family. Her parents were Sir William Gordon Gordon-Cumming, 2nd Baronet, and Eliza Maria Gordon-Cumming, granddaughter of the Duke of Argyll. Eka was the aunt of Sir William Gordon-Cumming, 4th Baronet. Little is known about her early education but she would have had private home tutors. Her mother was interested in geology and was familiar with the works of Robert Murchison. A Swiss maid,  Cherie, taught her French and after the death of her mother in 1848, she went to live with an aunt in Northumberland. She went to Hermitage Lodge at Fulham leaving it in 1853. Many of her family members were travellers, an uncle Charles Cumming-Bruce married the grand-daughter of the Nile explorer James Bruce of Kinnaird. Her brother Alexander had been Canada while another, Roualeyn had been Africa where he had been famous as a big-game hunter. Another brother John was a planter in Ceylon while William was a soldier in India. William wrote about his hunting in "Wild Men and Wild Beasts" (1871) dedicated to Col. Walter Campbell ("The Old Forest Ranger"). Her travelling phase began around 1866 when she was in Loch Ness where her terminally ill brother Roualeyn was being nursed by another sister. In 1868 she went on a painting tour with her half-brother Frederick to the Western Islands. She taught herself how to paint, and had help from artists visiting her home, including one of Queen Victoria's favorite painters, Sir Edwin Landseer. She also took an invitation from her half-sister Emilia Sergison to visit India and after spending a year there she wrote In the Himalayas and on the Indian Plains (1884). This was followed by, twelve years  of  enchanting  travel  which followed would never have been dreamt of, for link by link that pleasant chain wove itself, as she described it.

Gordon-Cumming was a prolific travel writer and landscape painter who traveled the world, mostly in Asia and the Pacific. She painted over a thousand watercolors and worked with a motto to ‘never a day without at least one careful-coloured sketch’ starting her day at 5am while in India. Places she visited include Australia, New Zealand, America, China, and Japan. She arrived in Hilo, Hawaii in October 1879, and was among the first artists to paint the active volcanoes. Her Hawaii travelogue, Fire Fountains: The Kingdom of Hawaii, was published in Edinburgh in 1883. She had several dangerous moments but her travel ended in 1880 when the Montana that she was on ran into rocks at Holyhead. While most of the passengers took the lifeboat, she stayed on last along with the captain to save her paintings and was rescued many hours later. She returned to live at Crieff with her widowed sister Eleanor and continued to write books.

Her best known books are At Home in Fiji and A Lady's Cruise on a French Man-of-War. The latter book resulted from an invitation to join a French ship put into service for the Bishop of Samoa so that he could visit remote parts of his far-flung diocese.

Miss Gordon-Cumming received much criticism from male writers of the era, perhaps because she did not fit in the traditional Victorian role of women, as she often traveled alone and unaided. Henry Adams said her books are a collection of anecdotes without much interest. In any case, her landscape drawings and watercolors seem to be universally admired.

Gordon-Cumming visited Yosemite Valley in April 1878, after visiting Tahiti. She intended to visit for 3 days, but ended up staying 3 months. She says "I for one have wandered far enough over the wide world to know a unique glory when I am blessed by the sight of one . . ." She published her letters back home as Granite Crags in 1884. While in Yosemite Miss Gordon-Cumming also drew watercolor sketches, which she displayed in Yosemite Valley—making it the first art exhibition in Yosemite.

In 1879, while visiting Peking, China, Miss Gordon-Cumming met William Hill Murray, a Scottish missionary to China. He had invented the Numeral Type system, through which blind and illiterate Chinese learned to read and write, by assigning numbers to each of the 408 Chinese Mandarin sounds. Gordon-Cumming wrote a book (1899) about the system and supported the school for the rest of her life. She died in Scotland on 4 September 1924, and is buried near Crieff.

The Honolulu Museum of Art, the Oakland Museum of California and the Yosemite Museum are among the public collections holding works by Constance Gordon-Cumming.

Publications

 * 1876 From the Hebrides to the Himalayas; a Sketch of Eighteen Months' Wanderings in Western Isles and Eastern Highlands. (London: Sampson Low, Marston)
 * 1881 "The Last King of Tahiti," Contemporary Review, v.41, (London)
 * 1881 At Home in Fiji (Edinburgh: William Blackwood)
 * 1882 A Lady's Cruise in a French Man-of-War (Edinburgh: William Blackwood & Sons)
 * 1882 "Gordon Ningpo and the Buddhist Temples," The Century Magazine (Sept.) (online at Making of America)
 * 1883 Fire Fountains: The Kingdom of Hawaii (Edinburgh: William Blackwood)
 * 1883 In the Hebrides (Edinburgh). Cruising the Scottish Islands.
 * 1884 "Fijian Pottery," The Art Journal
 * 1884 Granite Crags Edinburgh and London: William Blackwood & Sons). Reprinted in 1886 and 1888 as Granite Crags of California, minus 2 illustrations
 * 1884 In the Himalayas and on the Indian Plains (London: Chatto & Windus)
 * 1884 "New Zealand in Blooming December," The Century Magazine (Dec.) (online at Making of America)
 * 1885 "The Offerings of the Dead," British Quarterly Review
 * 1885 Via Cornwell to Egypt (London: Chatto & Windus)
 * 1886 Granite crags of California (Edinburgh & London: William Blackwood & Sons)
 * 1886 Wanderings in China 2 v. (Edinburgh & London: William Blackwood & Sons)
 * 1887 Work for the Blind in China: Showing How Blind Beggars may be transformed into useful Scripture Readers Part I (London: Gilbert & Rivington), Part II (Helensburgh, [1892])
 * 1889 Notes on Ceylon (London)
 * 1889 Notes on China and its Missions (London)
 * 1890 "Across the Yellow Sea," Blackwood's Magazine
 * 1892 Two Happy Years in Ceylon, 4d ed., 2 v. (Edinburgh & London: William Blackwood & Sons)
 * 1893 Two Happy Years in Ceylon, (London: Chatto & Windus)
 * 1895 The Blind in China (Helensburgh)
 * 1899 The Inventor of the Numeral-type for China, by the use of which Illiterate Chinese both Blind and Sighted can very Quickly be Taught to Read and Write Fluently (London: Downey & Co.)
 * 1900 Wanderings in China (Edinburgh: W. Blackwood.)
 * 1904 Memories. Autobiography

title: Constance Gordon-Cumming


text:
Laguna Madre (Mexico)

Laguna Madre is a coastal lagoon in Northeastern Mexico. It extends along the coast of Tamaulipas for over 200 km, from the Río Bravo Delta on the north to the mouth of the Soto la Marina River near La Pesca in the south. Laguna Madre is separated from the Gulf of Mexico on the east by a number of barrier islands, including Barra Los Americanos, Barra Jesús María, and Barra Soto la Marina, and is bounded on the west by the Tamaulipan mainland. It is located in the municipalities of Matamoros, San Fernando, and Soto la Marina.

There is another Laguna Madre in the United States, which extends north from the Río Bravo Delta to Corpus Christi Bay and the city of Corpus Christi in southern Texas. Together the two lagoons and delta form a single ecological unit approximately 275 mi in total.

Characteristics
The Laguna Madre is very shallow, with an average depth of only 0.9 m. The lagoon is connected to the ocean by only two narrow inlets, so the tidal range – which is already minor in this part of the Gulf of Mexico – is negligible. Atmospheric effects are much more important than tides in its circulation; its weak currents generally follow the prevailing winds, and these winds can influence the water level by as much as a meter.

Oceanographically, the Laguna Madre is considered a hypersaline lagoon; this indicates that it is usually much saltier than the ocean, due to being nearly landlocked in a semiarid environment. This is because its salinity can vary wildly depending on rainfall and freshwater inflow, from as high as 120 ppt (12%) – over three times saltier than the ocean – to as low as 2 ppt (0.2%) after a heavy rain.

Flora and fauna
According to the National Biodiversity Information System of Comisión Nacional para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad (CONABIO) in Laguna Madre and Delta del Río Bravo Flora and Fauna Protection Area there are over 1,515 plant and animal species from which 72 are in at risk category and 51 are exotics.

Aquatic habitats include mangroves and large areas of seagrass beds with Halodule wrightii and other species.

Laguna Madre is one of the most important bird wintering habitats in Mexico. It is home to 26 species of waterfowl, including grey plover (Pluvialis squatarola), sanderling (Calidris alba), least sandpiper (Calidris minutilla), and piping plover (Charadrius melodus). Populations of redhead (Aythya americana) and northern pintail (Anas acuta) number over 100,000 individuals. There are 144 resident bird species, including both waterbirds and terrestrial birds. It is on the Gulf migratory route, an important migration route for water birds, songbirds, and birds of prey.

Upland areas are part of the Tamaulipan pastizal, a mosaic of grassland and semi-arid shrubland. Characteristic shrubs include mesquite (Prosopis glandulosa), blackbrush (Acacia rigidula), and Castela tortuosa. It includes some of the best-preserved areas in the Mexican portion of the pastizal, and serves as a wildlife corridor for large mammals like jaguar, ocelot, oncillo, puma, and lynx.

Conservation
Thanks to lobbying and studies done by organizations such as Pronatura Noreste, universities, local governments, and other organizations, with the aid of local communities, in April 2005 the Mexican government declared Laguna Madre and the Río Bravo Delta a flora and fauna protection area. The 1.4 million acres (5,700 km2) under legal protection are in the municipalities of Matamoros, San Fernando and Soto la Marina, in the state of Tamaulipas. In 2006 UNESCO declared the area an international biosphere reserve.

title: Laguna Madre (Mexico)


text:
Talk:Washington State Route 99

NPOV
Current article refers to the brick building protruding into the Viaduct as "disconcerting." This is a value judgement; I think it's a rather cool feature of a truly urban freeway, built with tight tolerances. As such, I'm editing to be neutral. ---N, Tacoma, WA

Spurs of PSH 1

 * Primary State Highway 1 AN (Anacortes)
 * State Route 536 [now partly State Route 20 Spur and State Route 20], Anacortes - I-5 (PSH 1) Mount Vernon
 * Primary State Highway 1 AP (Austin Pass)
 * State Route 542, I-5 (PSH 1) Bellingham - Austin Pass
 * Primary State Highway 1 CD (Chuckanut Drive)
 * State Route 11, I-5 (PSH 1) Burlington - I-5 (PSH 1) Bellingham
 * Primary State Highway 1 DC (Duwamish Cutoff)
 * State Route 181 [Boeing Access Road], US 99 (PSH 1) Duwamish - SR 900 (PSH 2 RE) South Seattle
 * Primary State Highway 1 EP (Evergreen Point)
 * State Route 520, I-5 (PSH 1) Seattle - SR 522 [now SR 202] (PSH 2 BO) Redmond
 * Primary State Highway 1 MA (Marysville)
 * State Route 528, I-5 (PSH 1) Marysville - SR 9 (SSH 1A)
 * Primary State Highway 1 RE (Renton)
 * State Route 518 and Interstate 405, US 99 (PSH 1) Riverton Heights - I-5 (PSH 1) Alderwood Manor (SR 518 section was also SSH 1L!)
 * Primary State Highway 1 TR (Truck Route)
 * State Route 543, I-5 (PSH 1) Blaine - Canada
 * Primary State Highway 1 WM (West Marginal Way)
 * U.S. Route 99 Temporary, US 99 (PSH 1) Foster - SR 509 (SSH 1K)
 * no suffix
 * Interstate 205 Oregon - I-5 (PSH 1) Salmon Creek

 * Secondary State Highway 1A
 * State Route 9, SR 202 [now SR 522] (PSH 15 BM) Maltby [may have extended south to Woodinville?] - Canada
 * State Route 544, US 99 Alternate [now SR 539] (SSH 1B) Wiser Lake - SR 9 (SSH 1A) Nooksack
 * Secondary State Highway 1B
 * U.S. Route 99 Alternate [now State Route 539], I-5 (PSH 1) Bellingham - Canada
 * State Route 546, US 99 Alternate [now SR 539] (SSH 1B) Lynden - SR 9 (SSH 1A) Van Buren
 * Secondary State Highway 1C
 * State Route 537, SR 536 [now SR 20] (PSH 1 AC) Whitney - I-5 (PSH 1) Edison
 * Secondary State Highway 1D
 * State Route 525 [now partly State Route 20], Clinton Ferry - SR 536 [now SR 20 Spur] (PSH 1 AN) Anacortes
 * State Route 113 [now State Route 20], SR 525 (SSH 1D) - Keystone Ferry
 * Secondary State Highway 1E
 * State Route 530 [partly Pioneer Highway], I-5 (PSH 1) Conway - Darrington
 * Secondary State Highway 1G
 * State Route 538, I-5 (PSH 1) Mount Vernon - SR 9 (SSH 1A)
 * Secondary State Highway 1H
 * State Route 534, I-5 (PSH 1) Conway - SR 9 (SSH 1A) McMurray
 * Secondary State Highway 1I
 * State Route 525, Mukilteo Ferry - US 99 (PSH 1) Martha Lake
 * State Route 526, SR 525 (SSH 1I) Mukilteo - I-5 (PSH 1) Everett
 * Secondary State Highway 1J
 * State Route 513, US 10 (PSH 2) Seattle - US 99 (PSH 1) North Seattle
 * Secondary State Highway 1K
 * State Route 516 and State Route 509, I-5 (PSH 1) Midway - US 99 (PSH 1) Duwamish River
 * Secondary State Highway 1L
 * State Route 518, SR 509 (SSH 1K) Sunnydale - I-5 (PSH 1) Tukwila (partly also PSH 1 RE!)
 * Secondary State Highway 1M
 * State Route 801, SR 8 [now US 12] (PSH 9 EG) Rochester - I-5 (PSH 1) Maytown
 * Secondary State Highway 1N
 * State Route 507, I-5 (PSH 1) Centralia - Tenino
 * Secondary State Highway 1P
 * State Route 506, Ryderwood - I-5 (PSH 1) Toledo
 * Secondary State Highway 1Q
 * State Route 505, SR 504 (SSH 1R) Toutle - I-5 (PSH 1) Toledo
 * Secondary State Highway 1R
 * State Route 504, I-5 (PSH 1) Castle Rock - Mount St. Helens
 * Secondary State Highway 1S
 * State Route 502 and State Route 503, I-5 (PSH 1) Kozy Kamp - I-5 (PSH 1) Woodland
 * Secondary State Highway 1T
 * State Route 501, I-5 (PSH 1) Vancouver - I-5 (PSH 1) Ridgefield
 * Secondary State Highway 1U
 * State Route 503, SR 500 (SSH 8-A) Orchards - SR 502 (SSH 1S) Battleground
 * Secondary State Highway 1V
 * State Route 509, I-5 (PSH 1) Tacoma - SR 516 (SSH 1K) Des Moines
 * Secondary State Highway 1W
 * State Route 104, Edmonds Ferry - I-5 (PSH 1) Snohomish-King County Line
 * State Route 104 SW 238th St. Conn., SR 104 (SSH 1W) to US 99 (PSH 1)
 * State Route 524, SR 104 (SSH 1W) Edmonds - SR 527 (SSH 2-J)
 * State Route 524 Cedar Way So. Conn. [44th Avenue West], SR 524 (SSH 1W) to I-5 (PSH 1)
 * Secondary State Highway 1X
 * State Route 514 [54th Avenue East, Pacific Highway East, Milton Way], I-5 (PSH 1) Fife - SR 161 (SSH 5-D) Milton
 * Secondary State Highway 1Y
 * State Route 532, McEachern's Corner - I-5 (PSH 1) east of Stanwood
 * Secondary State Highway 1Z
 * State Route 540 [Haxton Way, Slater Road], Lummi Indian Reservation - I-5 (PSH 1)

Some confusion with US 99 vs. I-5 near Seattle. US 99 seems to have stayed on the old route. That makes two PSH 1 alignments.

 * Some intersections with separate US 99 in 1965:
 * SR 518 Riverton Heights
 * US 99 Temporary [now SR 99] Foster
 * SR 181 [Boeing Access Road] Duwamish
 * SR 509 [now SR 99] Duwamish River
 * US 10 [Denny Way] Seattle
 * SR 513 [North 130th Street??] North Seattle
 * SR 525 Martha Lake

US 99 was deleted in 1969, and partly replaced by SR 99. But apparently the southernmost piece of SR 99 was SR 514, so it's unclear where US 99 left I-5. I-5 opened to SR 516 in 1962, and was posted as I-5/US 99, so that may be where. That gives no number for current SR 99 from old SR 514 to SR 516, except for the SR 509 concurrency. (SR 161 ended at I-5.) US 99 and I-5 seem to have joined at SR 526/SR 527.

Reassessment
I'm not quite sure why this isn't at B-class already, but I haven't been involved with the article's editing. Therefore, I'll bump it up to C to be safe. CL — 18:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Change reflecting 2004 act of legislature
I'm not sure how all the recent edits missed all this, but the part along Tukwila International Boulevard is not only not maintained by the state, but it is no longer part of the route at all.

I have made edits reflecting this. However, the milepost numbers are all wonky now and don't reflect any sort of consistency. I recommend replacing them with the MP numbers used by WSDOT (first column of the highway log). Cpk1971 (talk) 23:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

New media
I've recently uploaded a new aerial photo of Highway 99, below. Feel free to use if useful. Dcoetzee 09:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Fort Vancouver segment
It should be noted that WA99 also has a segment in Fort Vancouver, WA approximately one block east of I5. 98.108.149.209 (talk) 17:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

November 27, 1998 incident
Is the shooting incident really relevant to the history of the highway?

The 'Green River Killer' (Gary Ridgway) would be a much more notable set of murders, and isn't mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.21.122.29 (talk) 07:34, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Grammar 13 February 2019
While your recent edits were overwhelmingly useful, the prose you restored in this diff is all ungrammatical. Am I missing something? Please defend. Thanks. --Chaswmsday (talk) 09:20, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Apologies, but the edit seems to have excluded my changes to the grammar (which I have just finished making). Your edit removed the hyphen between "four" and "block", which is what I intended to restore.  Sounder Bruce  00:57, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Your rephrasing of the "central waterfront" prose really clarified it! And I totally brain-farted on the adjectival use of "four-block". I still find the use of both "formerly" and "until 2019" redundant. IMHO, I would typically strike "formerly" and call it a day, but let me try killing two birds... (I also would typically comma-splice, but I'll restrain myself.) --Chaswmsday (talk) 14:26, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

"World's Largest TBM" Feb 13 2019
If the sentence starts out talking about "was completed in 2017" but there was a larger tunnel boring machine launched in 2015, then the sentence "The tunnel was completed in 2017 using Bertha, the world's largest tunnel boring machine," is misleading. We need to either qualify that it was the largest tbm when launched in 2013 or the "largest" could simply be removed. There is no citation here and it doesn't make sense to say "largest" if nearest reference year is 2017. Please reconsider your reversion. Jwfowble (talk) 02:48, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The lead must match the content in the body, where the appropriate citation can be found. Per the Verifiability and Original research policies, we should not be trying to misrepresent facts from reliable secondary sources by conducting our own research. I've corrected the sentence in the lead, but you should never try to insert your own corrections without the backing of good sources.  Sounder Bruce  03:00, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * When I was editing the article, the body said "Bertha arrived in Seattle on April 2, 2013, and its 40 pieces were assembled in the launch pit before tunnel boring began on July 30—setting a record for the world's largest tunnel boring machine.", which is correct. The lead must have been updated with a 2017 completion without regard to the rest of the sentence.  I don't think I erred in removing a false, by 2017, claim.  Jwfowble (talk) 03:11, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Deep-bored tunnel - Initiative vs Referendum
Initiatives and referenda are different, although initiatives are far more common in WA so confusion is common. One is for citizens initiating new legislation and the other is specifically for referring legislation already approved by the government to a public vote before it becomes law (kind of like citizen approval). Pg 3 of this pdf may help explain how the terms aren't interchangeable. Revision from currently inaccurate "initiative" suggested. Jwfowble (talk) 05:30, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The NewsBank copies of The Times referred to the vote as an initiative campaign, so I guess that where's my confusion lies. Please don't try to keep things pared down here, since the SR 99 article is supposed to be written with WP:SUMMARY in mind.  Sounder Bruce  07:32, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I follow the later part of your comment. Are you talking about attempting to be brief/summary style in the talk section or discussing that more details are OK in the lower/deep-bored tunnel subsection of a SR99 article? Jwfowble (talk) 08:59, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Military Road in South King County
So,, you've just changed my correct and source-supported statement that highway 99 follows the old Military Road in Whatcom County and replaced it with a mostly irrelevant and not entirely source-supported statement that it parallels Military Road in South King County. The Federal Way Mirror source explicitly says that 99 follows the old Military Road in the Bellingham area (aka Whatcom County), so my edit was stating exactly what the original source says. Saying that it parallels it is not quite on topic. If we wish to address modern Military Road, it seems the place to do it is in an article on the original Military Road, not the mostly different Highway 99 built decades later. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 23:16, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It's more irrelevant to bring up Whatcom County when this article strictly deals with the Fife–Everett section that is now SR 99. The original intent of that statement is to compare the S. King Military Road to SR 99, which are in the same general corridor (west side of the Green River Valley but set back from Puget Sound). Please properly follow WP:BRD next time.  Sounder Bruce  05:48, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:Washington State Route 99


text: Category:Valley of the Kings

title: Category:Valley of the Kings


text:
Talk:Germaine Lindsay

Name
Was his name actually "Jamal Lindsay"? The article says he changed it to Abdullah Shaheed Jamal. So surely he is either "Germaine Lindsay" or "Abdullah Shaheed Jamal" but not some weird hybrid of the two? -- Grace Note

 * We ought to rename this. Google hits: Jamal Lindsay 154, Germaine Lindsay 19,300, Jermaine Lindsay 345, Abdullah Shaheed Jamal 86, Abdullah Saheed Jamal Lindsay 1.

 * That seems clear - Germaine Lindsay. Does anyone object if I move it? SlimVirgin (talk) 02:25, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Moved Rich Farmbrough 09:46, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Thanks, Rich. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:19, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * The current inquests appear to consistently refer to him as Jermaine. In addition, whilst it is true that the number of Google hits is higher for Germaine Lindsay, I note that the number of Google News hits (perhaps a more useful measure) is more than twice as high for Jermaine Lindsay. The situation seems slightly unclear - perhaps we need some comment on this in the article?-- K orr u ski Talk 17:31, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Lindsay as a terrorist
DaveBurstein (talk) 04:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC) I think simply saying he exploded a bomb and killed that many people is sufficient. I think that makes clear to most he was a terrorist, so it doesn't need to be repeated. Questions have been raised as to the intent of the 4 bombers - these have been largely dismissed, but the point has been raised that no official inquiry has been carried out. In light of this, is it NPOV to include Lindsay (and the other three) in terrorist categories? What standard of proof do we need? Guettarda 03:50, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

I take offense when you place Jermiane Lindsay as a Jamaica Terrorist. True, he was born in Jamaica but he had British citizenship, hence he was British, not Jamaican. I want to know why is it that when a Jamaican born does something wrong or break the law they are styled as Jamaican wrong doers...but when a Jamaica born does something to uplift the country in which he or she resides, he or she is known as such citizen of the country of residence. If the media post the bad, can't they post the good? Why not say Lindsay is a Jamaican born British Terrorist? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.176.235.252 (talk • contribs) 17:05, 11 October 2005.

Regardless of whether "terrorist" is correct or not, should it really be pointing towards "suicide bomber"?

Samantha Lewthwaite
The reports linking Samantha are from the Daily Mail (not a reliable source) talking about twitter comments from an unverified account, and rumours from other people. The Mail claims she was shouting orders in Arabic, yet the attackers were Somalians, some speaking English. see here. Please do not re-add rumours until and unless there is a reliable account linking her to the attack, or it is discussed here first.Martin 4 5 1  (talk) 06:36, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

 * Lewthwaite was already wanted by the Kenyan authjorities long before the Mall attack (in which she may or may not be involved). It seems somewhat remarkable that with the creation of the separate page for her, we have gone from detailing her alleged terrorism-related activities after 7/7 (which certainly throws a different light on her claimed reaction to 7/7) to... nothing. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:10, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

 * There are other reports, but the daily mail coverage of her in Nairobi is just rumour.Martin 4 5 1  (talk) 12:18, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

 * Which doesn't change the fact of the first sentence in my post above. Nick Cooper (talk) 09:31, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

 * I don't think I have personally removed the bit about her being wanted prior to this month, it was moved by another person, and that is not the material I have a problem with. What I think is very questionable are the claims she actively took part in the Nairobi massacre sourced from the Mail, or where other papers copied that content. The BBC and Independent both put doubts on her direct involvement. I have not problem with the reinstatement of the earlier material (properly sourced).Martin 4 5 1  (talk) 09:51, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Quality scale re-assessment
Article has less than 20 sentences, 8 very short paragraphs, and 10 cited sources. The information presented is extremely scant - particularly given the event for which the individual is notable - and requires additional citations for verification. A B-class article should be "mostly complete and without major problems, but requires some further work to reach good article standards... Readers are not left wanting, although the content may not be complete enough to satisfy a serious student or researcher." I would argue that even in 2006/2007 this didn't meet the criteria for B-class, but in 2013 it definitely does not. A generous re-assessment would be C-class: "The article is substantial, but is still missing important content or contains much irrelevant material. The article should have some references to reliable sources, but may still have significant problems or require substantial cleanup.... Useful to a casual reader, but would not provide a complete picture for even a moderately detailed study." Blackberry Sorbet  12:05, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Germaine Lindsay. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060628022052/http://www.telegraph.co.uk:80/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/07/16/nbomb216.xml to http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/07/16/nbomb216.xml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 02:23, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Checked.Pincrete (talk) 13:50, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Germaine Lindsay


text: Talk:Washington State Route 167

title: Talk:Washington State Route 167


text:
Four-toed amapasaurus

The four-toed amapasaurus (Amapasaurus tetradactylus) is a lizard that was discovered in 1970 by Osvaldo Rodrigues da Cunha. It is the only species in the genus Amapasaurus.

Geographic range
This species is found in Brazil and Guyana.

Description
It has small atrophied legs. It is very similar to the genus Leposoma, except for the number of fingers. Amapasaurus tetradactylus has four digits, and the lizards of the genus Leposoma have five.

Habitat and behavior
It lives on the forest floor and is diurnal.

Reproduction
Amapasaurus tetradactylus is oviparous.

title: Four-toed amapasaurus


text:
Logie Awards of 1992

The 34th Annual TV Week Logie Awards was held on Friday 13 March 1992 at the Radisson President Hotel in Melbourne, and broadcast on the Seven Network. The ceremony was hosted by Steve Vizard and guests included John Stamos, Dennis Waterman, Bob Hawke and Campbell McComas.

Gold Logie

 * Most Popular Personality on Australian Television
 * Winner: Jana Wendt in A Current Affair (Nine Network)

Acting/Presenting

 * Most Popular Actor
 * Winner: Bruce Samazan in E Street (Network Ten)
 * Nominees: Shane Porteous in A Country Practice (Seven Network), Gary Sweet in Police Rescue (ABC-TV), Marcus Graham in E Street (Network Ten)

 * Most Popular Actress
 * Winner: Georgie Parker in A Country Practice (Seven Network)

 * Most Popular Actor in a Telemovie or Miniseries
 * Winner: Cameron Daddo in Golden Fiddles (Nine Network)

 * Most Popular Actress in a Telemovie or Miniseries
 * Winner: Josephine Byrnes in Brides of Christ (ABC TV)

 * Most Outstanding Actor
 * Winner: John McTernan in GP (ABC TV)

 * Most Outstanding Actress
 * Winner: Josephine Byrnes in Brides of Christ (ABC TV)

 * Most Popular Light Entertainment or Comedy Male Performer
 * Winner: Steve Vizard in Fast Forward (Seven Network)

 * Most Popular Light Entertainment or Comedy Female Performer
 * Winner: Magda Szubanski in Fast Forward (Seven Network)

 * Most Popular New Talent
 * Winner: Kym Wilson in Brides of Christ (ABC TV)

Most Popular Programs/Videos

 * Most Popular Series
 * Winner: E Street (Network Ten)

 * Most Popular Telemovie or Miniseries
 * Winner: Brides of Christ (ABC TV)

 * Most Popular Light Entertainment or Comedy Program
 * Winner: Fast Forward (Seven Network)

 * Most Popular Current Affairs Program
 * Winner: A Current Affair (Nine Network)

 * Most Popular Lifestyle or Information Program
 * Winner: Burke's Backyard (Nine Network)

 * Most Popular Sports Coverage
 * Winner: Cricket (Nine Network)

 * Most Popular Children's Program
 * Winner: Agro's Cartoon Connection (Seven Network)

 * Most Popular Music Video
 * Winner: "When Something Is Wrong with My Baby" by Jimmy Barnes featuring John Farnham

Most Outstanding Programs

 * Most Outstanding Series
 * Winner: GP (ABC TV)

 * Most Outstanding Telemovie or Miniseries
 * Winner: Brides of Christ (ABC TV)

 * Most Outstanding Achievement in News
 * Winner: "Coode Island Fires", National Nine News (Nine Network)

 * Most Outstanding Achievement in Public Affairs
 * Winner: "The Soviet Union", Lateline (ABC TV)

 * Most Outstanding Achievement by a Regional Station
 * Winner: The Very Fast Train (WIN Television)

 * Most Outstanding Single Documentary or Documentary Series
 * Winner: The Time of Your Life (ABC TV)

Performers

 * Dannii Minogue
 * Matthew Krok
 * Ryan Clark
 * Naomi Tuckfield
 * Brooke Anderson
 * Nick Giannopoulos
 * Bruno Lucia
 * Cathy Godbold

Hall of Fame
After 40 years on Australian television, Four Corners became the ninth inductee into the TV Week Logies Hall of Fame.

Controversies during Logies night
The 1992 Logie Awards ended with a nightmare when A Current Affair host Jana Wendt was not present to accept her Gold Logie. Her absence was explained to be due to her requiring to stay in the Sydney-based studios after the end of A Current Affair for an extended period to be able to cover any late breaking stories for time zones that would normally get ACA on a delay. TV Week claimed that they knew about a week in advance, two weeks after Wendt had happily posed with her fellow Gold Logie nominees for a TV Week photo shoot, that she may be missing from the awards presentation. Nine Network executives were said to be able to work around the challenges of ACA's production schedule if TV Week could assure them that Wendt was going to win the Gold. TV Week chose not to disclose that information to Nine even in the strictest of confidence. Even the offer of a specially arranged flight to get Wendt from Sydney to Melbourne after ACA in time to witness the announcement of the Gold Logie winner was not enough to sway Nine's executives. Wendt's Gold Logie was ultimately accepted by Nine's head of current affairs at the time, Peter Meakin.

title: Logie Awards of 1992