text:
Shildon railway works

Shildon railway works opened in 1833 in the town of Shildon in County Durham, England. Originally built to serve the Stockton and Darlington Railway the works grew to cover 40 acre (11 acre roofed), employing 2,750 staff.

History
Shildon was the terminus of the Stockton & Darlington Railway (S&DR), when it opened in 1825. Its first locomotive superintendent was Timothy Hackworth, who maintained their locomotives at the Soho Works. Thomas Hackworth (Timothy's brother) was works manager at the Soho Works.

The beginnings of the works were small -

"'Only about 50 persons (were) employed in the works, and few of them skilled, with no tools except hand lathes.. no means of raising heavy parts, but the screwjack of old fashioned make. Boiler and cylinder, mine old friends tell me, were got from Newcastle""

In 1827, Timothy Hackworth built the locomotive Royal George at the Soho Works. It was also in this period that the works received an order from the Tsar of Russia for a locomotive. Shildon produced the engine and Hackworth's son John Wesley Hackworth was dispatched with drivers and mechanics to deliver it to Russia.

These works were to be purchased by the S&DR company in 1855 and closed in 1883. Hackworth was the first of 22 managers of the works in their 151-year history, a post he held between 1833 and 1840.

A trade union was formed in 1899 after growing discontent amongst the workers. One of the grievances was a requirement to work overtime. An average working day was 11 hours, 06.00 to 17.00, with overtime taking the working day to 21.00. The men were told that their 'boards' would not be issued for the Saturday shift if they refused the overtime. The boards were where the men recorded their work, without their board they could not work.

In 1962 the Shildon Works underwent a £800,000 modernisation following the creation of the British Rail Workshops Division. This saw the works equipped to repair BR wagons and from 1970, wagons from abroad. A notable wagon which came out of the works on this period was the 'Presflo' air-discharge cement wagon along with high capacity coal and Freightliner wagons. The forge at Shildon also produced a large proportion of drop stampings for other railway works.

The works repair shop had the capacity to overhaul and repair 800 wagons a week. Production figures show that between 1965 and 1982 the works build 11,083 'Merry-go-round' 32.5 tonne capacity coal hoppers.

1982
The closure of the works was announced on 23 April 1982 by British Rail Engineering Ltd (BREL).

At the time of the announcement the works employed 2,600 people and amounted to 86% of the male workforce's manufacturing jobs in the town.

Eight days before the announcement of the closure there were rumours that it may come. ""Shildon rail workers joined a national fight with BR today over the expected shutdown of vital rail works... This could mean the complete shutdown of one or more railway engineering plants... Worried union leaders from Shildon and York joined a demonstration outside BR's London HQ""

With negotiations under way local journalists reported being hung up on when trying to call union officials at the works. These negotiations received a blow on 17 April, when works National Union of Railwaymen (NUR) chair Roy Jones collapsed on his way to work from a suspected stroke. He was in London for negotiations on 13 and 14 April and the strain is believed to have caused the stroke.

Interviewed in 1990, Sidney Weighell (General Sec. NUR) recalled first hearing of the closure plan -

""When I had first heard about the closure, at one of the regular lunches [Sir Peter] Parker and I had started having, when he put this paper in front of me I said 'No way are you going to close Shildon, no way!' I was determined and he knew that. I had agreed, I had to realistically, that there would be cut-backs, but I was determined to try and keep Shildon going somehow. I knew that once you closed it down it'd never be re-opened. They never are. To close something is too easy and to start it up almost impossible. So he had backed down.""

A trade union march was organised for 29 April, which was to assemble at 10am on the playing field of Sunnydale School. Members of the Sedgefield District Council closure working party were authorised to attend as 'approved duty' with pay. The march worked its way through the town, led by figures including Derek Foster MP and Roland Boyes MEP, to the local football ground. ""More than 5000 people poured through the doomed railway town yesterday in the biggest show of strength in its history. The protest line was a mile long... Shildon came to a sudden standstill as 2,500 wagon workers marched to save their jobs joined by women, children, and pensioners."" BREL set out its case for closure in a special edition of Railtalk Magazine using a question and answer format. "'Why Shildon?

Shildon is BREL principal wagon-building works and has a capacity to build some 1,200-1,500 wagons per year, and to repair in excess of 20,000 wagons per year. There are no new build orders in for 1983 and prospects for 1984 and 1985 indicate that future needs are insignificant in relation to the capacity available. Operating Shildon on the substantially reduced repairs workload only would not be viable and would lead to substantial losses in 1983, with no prospect of a return to profit in the future'."

On 5 May a joint report by Durham and Sedgefield Councils' planning departments was issued. It stated that closure would result in the loss of 2,180 jobs and leave one in four of the "insured population in the Bishop Auckland Employment Exchange area" unemployed. A further 450 jobs with suppliers to the works would also be lost.

At 19.30 on the evening of 7 May a trades union meeting was held in the works canteen to discuss progress in the campaign to save the facility. A strike was discussed but "Derby were lukewarm, but Glasgow suggested an immediate strike because of fears that there would be a dwindling of workshops". A protest to London was thought to be a better idea and a train chartered to take people to the capital. Ultimately it was decided that travellers would pay £5 each with the remaining amount coming from the fighting fund.

In his 1990 interview Weighell recalled the Shildon branch of the NUR -

""Whenever you had a meeting of branches the people from Shildon always stood out. The others would be perhaps a bit pushy. Argumentative, but those from Shildon would be quieter. It was bit like they were not used to having to fight their corner. I know it may sound strange, but they were sometimes like country people, unused to meeting the sort of people you'd get at a general meeting. The Branch was a big one, one of the biggest, and yet it rarely seemed to have much clout. Bit subdued. Nice people though, but maybe a bit too accommodating.""

Dennis Lees arrived as acting manager of the works on 10 May, replacing Derek Clarke who had been made acting manager at the Doncaster facility.

On 25 May a deputation left the for London with 600 people travelling south in eleven coaches from Darlington at 07.15 bound for Kings Cross. Arriving at 11.00 the party marched on the British Rail (BR) headquarters. There they delivered 630 letters to the chairman of BR Sir Peter Parker. They moved on to the Houses of Parliament to lobby members of parliament before returning to Kings Cross and arriving back at Darlington at 22.20.

On 29 May there was a large rally in Shildon with marchers moving off from the Civic Hall to the park at 10.30 and speeches beginning at 11.15. Official guests included Albert Booth MP (Shadow Minister for Transport), Derek Foster MP (Constituency MP), Jack Cunningham MP (Chair. Labour Northern Group of MPs), Ted Fletcher and Roland Boyes MEP (Constituency MEP).

An official at the rally recalled the day -

""I remember being on the platform and watching the faces down there in the crowd. As the politicians and union leaders spoke you could see their faces changing. They'd been full of enthusiasm marching through the Town, full of hope. But as they listened to the tired old clichés coming out of their "leaders" you could see them losing heart. They started to leave before the end. On the fringes of the crowd, with the speakers still talking, you could see them going. Derek Foster, he knew what was happening, tried to rally them, to get them lifted again, but they'd heard enough.""

On the same day the Northern Echo reported that Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher was to meet with local MP Derek Foster to discuss the Shildon closure plan.

"'Yesterday's announcement that the Prime Minister was to involve herself with the proposals came as a surprise to the local union leaders. They said they were delighted with the news. 'It came out of the blue.' said John Priestly who, with the NUR and Boilermakers' Society convenors, had an hour long meeting with Transport Minister David Howell in London on Thursday... 'The Minister said he would look into our case and appeared to agree with us that more freight should go by rail instead of road. We were very impressed by his sympathetic attitude' said Mr Priestly.""

On 4 June BR announced a postponement of the closure with a decision to come in early 1983 on the future of the works. Union leaders at a local level said they "delighted that our industrial strength has brought about a change of attitude." However, the NUR leaders in London were more cautious that a postponement was not a reprieve. A local newspaper did not draw this distinction and declared -

""Saved!" The six week battle to save Shildon was won on Friday night when British Rail management postponed controversial plans to axe the whole work force from April next year.""

The proposed Channel Tunnel came up for discussion at a meeting of the Works Working Party on 24 June and the need for wagons for the new tunnel.

On 18 August acting works manager Dennis Lees wrote to all staff -

"'As you are aware we are currently facing serious workload shortages... It was agreed with the Special Working Party that we should first offer voluntary redundancy to all adult staff... In the event that sufficient volunteers do not come forward, the alternative at the present time can only be a shorter working week for everybody as there is no intention to enforce redundancy. If we are to survive, it's absolutely necessary for us reduce our present staffing and our overhead costs. Every effort is being made to seek new work and to find new ways of reducing our costs. It is, however, vital that we reduce the size of the workforce in keeping with the workload available, as a shorter working week will increase costs and therefore not attract work to this factory. For this reason I am again asking for staff to apply for voluntary redundancy'."

The Daily Mirror ran a two-page spread about the town on 4 October -

"'Walter Nunn has been a railwayman since January 1938... standing beside a replica of the Hackworth's locomotive he said, "The process has already begun. The community is already divided by the "offer" of redundancies. What does the alder man say when the carrot of a pay-off is dangled? What does a man say if he is tired or ill and handicapped from an injury? It's a terrible dilemma, because we know when the redundancies are taken up, the workforce is weakened and fighting far survival then is much harder. No apprentices are to be taken on this year. This had not happened for 150 years. They're cutting the bloodline"'."

In December 1982 the Association of District Councils (ADC) reported that BR wagons at that time carrying scrap metal were to be  'life-expired and withdrawn from service by May 1984'. This announcement resulted in discussions at the Policy and Resources Committee of Sedgefield District Council on 13 December. There it was pointed out that the withdrawal of these wagons would put a serve strain on road haulage resources. It became clear that some local authorities were to replace the withdrawn wagons and apply for railway facilities under provisions of the Railways Act 1974 (Section 8). The act allowed for private or public industry to build their own access to sidings on the rail network. Hopes that these new wagons would be built at Shildon were soon dashed, with the Policy Resource Committee reporting -

"'Foreseeing the position which will arise in 1984, a Working Party of representatives from BR, British Steel Corporation, and the Scrap Federation plans to introduce a nationwide rail service in new purpose-built wagons for which a grant from the Government under Section 8 (Railway Act 1974) is required if the scheme is to be viable.... The ADC points out that for such a grant to be forthcoming the support of local authorities whose road network would be affected by the lorry movement is required and Councils are asked to write to the Dept. of Transport supporting grant aid to the Standard Railway Wagon Company Ltd which is prepared to build the special new box wagons'."

Any new wagons for the movement of scrap metal in areas that would be adversely impacted by an increase in road haulage were to be built by private industry.

1983
J. Palette (Dir. of Personnel, British Rail Board) confirmed the closure of Shildon Works in 1984. In a letter to unions on 18 February 1983 he stated that work would be transferred from the town to work in Doncaster and other BREL sites.

The Works Joint Committee gathered on 4 March to discuss the closure announcement. Local MP Derek Foster believed that the campaign to save the works had been a "tremendous achievement" but that it had made little difference to the outcome. Some regarded the meeting as a wake for the works while others wanted to redouble efforts and continue to campaign.

In June, Minister for Trade and Industry Norman Lamont wrote to Councillor G. W. Terrans (Leader, Durham County Council Labour Group) -

"'...With regard to the Shildon closures, the Government has shown its concern at the implication for local employment by setting up a committee of BR, Local Authority and Government officials to examine ways of maximising assistance. The redundancies will fall in the Durham and South West Darlington TTWA (Travel to Work Area) and IA (Intermediate Area) eligible for selective financial assistance. However, the Government considers that it would be premature to try and predict the full effect of redundancies which are not to be completed until December 1984...'"

Sedgefield District Council appreciated the need for government grants and subsidies to encourage new industries into the area. These incentives were dependent on the Department for Trade and Industry (DTI) classification. The council were seeking to upgrade their area from an Assisted Area (AA) to a Special Development Area (SDA).

The Evening Despatch reported in August 1983 -

"'Workers at Shildon Wagon 'Works are to receive drastically improved redundancy pay offers. In a surprise move BREL has offered to increase the maximum pay-off to aver £5,000, an increase of £3,000. BREL are also sending a team of redundancy experts to the Works to give advice to the 1,000 men who face the dole if closure goes ahead. The increase will be seen as an incentive to the workers to accept BREL's offer. But the introduction is conditional on the unions agreeing to the closure of Shildon, Horwich, and Temple Mills. A BREL spokesman, Bernard Ault said, 'This extension of supplementary payments will increase the financial terms available to many employees not wishing to transfer to other areas'"."

1984
Labour leader Neil Kinnock MP visited Shildon on 28 April 1984 and spoke on the situation -

""I wish I could come here with good news, or a change of view by the Government, but I cannot. Reminded every day of Shildon by Derek Foster, (later Chief Opposition Whip) my PPS, which, for Derek, stands for Preserve Production in Shildon I know what you have been through. Any other Government would have been impressed by the fight, the faith, trust and loyalty and would have changed their decision. The Prime Minister is constantly preaching 'Do it yourself', but what complete hypocrisy... You have had accolades from BREL, even by Thatcher's ideals you have done enough to exist, but no, you can't exist due to dogma. We have a run-down British Rail - she never uses it - and an ageing wagon stock... The Tories cannot adjust to the idea that unemployment is not free and it is growing more expensive every year. We shed jobs when we should be investing in a properly up-to-date system. Other Governments see the need of railway networks, good connections, why not this Government? Instead we have a Government which seems to have declared war on work. With work you get income, freedom and rights, without you have to fall in line...""

An announcement came that the works would officially close on 30 June 1984.

BREL offered the town a £300,000 loan guarantee package but this was thought to be not enough. Then on 7 June, David Mitchell (Parliamentary Under Sec. Dept. of Transport) set up a group at the ministry to try and reach agreement on an improved offer.

The taking up of the railway lines linking the works to the network were reported by the Northern Echo on 25 June -

"'The last rites have started as Shildon Wagon Works' proud 150-year history grinds slowly to a halt. The doomed works are now echoing to the sound of the mechanical digger as the old tracks (connecting the works to the lines at Shildon station) are ripped from the ground... The remnants of a once-mighty workforce looked solemnly on and knew there was no going back. Yard transport worker, Colin Russell, said "They are cutting the head off before the body's died. It's a sign of the end and it's now irretrievable- there's no going back now.""

title: Shildon railway works


text:
Talk:Plural

"Panties" & "bra"
Why is the word "panties" plural, but the word "bra" is singular? klenk 16:04, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

 * They're unrelated. Why are "shorts" and "pants" both plural, but "shirt" singular? Ruakh 19:16, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

 * In English, there is a strong pattern that garments that goes around the waist then divide along the legs are plural: jeans, trousers, knickers, shorts, capris, pantaloons, cullotes, coveralls, waders, etc. A linguistic comedian pointed out that these nouns are singular at the top but plural at the bottom. Pete unseth (talk) 22:36, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Plural in Slavic languages
I see throughout all articales about grammatical number a common misconseption about Slavic plural number. There is no such thing as paucal number. There is only singular, plural and (in Slovene and Sorbian), dual number.

The different noun forms that appear after numbers are due to grammatical agreement in case rather than different grammatical number. In Proto-Slavic the words for 1 (*edinъ), 2 (*dъva), 3 (*trie) and 4 (*četyre) were adjectives; there was no syntactic difference between 'white cats' (*běli koti) and 'three cats' (*trii koti). On the other hand, larger numerals were mere nouns; the word they modified had to be placed in genitive case, plural. In other words '*pętь kotъ' meant literally 'a five of cats'. Compare the same pattern in modern English in expressions like 'a pack of wolves', 'a flock of birds', 'a pair of gloves'. The Slavic counterparts of such expressions involve the same form: genitive case plural (cf. Russian 'стая волков', where 'волков' is the genitive plural form of the noun 'волк', wolf).

Numeral, larger than ten in Proto-Slavic were expressions. 'Twelve cats' was expressed as 'two cats and ten' which naturally required dual number. Usage of dual number is recorded in Old Church Slavonic (OdBulgarian) texts after 12, 22, 32, etc. While Slavic languages have changed since Proto-Slavic times, this treatment of numerals and the mandatory agreement with nouns have not change at all.

Andrey Gazibarov, Bulgaria --87.126.91.23 00:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Thanks for your comments. To be honest, I'm not sure that what you said really disagrees with what the article says; the difference is that you take a diachronic view, explaining how things got to the way they are, while the article takes a synchronic view, giving the simplest explanation of the way things currently are. That's my impression, at least; I don't speak any Slavic languages, so might well be missing a major point. Ruakh 01:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I am proposing a merger of plural, nullar, trial (grammatical number), paucal, collective noun and singulative with grammatical number. Here are my reasons: A related page which is probably best left separate is the one on the dual number, which seems too large to merge with 'grammatical number'. FilipeS 14:40, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Most of those other entries have very little in them. They could easily become sections, or even paragraphs in 'grammatical number';
 * One exception is the plural entry, which does contain quite a bit, but a lot of what it has could just as well be in a general entry about 'grammatical number';
 * I think that some of what is currently in the plural article might be used to improve the quality of the 'grammatical number' article;

Plural in Portuguese
The article says Brazilian Portuguese uses the singular form with zero. Although prescritive grammar does say so, that's not entirely true, as in colloquial language many Brazilians use the singular exclusively with the number one (thus using the plural form with zero). Unless there's a verifiable source saying most Brazilians speak that way (which I find very unlikely), I believe it would be better to remove that commentary from the article.

 * Transferred from article: → «« Man77 »» 10:26, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry. You're wrong, (ma'am or sir). In Portuguese the singular form is used for zero, and for nouns between zero and below two, as well. Examples: zero grau; um metro e meio; um dólar e três quartos. – by

Nullar numbers
Nowhere have I been able to find traces of a so-called 'nullar number' (in any language), besides some Wikipedia pages and other websites that cite Wikipedia, so I have decided to remove this from the article. Could the writer of this article explain to me what he or she meant by this nullar number? I seriously doubt its existence. Not only because I cannot find any information about it, but also because it seems to be a very redundant feature; one would simply expect 'no rivers' as the opposite of 'all rivers'.

82.93.34.232 18:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

In English you would use singular if you expected one car (no car) but plural if you expected several cars (no cars).

217.77.35.80 20:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Plural in Portuguese
From Valbarragan: The article actually says that both Spanish and Portuguese use the plural form with zero. Both languages do not refer exactly to zero, but to the inexistence of the object in question. For example: In Spanish, the plural "No hay galletas" (There are no cookies) for countable nouns; and singular "No hay agua" (There is no water) for non-countable. In Continental Portuguese (Portugal and Africa), it follows the same pattern: "Não há bolachas"/ Não há água". Nevertheless, in Brazilian Portuguese, the singular form is more common in any case: "Não tem biscoito"/"Não tem água."("There is no cookie"/ There is no water). Valbarragan 10:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

 * The article isn't very clear, then. What's at stake here is not zero quantity, but the zero numeral itself (0). For example:
 * 2 m is read "two metres" in English, deux mètres in French, dois metros in Portuguese. Plural.
 * 1 m is read "one metre" in English, un mètre in French, um metro in Portuguese. Singular.
 * But 0 m is read "zero metres" in English (plural), zéro mètre in French (singular), zero metros in Portuguese (plural). FilipeS 22:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Uncommon plurals in German
In German, there a four short ways of showing the fact that you mean both man and woman at the same time in 'one' word, depending on the opportunities the word provides. E.g.:

(1) 'Mitarbeiter/-in', or 'Mitarbeiter(in)' resp. (male or female employee) (2) 'Lehrer/-innen', or 'Lehrer(innen)' resp. (teachers of both sexes) (3) 'Patient(inn)en' (male and female inpatients) (4) 'Arzt/Ärztin' (gentleman or lady doctor)

The word 'StudentInnen' (a capital i identifies this to be a word meaning 'Studenten' [male students] and 'Studentinnen' [female students]) is regarded non-Standard German and should be avoided. This way of signalizing a plural noun was first used by sociologists and most Germans consider this to be an ugly way of making a short plural form.

I wonder how a British or American speaker would translate these singulars and plurals in short, even if they have to use slang or jargon. I once read about some similar (yet unusual) forms in English, but can't remember them.

Another problem:

Sometimes you are forced to use a short form for plurals (especially in localized computer dialog boxes), such as:

baby(s)            (instead of '1 baby', '2 babies')

Would a native speaker of English regard this to be an acceptable form? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scooterx (talk • contribs) 11:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

No. The dialogue box could be designed to avoid this inelegant construction,but,as a result of either a poor grasp of English,or a lack of grace in that language,the designer has failed to do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.56.225 (talk) 21:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

History of the English plural
This article states that the English plural is typically formed by adding an "s".Was it not the case, however, that in former times in English, plurals were formed by adding an "n", as is still common practice in German? We have still retained this for certain words, such as "oxen" or "children". ACEOREVIVED (talk) 00:31, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

English plurals – regular endings
Based on the article as it stands today, the plural of mess is messs, but I think it is messes. Please fix it. — Solo Owl (talk) 21:27, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Examples
While various languages are given, there are really no real examples besides English on *how* to make a thing plural. Such as "add an "s". or that the plural form may vary... I'd like something along that line as well--more coverage of languages other than English with real examples.--76.169.133.154 (talk) 15:30, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

"Minor Dual Exceptions"
"In the English language, singular and plural are the only usual grammatical numbers, with minor dual exceptions ("both", "twice", "either", etc.)" I believe that "twice" should be removed from this list of exceptions because it would also offer trial(sp? correct word?) exceptions due to the existence of "thrice" which (at least in the Midwest United States) is uncommon, but used enough for me to think it's not dead (yet), so for the purpose of this sentence I feel it is not quite the best choice. I will go ahead and change it for now, unless anyone disagrees. Hallaman3 (talk) 01:29, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

"Plurality is a linguistic universal"
If I understand this correctly, it's untrue as some languages don't have plurals (I'm informed that at least Thai and Hungarian don't). If I misunderstand this (and I did follow and skim the Linguistic Universal link), perhaps the statement needs clarifying. 78.144.73.20 (talk) 15:42, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

plural
What are the word will used in plural Leyzkie09 (talk) 12:34, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Best section(s) for discussing associative plural?
Where would be a discussion of the associative plural be best placed? Formation of plurals, Usage of the plural, both, or a separate section describing both use and formation for that construct in languages that have it? The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 10:23, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Reverse plurals
What's it called when the pluralizing S goes on the first word?

"Henry VIII had not just one queen consort but six queens consort."

I believe Larry David was irate about culs de sac on Arrested Development. I want to read about this but don't know what to search for. Thanks in advance.

jengod (talk) 17:52, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

"Pluri" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pluri&redirect=no Pluri] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. -- MikutoH talk! 22:46, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Plural


text:
And the Hippos Were Boiled in Their Tanks

And the Hippos Were Boiled in Their Tanks is a novel by Jack Kerouac and William S. Burroughs. It was written in 1945, a full decade before the two authors became famous as leading figures of the Beat Generation, and remained unpublished in complete form until 2008.

Creation
The book consists of alternating chapters by each author writing as a different character. Burroughs (as William Lee, the pseudonym he would later use for his first published book, Junkie) writes the character "Will Dennison" while Kerouac (as "John Kerouac"), takes on the character of "Mike Ryko".

According to the book The Beat Generation in New York by Bill Morgan, the novel was based upon the killing of David Kammerer who was obsessed with Lucien Carr. Carr stabbed Kammerer to death in a drunken fight, in self-defense by some accounts, then dumped Kammerer's body into the Hudson River. Carr later confessed the crime, first to Burroughs, then to Kerouac, neither of whom reported it to the police. When Carr eventually turned himself in, Burroughs and Kerouac were arrested as accessories after the fact. Kerouac served some jail time because his father refused to bail him out but Burroughs was bailed out by his family. (Kerouac married Edie Parker while in jail, and she then paid his bail.)

Title
The book's title allegedly comes from a news broadcast, heard by Burroughs, about a fire at a circus during which the announcer broke into hysterics on reading the line.

"That was [from] a radio broadcast that came over when we were writing the book. There had been a circus fire and I remember this phrase came through on the radio: 'And the hippos were boiled in their tanks!' So we used that as the title."

In a 1967 interview for The Paris Review, Kerouac agreed with the basis of the story but said the fire was at London Zoo.

However, in his afterword to the 2008 publication, James Grauerholz indicated that the origin of the title is unconfirmed and may have been related to a zoo incident in Egypt, or possibly a fire that occurred at a circus.

Characters
Kerouac often based his fictional characters on friends and family.

""Because of the objections of my early publishers I was not allowed to use the same person's name in each work.""

Publication and reception
In later years, Burroughs did not consider And the Hippos Were Boiled in Their Tanks worth retrieving from obscurity. In the 1986 documentary What Happened to Kerouac? he dismissed it as "not a distinguished work."

"It wasn't sensational enough to make it . . . nor was it well-written or interesting enough to make it [from] a purely literary point of view."

According to James Grauerholz, numerous attempts were made by Kerouac and others to get the book published, until Burroughs brought a lawsuit over the use of quotations from the manuscript that appeared in New York magazine in 1976; the suit, which was settled in the 1980s, established the ownership of the work. When Burroughs died in 1997, Grauerholz became the executor of his estate, with responsibility for the disposition of his unpublished works. He had befriended Lucien Carr and agreed not to publish the manuscript in Carr's lifetime, although an excerpt from the book was included in the 1997 Burroughs omnibus Word Virus, published by Grove after the writer's death (but approved by Burroughs before he died). Carr's death in 2005 made way for the complete book to be published at last.

Penguin Books published the novel in November 2008. An American edition was published by Grove Press.

Ian Pindar, writing for The Guardian, agreed with Burroughs' assessment about the book but said "Neither Burroughs nor Kerouac is at his best here, but Hippos has value as a testament to their latent talent."

The New York Times, in a review panning the novel, called the book "flimsy" "repetitious" and "flat-footed". The review said "The best thing about this collaboration between Jack Kerouac and William S. Burroughs is its gruesomely comic title".

A positive review in The Independent stated that the "novel has limited claims to the literary high ground, but is an enjoyable read".

Although not based upon the novel, the 2013 film release Kill Your Darlings re-creates the events leading up to the murder that inspired the book.


text:
Category:Blackburn Rovers F.C. players

This category lists footballers who have played for Blackburn Rovers F.C. . For a list of notable players in sortable-table format see List of Blackburn Rovers F.C. players.

title: Category:Blackburn Rovers F.C. players


text:
User talk:RYard

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  V.   Molotov     16:05, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Forgotten Realms warnings
I checked to try and see where the decision was made to add these warnings, but could not find it. While they might be standard on Forgotten Realms articles, adding such warnings is not common practice on Wikipedia, and I have not seen similar ones on any of the other hundreds of fictional universes we cover. Wikipedia guielines have long been quite clear that the warning that an article is on a fictional topic should be integrated into the prose, and this is the consensus view on the Wikipedia talk:Check your fiction|talk page. Fiction and WikiProject Fictional series have both long worked under these guidelines. - SimonP 19:32, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Forgotten Realms template
Hello,

Thanks for all,

 * For Fallen Kingdom(s), you mayvery well be right, I have almost no information except a rapid reading of Lost Empires of Faerûn and the page about Lost Kingdoms and Crown Wars.

For the template, I'm stuck, I can't find the way we are supposed to enter variables (like the name of the capitals). Please answer on the talk page of the index. Reply to David Latapie 12:44, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

 * You should also add yourself as a participant. Could you also support me with this proto-edit war? Reply to David Latapie 13:58, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Forgotten Realms infobox
Hi,

I have a problem with the infobox. I think this is a problem of rows and clomns but can't say for sure. Check the discussion (and reply there, please so that newer particpants can help). Thank you Reply to David Latapie

FR Template Box
Hi,

It also took me quite a time to find it.

 * 1) The textbox is a template. That is, every thing that is entered here will be duplicated everywhere
 * 2) Variables must be added in the core of the article

A picture is worth a thousand words:

Text box ! Name the must appear as the section name ! Section ! Capital ! Ruler

Article

I will revert changes on the infobox. You will then just have to compare difference to have a confirmation of how it works.

Please tell me whether or not it helped you. If you understood with this explanation, I plan to put it on the FR Wikiproject page. Reply to David Latapie, 00:59, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Wiki Forgotten Realms request on wizards.com
Hi,

I just posted a request for assistance for anyone interested on the WotC forum. Just so you might be interested to know - and maybe to participate.

Address is http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=712010.

Have a nice day David Latapie (✒ | @) 12:11, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

MfD nomination of WikiProject Forgotten Realms
WikiProject Forgotten Realms, a page you created, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Forgotten Realms and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of WikiProject Forgotten Realms during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Gavin Collins (talk) 08:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Dragonspear Castle

The article Dragonspear Castle has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern: "Non-notable fictional topic"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. TTN (talk) 11:39, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Dragonspear Castle for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dragonspear Castle is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Dragonspear Castle until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TTN (talk) 13:56, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Secomber

The article Secomber has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern: "Fails WP:GNG."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. TTN (talk) 19:05, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of High Moor

The article High Moor has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern: "Fails WP:GNG."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. TTN (talk) 17:52, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Daggerford

The article Daggerford has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern: "Fails WP:GNG."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. TTN (talk) 23:18, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

title: User talk:RYard


text:
Talk:Transformers (film)

Transformers (film characters)
In an effort to reduce the length of the article I propose breaking off the complete descriptions of the Autobots and Decepticons into a new "Characters from" type page. I've seen this done with other franchises. The Red Queen (talk) 20:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

 * Already done. Why wasn't this archived? --uKER (talk) 05:50, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Barricade surviving
I'd like to add an addendum to that: Barricade (decepticon) survives does he not? He doesn't even participate in the final battle! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.247.19.65 (talk) 04:56, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

 * With him being completely missing from the sequel, I'd say that the reappearance of Barricade, in the two scenes he appears in car mode after Bumblebee beats him down, is just another continuity error in the film. --uKER (talk) 05:46, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

 * Think of it this way, I believe he was damaged and can't get back out of vehicle mode (it's happened in the cartoons). As for the "No return in 2" think about it, the Autobots are systematically hunting the Decepticons 1 by 1, he probably was one of the 1st to be taken out, and if he makes a return in "3" then I'm wrong, but like the story of how "Bee" lost his voice, there's a story that was written somewhere or not that really explains it all... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.5.61 (talk) 02:55, February 13, 2011
 * Bumblebee could talk just fine in all the IDW comics set after the movie, then when the comic writers learned he wouldn't be talking in the Revenge of the Fallen film, they quickly wrote him a second accident that made him loose his voice AGAIN, so he would be that way in the 2009 film. Barricade appears constantly in the toy bios, comic books and novels set after the 2007 movie. He just doesn't make any appearances in the later films, but he lived. It's official in the fiction. He just wasn't in the later movies (except maybe as a cameo in fight scenes) Mathewignash (talk) 18:46, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

For the record: barricade is in the third movie. so he survived. you might want to check your resources before posting information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.245.213.53 (talk) 02:37, August 18, 2011

Edit request from Camilopc123, 13 May 2010
cordial saludo creador(es/as) de la enciclopedia libre "Wikipedia"

que dios los bendiga

pido el favor y premiso de mi cuenta camilopc123 para editar la pagina transformers (film) y cualquier otra pagina a que me proponga solo es para hacerle mejoras de hecho yo soy que modifico y mejoro con mas detalles el argumento de transformers la venganza de los caídos y los "véase también" de casi todas las paginas de transformers en wikipedia excepto a la que solicito para editar por eso pido el permiso para editar y ponerle algunos detalles esta pagina y a otras

Camilopc123 (talk) 22:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * ¡Hola Camilopc123, bienvenido a Wikipedia! Si bien todos los esfuerzos por mejorar la Wikipedia son bien recibidos, las contribuciones a la Wikipedia en Inglés Wikipedia debe ser escrito en Inglés. ¿Sabía que existe una Wikipedia en Español? Quizás prefiera contribuir ahí. De cualquier forma reciba la más cordial bienvenida a Wikipedia y nuestro agradecimiento por esforzarse. Si necesita ayuda, puede notificármelo en mi página de discusión. Esta página se puede encontrar en español aquí. Intelligent  sium  23:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

“science fiction”?
Not sure that this movie is categorizable as science fiction. Fantasy, perhaps. Action (as it is already), certainly. The AllSpark isn’t a technology, it’s basically a god concept. In sci-fi, technological advances are typically either somewhat plausible, or explained, or projections of current trends (e.g. AI), or speculation on alien advances. This is none of those. No serious scientist — or science fiction writer — would consider the “AllSpark” plausible, or explained, or forseeable, or even *technology* in any sense. --X883 (talk) 06:15, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

 * I agree. The term "science fiction" has become distorted to a point where it's applied to works in which there's no "science" component. --uKER (talk) 14:27, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

 * Verifiability, not truth, is the gold standard at Wikipedia. Every reliable third-party review and listing of the film categorises it as science fiction, so that's how it'll appear here for now. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 02:10, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

That would mean that Star Wars isn't a science fiction franchise. It incorporates science and mysticism. Science still has it's place in Transformers. All-Spark is a God figure, but the Transformers themselves can replicate technology with scanners (a theorhetical technology that is very scifi). Transformers still is scifi, just really, really, REALLY light science fiction. My vote is keep it scifi 174.1.136.145 (talk) 02:16, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Adding Recycled CGI Details
Transformers uses recycled CGI scenes from previous films. As shown here http://i.imgur.com/UKzKT.jpg. 124.169.47.217 (talk) 04:13, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Also known as stock footage. It's a *very* common thing in the industry. (Oceanic Airlines being a particularly famous example) Unless there's been specific comment on overuse of such footage in third-party sources, it's not worth a mention here. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 04:51, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * More than stock footage, I know for fact that Transformers 1 used footage from Bay's Pearl Harbor (just like DotM included footage from Bay's The Island). And yes, I'm all in for the inclusion of that. --uKER (talk) 19:59, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Citation Needed issue
How is this article on "Today's Featured Article" page if it has a Citation needed tag in the lead? Where is the logic behind this? I'd appreciate feedback. Thanks. ATC. Talk 19:13, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure! Firstly, it wasn't there before today. Secondly, per WP:LEAD, the lede section of an article doesn't need references if the information appears further down, so the tag was misplaced regardless. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 23:28, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay thanks for clarifying. If there was no need for the citation in the first place (because it was mentioned and sourced further in the article) than it should've been removed, especially the day it was featured. ATC . Talk 16:28, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

relation to other movies, sequels?
Why is there no links to the sequels here? Is this something new WikiPedia is doing? Breaking up related information so as to make it more difficult for the users? This seems anti-* ~AeSix 173.171.150.184 (talk) 03:52, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The above comment didn't even make sense in the version of the article from September 2011 when the article include several mentions of the sequel films right there in the article intro and also a great big Navbox at the end of the page linking to the sequels and all the related information in the franchise. Even so a "Sequels and spin-offs" subsection was later added to the article. It is strange that the archive bots still haven't cleared out these years old comments from the talk page. -- 109.77.194.149 (talk) 15:58, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

gammar error
All of the dead Transformer bodies are dumped into the Mariana Trench at Atlantic Ocean to be hidden

"At" Should be replace by "in the". --174.71.78.172 (talk) 12:39, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

It's funny because the Mariana Trench is in the Pacific. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.156.158 (talk) 01:19, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Mark Ryan is NOT the Voice of Bumblebee
Mark Ryan as Bumblebee the young scout of the Autobots and best friend of Sam

[Source] According the the actual Credits of the film ... (Please watch the film and you will be able to verify this visually for yourself)

Mark Ryan is the Voice of JetFire NOT Bumblebee

Infact .. Bumblebee has NO Voice .. as his "vocal processors were damaged in battle" [Ratchet Transformers film #1]

MuwTent (talk) 23:36, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

[EDIT} I was wrong .. Mark Ryan IS the voice of Bumblebee .. even though bumblebee has no voice of his own ?

However, Mark Ryan IS the Voice of Jetfire in the second Film and NOBODY is credited with the Voice of Bumblebee.

I wonder if the production staff made an error on the credits of the first film ? MuwTent (talk) 22:59, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

 * Bumblebee speaks at the end of the film, when he asks for permission to stay with Sam. --uKER (talk) 00:28, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 9 July 2012
chris 15:06, 9 July 2012 (UTC) i would like to edit tranformers because of speling mistakes
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. Ryan Vesey Review me!  15:28, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Um.
"Transformers ended its theatrical run in the United States and Canada with a gross $319.2 million, making it the third highest-grossing film of 2007 in these regions behind Spider-Man 3 and Shrek the Third."

Of Should be between gross and $319.2. 75.111.63.85 (talk) 17:45, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

 * ✅ I'm actually impressed this went unnoticed for so long. I just got here. Anyhow, thank you for pointing that out.  Corvoe  (speak to me)  00:22, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 December 2013
Joshua Starnes is listed in the critical response, I'd like to link this reference to his Wikipedia page Joshua Starnes

167.206.189.6 (talk) 22:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

 * Yes check.svg Done -- El Hef  ( Meep? ) 23:15, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 August 2014
"processing the events of the second movie."

probably should be

"presaging the events of the second movie."

108.17.69.14 (talk) 05:44, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

✅ Thanks for the suggestion - Arjayay (talk) 10:01, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 September 2014
I want to edit Transformers (film) so stop BLOCKING!!!!!!!!

Transformersprimefan (talk) 13:01, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

❌ This is not the right page to request additional user rights. If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ". Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request. - Arjayay (talk) 15:00, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Transformers (film). 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.transformerscon.com/videos.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 20:17, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2016
Remove navbox Transformers film series template.

--186.84.46.227 (talk) 01:58, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done — Andy W. ( talk  · ctb) 02:03, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Edit request on June 18 2016
Within the "Sequels"-section, one of the "Main articles" is Transformers 5 which, at least when I click on it, redirects to Transformers: The Last Knight. If Transformers 5 and Transformers: The Last Knight is the same movie, shouldn't the "Main articles"-section within the "Sequels"-section link directly to "Transformers: The Last Knight" rather than to "Transformers 5"? Furthermore, the "Sequels"-section also says "And the fifth as of now titled Transformers 5 is scheduled for a summer 2017 release". Shouldn't that read "And the fifth as of now titled Transformers: The Last Knight is scheduled for a summer 2017 release" or "And the fifth film, Transformers: The Last Knight, is scheduled for a summer 2017 release" or something like that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.167.173.189 (talk) 20:06, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 August 2016
Please change “A lengthy battle occurs in Los Angeles, with most of the Decepticons being killed, but Megatron murders Jazz.” to “A lengthy battle occurs in Mission City, (but clearly filmed in Los Angeles,) with most of the Decepticons being killed, but Megatron murders Jazz.” because that is the accurate title of the city in the movie storyline. The source is the actual published movie at 1 hour 45 minutes 30 seconds in spoken by character Lennox (Josh Duhamel). Details can also be verified in text at

72.208.19.35 (talk) 18:57, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

 * Yes check.svg Done -- MorbidEntree - (Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥) (please reply using {{ping}}) 04:12, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Transformers (film). 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/20091012224415/http://www.latinoreview.com/news/on-set-interview-producer-don-murphy-on-transformers-1502 to http://www.latinoreview.com/news/on-set-interview-producer-don-murphy-on-transformers-1502
 * Added tag to https://m.cinemascore.com/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.calendarlive.com/movies/reviews/la-et-transformers2jul02%2C0%2C445321.story
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131012045551/http://www.oscars.org/awards/academyawards/oscarlegacy/2000-present/2008/winners.html to http://www.oscars.org/awards/academyawards/oscarlegacy/2000-present/2008/winners.html

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) 02:45, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Transformers (film). 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/20090616234421/http://boards.transformersmovie.com/showthread.php?t=12054 to http://boards.transformersmovie.com/showthread.php?t=12054
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070809202842/http://www.fxguide.com/article441.html to http://www.fxguide.com/article441.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070706203941/http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/industry/4218826.html?series=6 to http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/industry/4218826.html?series=6
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071011122722/http://news.awn.com/index.php?ltype=top to http://news.awn.com/index.php?ltype=top&newsitem_no=22404
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071013113248/http://comicnewsi.com/article.php?catid=208&itemid=10370 to http://comicnewsi.com/article.php?catid=208&itemid=10370

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) 22:48, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Transformers (film). 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/20090629020219/http://uk.movies.ign.com/articles/588/588884p1.html to http://uk.movies.ign.com/articles/588/588884p1.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070621173208/http://www.iesb.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2718&Itemid=99 to http://www.iesb.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2718&Itemid=99
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080601225500/http://www.jamesclyne.com/projects.php?gallery_id=297 to http://www.jamesclyne.com/projects.php?gallery_id=297

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) 21:33, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Transformers (film). 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 tag to http://boards.transformersmovie.com/showpost.php?p=366827&postcount=47
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070917001231/http://enewsi.com/news.php?catid=190&itemid=11213 to http://enewsi.com/news.php?catid=190&itemid=11213
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120513024717/http://enewsi.com/news.php?catid=261&itemid=11481 to http://enewsi.com/news.php?catid=261&itemid=11481

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) 06:59, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

plot section
The first paragraph is really off. Optimums Prime doesn't even mention Megatron and the civil war in the beginning. Its just a voice over of what the Allspark can do. We don't know about Sam's great grandfather discovering megatron until he tells us in his presentation after the base attack. It leaves out sam's car escaping and him getting arrested. Then scoponok attacks the survivors — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawrence 282 (talk • contribs) 00:50, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 October 2018
Add "superhero film" to lead and add Category:2000s superhero films 200.158.246.200 (talk) 12:49, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: These kind of changes should first be discussed on the talk page first. JC7V -talk  18:25, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 June 2020
Please note MOS:SLASH.

In the article intro please change the text
 * X "as well as a spin-off/prequel titled Bumblebee in 2018" to
 * Y "as well as a spin-off and prequel titled Bumblebee in 2018"
 * (or alternatively at the editors discretion Z omit "/prequel" entirely, "as well as a spin-off titled Bumblebee in 2018")

In any case slash should not be included in the text, like that. -- 109.76.153.121 (talk) 13:32, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

 * While I'm checking the article I notice MOS:SLASH also needs to be applied to the subsection "Sequels and spin-offs" (and also WP:RELTIME)

Please also change the text
 * X "A spin-off/prequel titled Bumblebee was released on December 21, 2018 to universal critical acclaim. It is currently the highest-rated film in the Transformers series." to
 * Y "A spin-off titled Bumblebee was released on December 21, 2018 to universal critical acclaim. It is the highest-rated film in the Transformers series."
 * kthx -- 109.76.153.121 (talk) 13:38, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done ‑‑ El Hef  ( Meep? ) 14:41, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Protection
I requested removal of the semi-protection of the article since it had been in place since 2010. For now, there is not protection applied to it, but if needed, pending-changes protection can be applied (see WP:PCPP). Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 19:45, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Budget
For the longest time the budget of this film was listed as $150 million based on statements from producers Lorenzo di Bonaventura and Ian Bryce, to Reuters. Also Box Office Mojo puts the budget at $150 million and The-Numbers puts the budget at $151 million

Yet without discussion or explanation someone decided to add a budget range to the Infobox, claiming the budget could be as high as $200 million. There was no talk page discussion, and there was no effort made to expand the article text to explain why this higher budget figure might be credible. Template:Infobox film does warn against "cherry picking" budget figures but this almost the opposite, including a outlying contradictory source is the other end of the scale. This is supposed to be a high quality Featured Article, this should be properly explained and put in some context in the article, not shoehorned in to the Infobox. I'm disappointed to see editors yet again sloppily adding strange numbers to the Infobox but failing to make any effort to properly improve the main article, or even starting a talk page discussion to let other editors know that such improvements might be necessary.

Why might this other source be more credible than the producers of the film and the usual sources of budget information? What might have been the point of including it?

The source, is an interview from NPR from 2007 where the host and the entertainment expert for NPR Kim Masters, discuss why Spider-Man 3 was so expensive. Sony claim the budget was $270 and denies that the cost of the film passed the $350 million, the point being that studios don't want to admit how much they really spent on a film. Later in the article Masters says:

"Somebody said to me recently, I know definitively that 'Transformers' - which is coming out over the July 4th weekend - 'Transformers' has passed 200 million."

So this is a rumor from NPR's Hollywood correspondent. If this source is credible and should stay in the article, then it should be properly explained somewhere in the article body, such as in the Production section for example. I suggest something along the following lines:

Producers Lorenzo di Bonaventura and Ian Bryce, say the film cost only $150 million, and they reckon it was a bargain compared to the other tentpole films that summer which cost as much as $300 million. [Note: Could specify Spider-Man 3 and Pirates 3 with their $300 million budgets but that extra context may not be necessary.] According to Kim Masters of NPR studios did not want to admit to their real budget and risk further cost inflation, and her anonymous Hollywood source put the budget for Transformers at over $200 million.

TLDR: Is this claimed higher budget figure credible? Yes or no? If yes then how should the article be improved to properly explain the figure. -- 109.77.194.149 (talk) 16:48, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The infobox is supposed to summarize the article see MOS:INFOBOX. It is not supposed to circumvent the article with new information not explained elsewhere. Based on my earlier comment above I have added information about the budget to the production section. I'm still sceptical that the higher figures should be mentioned in the Infobox at all, as it is a little too close to WP:RUMOR. Also the production budget of the film may have been $150 million but distribution and marketing costs would easily be expected to be millions mores more than that. The Marketing section is focussed on Merchandising and tie-ins, it emphasizes the potential revenue but does not mention anything about the cost of advertising. Despite being a Featured Article this article is not up to the highest standards. -- 109.79.81.227 (talk) 15:36, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Fansites are not reliable sources
Please note WP:FANSITE. Wikipedia articles are not supposed to use fansites as references (eg TFW2005.com should be replaced with better sources). It seems particularly inappropriate for this to not be reliably sourced. Perhaps it was good enough at the time but I do not think this meets the current standards of Featured articles and may need review. -- 109.78.201.203 (talk) 16:50, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

 * If someone does not address your concerns shortly, you can list the article at WP:FARGIVEN. Then after a period of two or three weeks, you can nominate it at WP:FAR; please see the instructions there. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  01:05, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

$145 million budget
Here's ths source; youtu.be/NmboiE5kxy4?si=n2La1f9aWBaVQ3RY&t=3849 DougheGojiraMan (talk) 04:01, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for providing a reference here on the Talk page but this encyclopedia article needs a reference that can actually used directly in the article, and that Youtube video would seem to be a WP:COPYVIO. (I don't for a second believe the final cost was $145 million but may well have been the budget it was greenlit or started at, and DiBonaventura simply rounded it to $150 million.) Now that we know Bay said it cost $145 million maybe we can find another source elsewhere. -- 109.78.196.145 (talk) 16:59, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * He did an interview with Collider that might do a press conference where he said he the budget was $145 million that I cannot believe was overlooked all this time (although the press conference has been referenced twice in the article already). -- 109.78.196.145 (talk) 18:01, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 17 May 2024

 * 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. The discussion has run its course, and it's obvious no one can agree on a solution. Running the discussion one more week wouldn't make a difference. (closed by non-admin page mover)  Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 22:00, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Transformers (film) → Transformers (2007 film) – See WT:NCF Does anyone make any sense? Similar to Star Trek (2009 film). 71.95.108.35 (talk) 06:01, 17 May 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 11:24, 28 May 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 07:55, 6 June 2024 (UTC)  — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 21:06, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

 * Support. This could easily be confused with the 1986 film. BD2412  T 19:08, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose since both films have always properly disambiguated from each other, and hatnotes complement the guidance of readers. This has not been a problem for years and years, and this behavior is just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 00:55, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Support because it could be confused with upcoming films such as Transformers One, or other media. Denoting its date is helpful, and it is known as the 2007 movie of TF2007 in the fanbase anyways. Cronchconch (talk) 07:55, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Support, while the other film is properly disambiguated, "Transformers (film)" could reasonably apply to either, or even to Transformers One as mentioned above, so a better disambiguation is needed. Chaotic Enby   (talk · contribs) 13:57, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment: Remember that the other film is called The Transformers: The Movie, so that's different enough for WP:SMALLDETAILS to apply. And to assume confusion about Transformers One being just Transformers is a bit ridiculous. The "ONE" is huge in all advertising materials. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:21, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I'm not even sure what the nomination is trying to say. But even outside of that, I'm skeptical there is much chance for confusion. It would be awkward for the cartoon adaptation to be plausibly called "Transformers"/"The Transformers", as that's the name of the show, and it has a prominent subtitle. By contrast, the 2007 film was heavily marketed as Transformers. There are hatnotes on both anyway, so if there is any confusion it's not the end of the world. Nohomersryan (talk) 15:41, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Support the 2007 one has 59,949 views but the 1986 one has 20,311[|The_Transformers:_The_Movie] which isn't enough for a PDAB even if this one isn't known as much without the subtitle.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 17:01, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Star_Trek_(2009_film) points to the JJAbrams movie and Star_Trek_(film) is a redirect to List of Star Trek films. Does this proposal intend to make Transformers_(film) into a redirect to the Michael Bay film franchise page at Transformers (film series)? -- 109.79.70.49 (talk) 14:35, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose. agreeing with some of the other guys, the 1986 film, the 2007 film, and One have different subtitles and titles. Also, one's animated. They're distinct enough. AndrewGarfieldIsTheBestSpiderMan (talk) 01:42, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This just seems unnecessary, there is no ambiguity with The Transformers: The Movie. Transformers One is different enough. Not clear that substantial actual confusion exists.
 * No. This is intend to redirect to Transformers (disambiguation).
 * Oppose: Redirecting a featured article's title to a disambiguation page is bad for readers. It means readers have to make more clicks to get to the information that they're looking for. Toughpigs (talk) 20:17, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Support there's the 80s film, there's the film series, there's this film. The subtitles do nothing to disambiguate this film, sincec this film is not carrying a subtitle, therefore this pagename is not unambiguous. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS on the other topic titles, which isn't relevant to the name of this article. They can be called "Transformers", thus this title is not unambiguous, as it can refer to the other topics. -- 65.92.244.143 (talk) 23:16, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Relisting comment: Relist for additional participation; discussion of whether this is the primary topic for this title may be helpful BilledMammal (talk) 07:55, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

 * Rename per nom. I'm concerned less with The Transformers: The Movie, and more with other entries in Category:Transformers (film series) titled Transformers: Something * Pppery * it has begun... 14:11, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Which specifically? Because that's just not how this _encyclopedia_ is supposed work. The guidelines are not as enthusiastic about adding redirects as most editors are. Readers should be directed to the most likely answer where possible, the principal of least astonishment applies. It is not helpful to redirect or dump people on a list page and it adds unnecessary extra steps for the majority or readers because of vague feelings that a tiny minority of readers potentially suffering brief confusion over non-specified "other entries". Until there is an actual specific problem to be solved this unnecessary rename should not happen. Just because it is easy to add redirects or rename pages doesn't mean it should be done. -- 109.79.164.239 (talk) 12:39, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

 * Oppose. I can see absolutely no need for this. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose per 's reasoning and follow-up comment. The hatnotes handle any potential issues already and the "(film series)" disambiguation exists for a reason. Sock   ( tock talk)  19:50, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Relisting comment: Final relist BilledMammal (talk) 21:06, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * has relisted this three times even though there is obvious no consensus across thirteen editors. I've never seen this many before. I don't think this editor is capable of properly calling a "no consensus", which is a valid outcome per WP:RMCIDC. There was a similar problem with Fashion Model (film) where they listed that twice even after nine editors' involvement (also suspect due to multiple editors supporting the application of policy). It looks like after that second relisting, they counted an IP editor's !vote twice: one early on, and one after the second relisting, which was apparently enough for BilledMammal to close it:
 * We need a different closing editor. The lack of a user page does not give anyone any indication of a background in requested-move management, much less editing in general. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 21:57, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * We need a different closing editor. The lack of a user page does not give anyone any indication of a background in requested-move management, much less editing in general. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 21:57, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * We need a different closing editor. The lack of a user page does not give anyone any indication of a background in requested-move management, much less editing in general. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 21:57, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

title: Talk:Transformers (film)


text:
Talk:Lancaster railway station

Line change
My edits made on the Oxenholme Lake District, Lancaster and Preston stations were reverted. Baisically, I repelaced Preston from the next stop bit of the Windermere and Furness lines with (West Coast Main Line). This follows the format of the individual lines' pages, and indicates that although the line ends, through services move on to the other line.

At the moment, these boxes contradict the lines' pages as they suggest Lancaster and Preston are on the Windermere line; theya re not. I feel that my changes would give Wikipedia more consistency. Below is the example of my box:

To indicate that the through services are transpennine, another box could be added reading:

This would follow the format of other lines with multiple providers

Robdurbar 16:02, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Why is there no mention of Lancaster Greaves Station??
The first station in Lancaster was Lancaster Greaves Station situated south of Penny Street. The building, which was also the headquarters of the Lancaster & Preston Junction Railway from 1840 to 1849, was superseded by this 'Castle' station in 1846. Today the first Lancaster station survives in part as a section of Lancaster infirmary, it has been remodelled as a Georgian villa, standing at the corner of South Road and Ashton Road. After closure as a passenger station it was used as a goods station.

Interestingly Greaves station was built as a terminal station even though it clear that the railway would continue northward. It is possible the first station was initially sited at this point because the railway was envisaged to pass on the east side of Lancaster by crossing the Lune near the city centre. However the Lancaster & Carlisle Railway decided in favour of a cheaper route west of the city following the Lancaster Canal and crossing the River Lune from Ladies Walk to a through station near the castle at its southern end.

This led to the construction of the aptly named Castle Station which was designed by Sir William Tite. The original building survives on the west side of the tracks. It is a mock-Tudor, two storey building with mullioned windows and a Gothic arcaded entrance built in local stone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.58.79 (talk) 18:28, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, according to Butt (1995), p. 138, there was no station of that name. What Butt does show is a station simply named "Lancaster", on the Lancaster & Carlisle Railway, opened by the Lancaster & Preston Junction Rly on 26 June 1840, closed 1 August 1849. The present station opened as "Lancaster Castle" 22 September 1846 by the Lancaster & Carlisle Rly; renamed "Lancaster" by BR 5 May 1969. -- Red rose64 (talk) 22:25, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * After seeing this discussion I have created Lancaster (Greaves) railway station. --  Dr Greg   talk  18:54, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Please don't treat articles as personal fiefdoms
Lancaster station had as its mascot a cat called Toby who was popular with station staff and now has a memorial bench. These are verified historical facts about Lancaster station. Whether or not they are trivial facts is a matter of opinion. Please don't behave arrogantly and delete these facts again. I realize that this plea will probably fall on deaf ears. If it doesn't, thank you for behaving as a Wikipedia editor should. Mwrcwmmw (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 10:01, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

 * This is not about ownership it's about trivia. Per WP:BRD your bold edit has been reverted and you have rightly come here to discuss. Let's see if others support your addition or not. 10mmsocket (talk) 10:07, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * For reference, this is the content that was removed. 10mmsocket (talk) 14:05, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * If a reliable third party source (probably something with a wider geographical reach than the Lancaster newspaper) sees it as noteworthy enough to report on it wouldn’t be trivial, and can be added. SK2242 (talk) 14:20, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

 * Station cats are part of some stations history, such as those at Tonbridge. No reason they shouldn't be mentioned as long as reported by reliable sources. Mjroots (talk) 14:35, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:TRIVIA appears to be about avoiding sections titled "Trivia", "Facts", etc, and states This guideline does not suggest the inclusion or exclusion of any information; it only gives style recommendations. Issues of inclusion are addressed by content policies. Thus I don't think it can be cited as a reason to remove this material. The information on the station cat is sourced, so I see no problem with its inclusion. I also see no reason why the Lancaster Telegraph doesn't count as a reliable source. NemesisAT (talk) 15:35, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTEVERYTHING is the relevant policy. - X201 (talk) 15:49, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * For me personally, a station cat probably falls under the trivia category. Bellowhead678 (talk) 20:08, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Having a memorial bench (if this is not common practice) would be a valid claim to being noteworthy enough for a mention. I mean, I'd guess that for most station cats we hear nothing about, so this is still more coverage than routine. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:14, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Lancaster railway station


text:
User talk:80.177.90.74

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  V.   Molotov     16:06, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

title: User talk:80.177.90.74


text:
Frantic

Frantic may refer to:

Film

 * Frantic (film), a 1988 film directed by Roman Polanski and starring Harrison Ford
 * Frantic Films, a Canadian film production company

Music

 * Frantic (album), a 2002 album by Bryan Ferry
 * "Frantic" (Metallica song), 2003
 * Frantic (Jamie O'Neal song), 2002

Video games

 * Frantic (video game), a 1982 video game published by Imagine Software
 * Frantic Factory, the third level in Donkey Kong 64

Other uses

 * Frantic Magazine, a comic book series published by Marvel UK from 1979 to 1980
 * Operation Frantic, World War II shuttle bombing missions

title: Frantic


text:
Romanworld

Romanworld is the debut album by American garage house producer Romanthony. It was released by Azuli Records on March 17, 1997. It is a double album of mostly previously released work, with some new mixes of these songs.

Track listing
CD

Both discs are continuous without any track markings.

Vinyl

The vinyl release has an identical tracklist to the CD release, but the first half is on sides C and D and the second half is on sides A and B. Due to the limits of the vinyl format, some of the tracks fade out early.

title: Romanworld


text:
Talk:Near-death studies

Overlap with Near-death experience article
This article already contains (and will contain even more) material that overlaps with the article on Near-death experience. This is unavoidable considering the common interest of both articles. My suggestion is to let the article on Near-Death Studies focus on the distinct school of academic research known as Near-Death Studies (its theory-building, its instruments, its journals and its professionals) while the other article, Near-death experience, handles the broader subject of near-death experiences viewed from professional and popular standpoints. --Hawol 16:07, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Removing Simpson ref.
I have removed the reference to Simpsons (2001) article since he is not so closesly associated to the the field of Near-death studies as the other authors that are mentioned in the list of references. --Hawol 10:44, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Removing Peake ref.
Peake A, "Cheating The Ferryman - A New Paradigm of Existence?". Journal of Near Death Studies, Vol.23 No 2 (2004)

I have removed this reference from the reference section, since it is not cited in the text. The reference section is reserved for titles that are cited in the text. --Hawol 13:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

New material on neuroscience
New material presents valid information on the topic, but is "out of touch" with the general tonality of the section, which is about the development of a particular academic field called Near-death studies. I am temporarily removing this section and placing it here until we can sort out a few details. (Reference formating is removed from this copied text, but the source that is used for background is a blog update by writer Sam Harris called "This Must Be Heaven, published October 12, 2012 on his blog http://www.samharris.org/).

''Modern contributions to the research on near-death experiences have come from several academic disciplines that generally do not include neuroscience. Because the study of NDEs is a topic that addressed multiple possible feelings, sensations and their origins, research on NDE should be conducted primarily by researchers with credentials in cognitive neuroscience. Cognitive neuroscience addresses the questions of how psychological functions (for example, human feelings and sensations) are produced by neural circuitry (including the human brain). There is very little interest on the topic of NDEs among neuroscietists and there are multiple reasons for this trend. For example, brain activity scans are not typically performed when a patient is undergoing attempts at emergency resuscitation. Claiming that there is no measurable brain activity without having a variety of different EEG, catSCAN, FMRI, etc. is not considered a good scientific practice.

Two problematic expressions:
 * "research on NDE should be conducted primarily by researchers with credentials in cognitive neuroscience"
 * "claiming that there is no measurable brain activity without having a variety of different EEG, catSCAN, FMRI, etc. is not considered a good scientific practice."

These are normative expressions, and might therefore not be considered encyclopedic in tonality. We don't know which single academic approach that is best for the study of NDE's. They might even be complementary. That is, they all bring important bricks to the puzzle. It is also unclear who it is that represents these normative views. Is it a blogger called Sam Harris, or is it the medical establishment? If particular commentators have expressed criticism of the field of Near-death studies, then let's include it, but I read this new material as a general defence of a normative neuroscientific approach to NDE's. It is possible to include this new material, but I believe it has to be re-written and presented as a criticism of the particular field of study called Near-death studies. This is possible, as I am planning to construct a new section called "Criticism". Also, a quick search in the PubMed database will reveal that Neuroscience is interested in the topic of NDE's, but the field of neuroscience has not been understood as a major catalyst for the particular field called Near-death studies. Neuro-cognitive views on NDE's are also represented in the article on Near-death experience. The Journal of Near-Death Studies does include neuroscientific observations, but the present article is still a work in progress, and these studies have not been cited yet. In summary, the new material is valid, but I believe it needs a rewrite in order to be relevant for the development of the particular academic field called Near-death studies.

--Hawol (talk) 13:15, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Newspaper sources
Recent editor comments: "excessive newspaper use. please use reliable scientific sources."

Most of the newspaper sources used in the article are, in my view, credible sources: New York Times, Chicago Tribune, The Telegraph, Houston Chronicle, Seattle Times, The Guardian. These are leading news sources in the U.S and Europe with a solid editorial and journalistic base. Also, a few periodicals are cited in the article, mainly Psychology Today a leading periodical in the field of psychology, and TIME magazine and Newsweek, major international periodicals. I believe the source-critical question in this matter is wether these sources present too much of the medical information of the article. That can of course be discussed further, but I believe that these sources are good starting points for the presentation of an overview of the field of Near-death studies.--Hawol (talk) 16:26, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

"Unreliable sources"-tag
I am removing the tag that says: ''Some or all of this article's listed sources may not be reliable. (March 2014)''

Reasons for using newspaper sources: 3 of the sources are obituaries. A few of the sources are relevant to historical development of the field (for example reports from IANDS conferences).

11 newspaper sources are removed in this new edit. According to my notes the article now consists of 40+ references from academic peer-reviewed journals or doctoral dissertations, 9 refs. from periodicals, 7 refs. from books, 10+ refs. from newspapers, and a few unsorted refs, (brochures etc).

Academic refs. include the following publications, which are listed in academic databases such as PubMed and PsycINFO:

Crit Care Nurse, Psychiatry (Edgmont), Psychiatry, Resuscitation, Psychiatric Services, The Lancet, Nature magazine, Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, Research in Nursing & Health, Journal of Near-Death Studies, JAMA, Am J Psychiatry, Perspect Biol Med, American Journal of Diseases of Children, Perceptual and Motor Skills, Am J Kidney Dis, British Journal of Psychology, PLoS One, Int J Behav Med, Crit Care, Subst Use Misuse, Death Studies, The British Journal of Psychiatry, Trends Cogn Sci.

--Hawol (talk) 16:01, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Rehabilitation of article: Medical references, primary sources and newspaper sources
I think it is fair to say that this article has been rehabilitated along the lines that has been suggested by other editors, and the the insertion of tags. The article now contains approx. 45 references from academic peer-reviewed journals that are listed in databases such as PubMed and PsycINFO. The number of newspaper refs. has been reduced considerably, and the article now contains 10+ newspaper refs. These newspaper refs. are mainly from major newspapers such as The New York Times, The Guardian, Chicago Tribune, Houston Chronicle, Wall Street Journal etc. Some of these articles are obituaries. Others are reports from IANDS-conferences. Newspaper articles are not used to present the major medical findings in the field, but a few of them are used to present the historical development of research in the field. The article also contains approx. 10 references from major periodicals - mainly from TIME magazine, Newsweek, Psychology Today - that I consider to be reliable.

Based on this overview I am removing the tag that says "This article needs more medical references for verification or relies too heavily on primary sources, specifically: Sources are generally out of date.. (March 2014)".

I make the following argument for doing this: Medical references have been improved. Most of the newspaper references dating from the 1980's have been removed. Primary sources, from the Journal of Near-death Studies and books by authors associated with Near-death Studies, are still present in the article, but they represent a minority of the sources. For example: The psychometric Instrument developed by Thornburg (and used by psychologists in the field), is (to my knowledge) so far only described in The Journal of Near-death Studies. It is therefore necessary to include references from this journal in order to describe this instrument.--Hawol (talk) 12:49, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

"Primary Sources"-tag
I am removing the "Primary Sources"-tag at the top of the article (added March 2014). The article has undergone rehabilitation to improve the quality of sources. The number of secondary sources, from academic peer-reviewed journals, now clearly outnumbers the number of primary sources from publications close to the field. I still believe that it is important to also include primary sources in order to be able to achieve a comprehensive understanding of the field.--Hawol (talk) 17:59, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Overlap with Near Death Experience article
The subject matter of this article seems to have way too much overlap with Near-death experience. What can be done about this?? RobP (talk) 16:31, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree, I think it would make a lot of sense to start a call for merging this article into Near-death experience. I think this article could be put under Research or Explanatory Models. The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 21:18, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Discussion open at Talk:Near-death experience; input welcome, — Paleo Neonate  – 01:16, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Unclear sentence
This sentence (emphasis added) is unclear. I don't know how to fix it. Can somebody help? "Prospective studies, reviewing groups of individuals and then finding who had an NDE after some time and costing more to do, had identified 270 individuals." Tom Haws (talk) 22:49, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * This Article has been translated for the German Wikipedia and I am trying to improve the German version here and there (excuse my English!) With this sentence I had to struggle too. I think, retrospective studies are such, where indiviual people come and tell you their stories and you collect them and perhaps do further research. In prospective studies you first define a group, i.e. every person having a heart attack in a certain hospital. And after he or she has been treated you ask everybody in this group if they experienced anything while they were unconscious. So "after some time" is a bit misleading. It is "after they were defined as participants of a certain group". This type of research certainly is more costly in every sense.--Facetten (talk) 21:49, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Sentence fragment
The second of these three sentences is a fragment. I don't know how to fix it. Can somebody help? "In the book Moody outlines the different elements of the NDE. Features that were picked up by later researchers. The book brought a lot of attention to the topic of NDEs." Tom Haws (talk) 22:55, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Updated References
The last major update on the History and Background section comes from a paper off of the 2008 project, published in 2014. Additionally in the references, the most recent one comes from 2015. Checking various databases including PsychINFO and PUBMED, there have been more studies that have come out in the years since, and it might be beneficial to include a few of them either as references to statements in the article they discuss, or as a way to expand the History and Background section based on anything new or major that may have come out in the past 7 years. Sethvogt (talk) 06:30, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Cross-Cultural Aspects - two uncomplete citations
An unknown user has added content to a section on cross-cultural aspects of NDE's but the user has not included the complete reference to the sourced content. The sources are Kellehear (2009) and Moody (1975; 1977). Does anyone know the details of these publications? Hawol (talk) 19:07, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Apparently nobody did, Hawol. I see the user has made a renewed attempt to add the material, without improving the referencing; IMO you did right to remove it, both times. I have written to the latest IP, on User talk:2607:FA49:5740:800:C00A:1D8E:44FB:55CB, to explain the problem. They may already have moved (or rather, have been moved; it's not their fault) to a different IP in the same /64 range, though, so there's no telling whether they see my post or not. It's very difficult to communicate with IPv6'es. :-( Bishonen | tålk 16:40, 7 May 2022 (UTC).
 * Thanks for your input. I appreciate the contribution from this anonymous user, the article needs more content on the cross-cultural aspects of NDEs, but the sourcing, as you also suggest, needs to be better than this.--Hawol (talk) 19:18, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The treatment of cross-cultural NDEs is so thin and out of date it's an embarrassment. Nothing on Kellhear, McClenon, Zaleski, Shushan. But I'm already in a dispute about this on the main NDE page, so maybe someone else can correct it here. I don't want to waste my time writing and referencing a section only to have it deleted by on ideological grounds by someone who knows the subject less than I do. 2600:1700:A790:63B0:8096:E1CE:F7E8:DBA3 (talk) 22:00, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

NDEs are already completely explained, since 2006 (or 800-1200 years ago)
Based on Dr. Moody´s book ´Life after Life´, NDEs are completely explainable - as a simple recall activity. Only the two scientific ideas ´predictive coding + state dependent retrieval´ are necessary to explain NDEs. Let´s use Dr. Moody´s book (" " = Quotations): "Hearing the News" is the trigger to start NDEs. (Usually our brain reactivate immediately a comparable experience from the memory when we perceive a new stimulus. But for the idea ´I am dead/I will die´ we do not have an experience - therefore the brain concentrate on the job to process this strange stimulus and now we might have a NDE.) "Feelings of Peace and Quiet" are a recall of experiences from the 5th month of foetus age (the other physical senses do not yet work - thus we recall only peace/quietness). "The Noise" - these recalled experiences are from our acoustic sense, which is working since the 20th week of pregnancy (But these experiences are re-evaluated at the recall with the mind of an adult person). "The Dark Tunnel" - are the recalled experiences from the development of our acoustic sense with a very high speed. Thus the optical illusion is perceived, to move through a dark tunnel towards a light-spot of increasing size. "The Being of Light" - when the light perception change from dim to brightness - then is this the recalled light perception before(dim) and after birth(brilliant). And the encounter with a ´being of light´ is, how we recall memories about our first social encounter with our parents. (Memories might be altered/changed at a recall - the reason is our ´state dependent retrieval´. Therefore the fist social experiences in a baby age are transformed/evaluated at the recall with the intelligence/mind of an adult person.) "Meeting Others" + "The Review" are recalled experiences from the memory which are from an age where we can describe our experiences with own words (We learn to express our thoughts by words - since the 2nd year of childhood.) "The Border or Limit" + "Coming Back" - is the stop-trigger who will end the NDE. (e.g. when we move our attention/thoughts towards another stimulus, then the NDe will be stopped). "Out of the Body" - the OBE is created by our mind as an attempt to create a virtual simulation of the actual situation. But this is only a mental simulation - because important details are obviously wrong (e.g. a man who had lost the better part of his leg - ´saw´ himself with the complete leg: this is 100% wrong). "Meetting Ohters" - is only a recall of memories. (All our experiences are made/perceived, stored and recalled in PRESENT TENSE - therefore ecvery recall is a RE-EXPERIENCE: This is the reason why even deceased persons are perceived like in a vivid/real-encounter). This was the complete explanation of NDEs - this explanation-model is published since 2006 and now available in the book ´Kinseher Richard: Pfusch, Betrug, Nahtod-Erfahrung´ (in German language). BUT THIS IDEA IS NOT NEW: ´The Tibetan Book of the Dead´ was published 800-1200 years age - and in this book such experiences (which we describe as NDEs) are seen only as recalled memories (or ´illusions´ as the book said). REMARK: We have chemical senses (smell, taste) and physical senses (touch(skin contact, warmth, pressure) > acoustic sense (ear, hearing) > optical senses (eye, visual perception). The order of recalled experiences which was described already since 1975 in Moody´s book ´Life after Life´ fit exactly to order of the sensual development of the physical senses since the 5th month of foetus-age!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:D4:70F:5E70:4422:13CC:D15A:6379 (talk) 13:46, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Near-death studies


text:
Propaganda Games

Propaganda Games was a Canadian video game development studio based in Vancouver, British Columbia, founded by Josh Holmes in 2005, and bought by Disney Interactive Studios, the interactive subsidiary of the Walt Disney Company at the same year. In January 2011, Propaganda Games was closed.

History
Buena Vista Games formed the new studio with former employees of EA Canada in April 2005. They acquired the Turok license in May 2005, which was released in 2008 for the current generation consoles at the time. A sequel, Turok 2, was in development soon after but was canceled due to layoffs.

Once work was completed on Tron: Evolution and the proposed Pirates of the Caribbean title was cancelled, Disney closed the studio in January 2011.

title: Propaganda Games