Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Herbie Hancock discography/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted by Giants2008 03:26, 15 December 2012 [1].

Herbie Hancock discography edit

Herbie Hancock discography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Simone Jackson (talk) 01:48, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because i think that it meets the FL criteria. I worked many months on this page and i think that is ready for the star. Simone Jackson (talk) 1:49, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from TBrandley (talk) 23:22, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  • Add alt text to the images as per MOS:IMAGES and WP:ALT
  • "discography" shouldn't be bold per MOS:BOLD
  • Avoid bold links per WP:CONTEXTLINK
  • "#" should not be used per WP:POUND, use "No." instead
  • "Billboard 200" 200 shouldn't be in italics
  • "Thanks" isn't a good word
  • My biggest concern, the paragraphs are very chunky, and contain many sentences that need work and copy-editing. When I say "very chunky", I mean there are too many details and words per plot guidelines, and WP:LEDE, etc.


  • Section headers and everything should be changed, and modeled to the headers/section stuff used in Train discography, an FL, which can be modeled for lots of my concerns
  • Add table captions per MOS:DTT, as in the above list shown
  • "For every year (here reported chronologically) the albums are listed alphabetically by the last name of the artist." should be the table caption. It should be a note outside of the caption
  • Ref. 1 and 3 as well as one in ref. 6's both contain WP:DASH issues, hpythen should be an en-dash
  • Allmusic should be AllMovie
  • Avoid capitals in ref. text, which is in ref. 37
  • There are way too many external links as per WP:ELNO, there should only be three, I'd remove all "partial discography"
  • Categories should be sorted in alphabetical order

TBrandley 02:42, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I followed all your advice, except #6 because i don't know how to substitute the word "thanks" (i'm Italian and my English vocabulary is limited) and #7 because it is very hard summarize 50 years of successful carrer. Do you have any idea? Also Mariah Carey discograpy (both albums and singles) and Madonna discography (both albums and singles) have got a very long introduction, quite similar to Herbie Hancock discography. Simone Jackson (talk) 17:30, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 20:20, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • I share TBrandley's concern with the lead size. Per WP:LEAD, the lead should be no longer than four paragraphs; this article has 7 lead paragraphs, which is almost double what it's allowed to be. *Also, per MOS:ACRO, acronyms should be written out in full on first mention. Example: American Broadcasting Company (ABC).
I understood that the lead is too long, but have you got any idea to how to summarize 50 years of successful career? A proposal would be appreciated. It's very hard to summarize long successful careers, in fact in my previous post i done the examples of Mariah Carey and Madonna discographies, that have got a very long lead (quite similar to Herbie Hancock discography) and are Featured Lists. Ok for the acronym, i will correct now. About the references for releases i used AllMusic, Discogs.com and the official website. In fact, they are listed in External Links. Simone Jackson (talk) 21:51, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cut out unnecessary information. Mariah Carey's and Madonna's discographies are fairly long, but nowhere near as long as this. MC's is 4 paragraphs, and Madonna's is 3; both within the limits of WP:LEAD. Fairly obviously, Madonna and MC have had a higher level of fame and success in their careers, and they don't need 7 paragraphs to summarize. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 23:44, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I cut some unnecessary info in the 1960s paragraph and i unified some paragraphs. Now we have got a lead with four paragraphs divided in introduction, Blue Note/Warner era, Columbia era and Modern era. According to Web World Index the characters are 6,222 now. Mariah Carey singles discography has got 6,214 characters. Only 8 characters of difference. It should be in the Wikipedia standard, no? I hope there are no other errors. If there are let me know. I would like to correct them before the deadline. Simone Jackson (talk) 3:25, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
The lead looks much better. However, is there any way you can add more of the third paragraph into the fourth, because the hugeness of paragraph three detracts from the readability. Also, there is no deadline. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 20:11, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I could move the 1980s part into the fourth paragraph although I don't know whether it is correct to put together the peak of his career with the comeback after a long break. About the deadline, i was referring to this: "After the 10-day period has passed, a director will decide when a nomination is ready to be closed." Having few commitments now, I would use this time. Simone Jackson (talk) 1:14, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Whatever splitting you can do would be great. As for the deadline, that's not what the sentence means. It is saying the list can only be promoted at a minimum of ten days later. If the review is ongoing, the FLC can stay open much longer. Take a look at this FLC; it's almost two months old and the review is still ongoing. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 02:41, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Simone Jackson (talk) 0:20, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support – Pending the addressing of The Rambling Man's concern. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 23:33, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Extended content

Quick comment - lead is too long per the above commentators, but I also have issues over references for release dates, release territories and references for those releases which didn't chart anywhere. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:22, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Repeat where are the release dates referenced, what territories are the release dates relevant to, and for those releases that didn't chart, where are they referenced? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:26, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Briefly, you ask refs for every release date (charted and not charted) and an explain if that release date is refered to a certain country. Right? No one FL discography shows this format. According to WP:DISCOGSTYLE, it's enough to post a brief list of General references. You can find an example in Ashley Tisdale discography. References are divided in General and Specific. If you agree, I will follow this example. I hope that i didn't misread your affirmations. Simone Jackson (talk) 1:40, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
All currently running discographies have been asked to provide release dates and relevant territory information for that release date for all albums. I'm not that worried about DISCOGSTYLE, it's just a style guide, I'm more concerned with WP:V. On a number of occasions, I've asked for a reference for release dates and it turns out the dates are incorrect. That's why I'd like to see them referenced. As for releases which didn't chart anywhere, you'll find numerous FLs which reference those non-charting releases explicitly. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:03, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's true, it's a good idea, but having used only AllMusic, the official website and discogs.com, shouldn't be enough include only these three links? To post every album page from AllMusic would lead to having over 150 references (remember that this discography is very big. Only with studio albums and compilations, we arrive to 104 references) and i don't know if it is a good thing for a discography page. At the limit, i will post a note near the source that invites to click on the album name to have the release date, label, etc. However, on the three sources that i used there isn't nothing about the release date for a country. I presume they refer to the United States (except some albums released only in Japan and released internationally in the following years), but i'm not sure. After all, we are talking about albums from the last century and it's not very easy to find these informations, at least for the albums released prior mid-1990s. Simone Jackson (talk) 0:57, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm afraid I find the lack of inline referencing a serious drawback to the list. Readers shouldn't have to go searching through external links to try to find evidence that proves the existence of these releases, nor information about them. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:52, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you, but the only thing holding me back is the fact that the page will have over 220 references and will be a chaos. Remember that the page shows 121 albums, 47 singles, 4 other songs, a very long list of albums where he appears as Sideman and a list of songs in Various Artists Compilations. One source for each of these releases is too much for a discography page. For this reason the WP:DISCOGSTYLE claims that is enough to post general references, such as Ashley Tisdale discography and Madonna albums discography. Repeat, i agree with you, but it will be a chaos. Are you really sure that you want this? Simone Jackson (talk) 13:56, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well I have seen pages with over 300 references, it's not that uncommon... However, you raise a good point, you could easily split this into two discographies, something which is commonplace for an artist with so many albums and so many singles (e.g. Mariah Carey, Madonna etc). Then you'd have fewer references and two featured list candidates! The Rambling Man (talk) 14:00, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Singles are not so numerous. Compilations and sideman releases make the difference......I want to take a little time to think. One or two days. Simone Jackson (talk) 14:47, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, take your time. Two lists are better than one!! The Rambling Man (talk) 15:42, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've been thinking. I think that the best choice is a split in Herbie Hancock discography (only albums and singles/songs) and Herbie Hancock other appearances. I think this for two reasons:
1) Singles/songs are not numerous and they need only of one or two sources because in the table is requested only the year and not month, day, label, etc.
2) Splitting the other appearances i can extend the list of his appearances in various artists compilations and his appearances as sideman. Simone Jackson (talk) 02:47, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm okay with that, would you like to withdraw this FLC until you're ready to renominate one of the two new lists? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:09, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not needed. In one or two days the current list will be ready. The new list will require more time. Simone Jackson (talk) 02:20, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm adding references for the albums, but i have some doubts about the readability. Do you think that will be good to add the small tag in the Albums details column? I did a test and it is more readable than current version. Simone Jackson (talk) 16:46, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Using "small" fonts may be a problem for WP:ACCESS. I suggest you check there. I seem to remember that as long as it doesn't go below 85% it's not a major issue, and perhaps the "small" tag takes that into account? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:59, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I decided to let it go the small tag. However, now the page should be complete and i have already cut the other appearances paragraph in a new page. In the current page, to avoid the problem of non-readability, i posted general references on the top of the table (Albums detailes for the albums and Year for the singles) for all the releases that had date, label and format published in one only page. For the others, i used the inline citation. Check it out. Simone Jackson (talk) 4:59, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:01, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose needs a thorough copyedit. A few quick points...
  • "to digital download" -> downloads.
  • "This page does..." it's an article/list, not a "page".
  • "furthermore because of the enormous amount of material published, this discography omits less notable appearances in compilations and live albums" what is the definition of "less notable"?
  • "of 8 selected countries" eight.
  • "Included are also" -> "Also included are ..."
  • "from Recording " -> "from the Recording"
  • You don't link R&B the first time round.
  • Why are charts shown in italics? I understand parts of the names which relate to things like Billboard should be in italics, but why anything else?
  • "This part of his career reached its highest level" this is really not "elegant prose".
  • "He continued to experiment..." "Hancock continued..."
  • "commercial results, gaining immediate commercial success" repetitive use of "commercial".
  • "mainstream" is used four times in quick succession.
  • "of the 1980s.[20][15] It" order refs numerically.
  • Be consistent with slash spacing, either used spaced slashes (i.e. a / b) or unspaced slashes (i.e. a/b) but not both.
  • Check compliance in refs with WP:DASH e.g. ref 2, ref 29 year range should use an en-dash, not a hyphen.
  • Several refs have spare full stops, e.g. ref 6, 18, 31, 36 ....
  • Ref 58 appears to have a format issue.

The Rambling Man (talk) 10:45, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For "less notable" i mean the albums that in the sources are without year, label, etc. However, Check it out now. I think that it is complete now. Simone Jackson (talk) 1:00, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


Comments from DavidCane (talk)

  • I made a number of copy edit corrections that you reverted citing advice on this page as the reason. The edits were to correct missing words and poor sentence structure:
    • "United States also includes R&B / hip-hop, dance / club, jazz and bubbling under charts." is bad grammar. I suggest "Positions are also listed on United States..." The slashes would be better unspaced as well.
    • "Also included also certifications" is wrong. The second "also" should be "are".
    • "Blue Note Records noted" reads a bit awkwardly. I suggest you change "noted" to "noticed".
  • Introduction
    • This is very long and becomes rather heavy going with all the numerous charts mentioned.
    • I think the definition of what is a Herbie Hancock album needs to be explained more. Jazz is a difficult area, as musicians often come together to play on a specific recording and then separate. You have excluded "less notable appearances in compilations and live albums", but you haven't mentioned or explicitly excluded recordings from this list that he made when he was not the "main name" on the cover. e.g. when part of Miles Davis's group.
    • "This article does not include re-issues, unless they are counted separately from the original works in the charts". Please explain. Are there any listed that are counted separately from the original works in the charts?
    • Is there evidence that Watermelon Man is one of the most performed jazz standards? Provide one of the refs from the jazz standards article.
    • "Autodrive" is said to have been a mainstream hit, but its best performance was 33 in the UK. That would not really be considered much of a hit here. In the 1980s, anything outside of the top 30 was pretty much ignored.
  • Tables
    • A large amount of the studio albums table is filled with dashes, indicating, according to the note, "a recording that did not chart or was not released in that territory". So that we can judge his popularity, I think it would be useful to know which territories albums were released in and did not chart. At the moment, I can't tell if the reason that his first and fifth albums only charted in Japan was because that is the only place they were released, or if it was because they were not bought in large numbers elsewhere.
    • I think it would be useful to have a definition of what "charting" means in each case. How big was the range of each chart? An album that did not chart because it was outside the top 30 is different from one that was outside the top 100 or top 300 (I'm guessing that was the range of the Japanese chart).
    • Is the formats section of the album details column intended to list current formats that an album is available on or formats it has once been available on? As 8-Track is given for some, I assume it is the latter. Can we be certain then that not one of his albums before Secrets has been available on tape? Some of them seem to have been available on 8-Track but are not listed as such.
    • Many of the albums only have a year or a month and year for the release date. Can we not have the full date? Given Future Shock appears to have been his biggest hit, not knowing when its was released seems to be a bit of a shortcoming.
    • Live albums - Releases that did not chart table. There are eight albums here, but nine of the entries on the studio albums table and two of the entries on the soundtrack albums table have no chart position either, so also appear not to have charted. Why are non-charting studio and soundtrack albums handled differently from non-charting live and compilation albums?
    • The singles tables really should have full release dates.
    • Again, there is the separation of charting and non-charting singles.

--DavidCane (talk) 22:31, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Introduction
    • For the grammar, i don't say nothing. I'm Italian and I only follow advices.--SJ (talk) 00:39, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, my advice is that they need to be corrected.--DavidCane (talk) 20:49, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Is it good now? About the slashes, i can't post them unspaced or i should edit all the slashes in the page and it's not good for the readability for box set such as Sextant / Secrets and Head Hunters / Future Shock / Man-Child.--SJ (talk) 03:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The lead is ok. It follows the Wikipedia standards. You can look the FL discographies pages of other big artists like Madonna and Mariah Carey.--SJ (talk) 00:39, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Length was not the only reason for my comment.--DavidCane (talk) 20:49, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • What were the other reasons? I written all the essential basing the content on the other FL discographies.--SJ (talk) 03:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sideman works are included in another page called Herbie Hancock other appearances (that is work in progress).--SJ (talk) 00:39, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then you need to state that in this list. Just including the other list in the see also section does not do that.--DavidCane (talk) 20:49, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • There is a paragraph in the page titled “Other appearances”. In that paragraph there is another redirect on the other page. So, at the moment there are two redirects on the Other appearances page. I think that they are enough. Also the other FL discographies splitted in two pages don't go beyond the redirect. What do you suggest?--SJ (talk) 03:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • "This article does not include re-issues, unless they are counted separately from the original works in the charts" Some countries (such as France and Canada) separate re-issues and original works on the charts. If one re-issue will be charted separately from the original work, it will be included in the table.--SJ (talk) 00:39, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • My point was a question. Are there any albums on the lists that are reissues that charted separately from the original work? If so which ones? It would be useful to identify these in some way on the table - with a note for example.--DavidCane (talk) 20:49, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, in this page there aren't re-issues.--SJ (talk) 03:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • A single become a hit when enter in the top 40. http://www.everyhit.com/faqs.html--SJ (talk) 00:39, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is one unofficial website's definition. It might be true for the UK, although, as the note states, others think a hit is something in the top 75. It does not necessarily apply to other charts in other countries.--DavidCane (talk) 20:49, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • That website was quoted by the BBC in its old website. BBC is one of the official diffuser of the OCC charts. One of the official diffuser that quoted the “top 75 theory” was The Guinness Book of Biritsh Hit Singles, now replaced by The Virgin Book of British Hit Singles. This new book reports the top 75 singles, but in the total weeks column reports only the chart appearances in the top 40. However, top 40 or top 75, we are talking about a song that peaked at No. 33. The discussion is dead at birth.--SJ (talk) 03:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tables
    • It's impossible to know where the albums were published (today, are available worldwide), except for someone released initially only in Japan. However, the first albums charted in Japan in 2004 and 2009, not at the time. You can see it when you click on the ref.--SJ (talk) 00:39, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is it impossible to know where albums were published?--DavidCane (talk) 20:49, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Today they are available everywhere. If you want to know at the time of the releases, sorry, but it's impossible (except for some albums released initially only in Japan such as Herbie Hancock Trio and The Piano).--SJ (talk) 03:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • If the basis of the chart position is the maximum that an album reached at any time since release, then I think that it is important to make it clear that the chart positions are not necessarily the position an album reached when it was first released. I think, that is what most people will expect the table to be showing.--DavidCane (talk) 20:49, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't understand your second point. An album is charted when enters on the charts. It does not matter the position. Read here: WP:DISCOGSTYLE--SJ (talk) 00:39, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • My point was that we do not know from the tables what "charting" means for each chart. For example, if one country's chart lists the top 100 albums and another lists the top 300 albums, to chart on the first is essentially harder to do than on the second. I think a note would be useful giving an indication of the number of places each chart has.--DavidCane (talk) 20:49, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • This reasoning works up to a certain point. I'll explain....every country has a its perception about the foreign music. In Japan, the most of western artists find many difficulties to enter on the Oricon main charts, especially on the singles chart. For this reason Oricon established western charts and added many other positions to the main charts. So, in theory, it's easy up to a certain point.--SJ (talk) 03:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • By the way, WP:GOODCHARTS says that the recommended source for UK charts is the Official Charts Company, not the one you have used. The one you have used, http://chartarchive.org[dead link], has posted a note saying they have been told to remove their listing by OCC, so it is probably best not to use it.--DavidCane (talk) 20:49, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • OCC has forced Chart Archive (formely known as Chart Stats) to remove chart-run and weekly charts from its database, not the peak chart positions and the total weeks. OCC done it because their charts are very expensive and don't want to leave these informations free. However, in WP:GOODCHARTS is written that the use of this source has been challenged IN THE PAST, because it is an anonymous archive. It's not written that it is a bad source. In fact it's not appear in WP:Depreacated Charts--SJ (talk) 03:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I haven't checked the other sources against that list.--DavidCane (talk) 20:49, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The formats section refers to all formats in which the album was released and all is supported by sources. If i haven't sources to affirm that the albums published before Secrets were published on Tape, i can't add nothing.--SJ (talk) 00:39, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think you need to do some more research in that case. I was able to find some cassette and 8-track versions of albums you haven't shown in those formats in a couple of minutes of googling.--DavidCane (talk) 20:49, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I will do it.--SJ (talk) 03:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you find reliable sources that confirm years, months, etc. we can add them without problems.--SJ (talk) 00:39, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's not my job.--DavidCane (talk) 20:49, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I tried until last Thursday, but nothing, sorry.--SJ (talk) 03:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because Live albums and compilations albums that did not charted are very numerous compared to the total.--SJ (talk) 00:39, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • But that does not mean that they should be treated differently than non-charting studio albums. This also goes back to my point that a reader cannot tell if a release is marked with a dash in the table because it was not released in a country or because it did not chart.--DavidCane (talk) 20:49, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • And i already said you that it is impossible to find those informations, expecially for the albums released before the internet era.--SJ (talk) 03:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, singles are ok. They follow the Wikipedia standards. You can look WP:DISCOGSTYLE or the other FL discographies of other artists like Madonna and Mariah Carey.--SJ (talk) 00:39, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The separation is needed when the number of the uncharted material is too big compared to the total. If i unifie the tables, we will have many empty spaces and it's not good for the readability.--SJ (talk) 00:39, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • But we already have a studio albums table that is mostly empty spaces, so I don't see what difference it makes.--DavidCane (talk) 20:49, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • To split the studio albums in charted and not charted don't change nothing. We will have always the most of the albums charted in US and empty spaces for the other countries. The only difference will be that 9 albums (low number compared to the total of 41) not charted will be splitted in another table. It's not the same thing of split compilation albums because we have 3 charted albums on a total of 62. The split must be made if needed.--SJ (talk) 03:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also:
        • The "live albums/Releases that charted album" table has two countries' charts, not the eight we have for the studio albums table. The US Contemporary Jazz album is missing. Is this because he did not chart on the others?
        • The "Compilations/Releases that charted album" table has three countries charts. Same question.
        • The Soundtrack albums table does not have the same set of charts as the studio albums table.
      • --DavidCane (talk) 20:49, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • They miss because they didn't chart in those charts.--SJ (talk) 03:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think it's very tempting to restart this nomination as it's been bogged down in various format/inclusion issues. Suggest nominator restarts the nomination, or else withdraws it as it's clearly stalling. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:07, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that restart the nomination is a good solution. It won't solve the DavidCane's concerns. It will postepone them only. In a new nomination, he can always expose the same concerns and the situation will be the same. I hope to get to a point of meeting with him. Furthermore, i think that it's a shame to restart a nomination where the most of the users' comments were resolved.--SJ (talk) 21:21, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that's your call. This nomination has stalled, it's been live for over two months, I think it should now be archived unless any further comment/progress is made. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:49, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/Herbie_Hancock_discography/archive1&oldid=1138480389"