Talk:Lego/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11

Semi-protected edit request on 28 February 2014

Sets section Please change in the sets section "Since the 1960's" because it is wrong to "Since the 1950's" because it is right due to the source I provided that says that the first lego set was distributed by 1955!! [1] (talk) 16:07, 28 February 2014 (UTC)peacepatiencepurpose

 Done - Arjayay (talk) 17:22, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 May 2014

Hi! Under "Robotics sets" there is a sentence about FLL that is incorrect. It says that FLL is for children of the ages 9-14 but in fact FLL is for children aged 9-16. Also, FLL is written FIRST LEGO League, not FIRST Lego League. Thank you, and have a great day!

. FIRST LEGO League http://www.firstlegoleague.org/mission/support. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

81.235.62.228 (talk) 16:47, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Partly done: According to the source you provided FLL is for children age 9-14 in the U.S., Canada, and Mexico, and age 9-16 elsewhere. I have edited the article accordingly. However, Wikipedia is not required to adhere to companies' corporate branding requirements. The issue of capitalizing "LEGO" has already been discussed on this talk page. —KuyaBriBriTalk 18:55, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality of Article

Can we have the neutrality of this article checked against Wikipedia guidelines? Some of the references cited appears to be press releases and public relations feed from the Lego group. Some information that other editors inserted were reverted despite citing valid sources from global and independent news coverages. I would also like to propose the addition of Christmas subsection under the History section of the article to compile "world records" achieved by Lego that are related to Christmas season i.e. World's Tallest Lego Christmas Tree. Thank you. MattJasonBrown (talk) 06:32, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 July 2014

Please add this line -

In the United Kingdom children have co-authored their iBook publication which tells the story of their independent evaluation of using Lego Robotic sets in the classroom.

Link "iBook" with https://itunes.apple.com/gb/book/learning-brick-by-brick/id781517386?mt=11

BigResearch (talk) 13:26, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

 Not done. Seems to be an unremarkable, self-published ebook. Wikipedia would require a WP:SECONDARY source to document the fact that some children had once written a review of a Lego set. --McGeddon (talk) 13:30, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

History of Lego - the Lego Movie

Hello all,

I'm writing this to active editors of this page, perhaps specifically to User:McGeddon and User:GoTLG. I'm having a bit of trouble getting through to a user at History of Lego, here's the relevant diff, with what he wants and has on the left, and my preferred wording on the right: Link.

I want to remove the specific film review of the Lego Movie, because that belongs on the article for the Lego Movie. I put up a sentence saying that the film generally received good reviews, which is factual and accurate. The other user seems to have a problem with it, so I suggested we leave all film review info out of the History of Lego article, and he seems to object to that too for some reason...

Can anyone comment on this issue? Most of the relevant discussion is happening here - Talk:History of Lego#Uncritical timeline

Thanks.--ɱ (talk) 10:43, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 July 2014

There is an error in the Clone Section of this article: it wasnt Lego who sued Best-Lock, but the other way round. Correct text should be: The English company Best-Lock Construction Toys sued Lego in German courts in 2004 [5] and 2009.[6] 154.20.92.123 (talk) 17:41, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —cyberpower ChatOnline 12:40, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Controversy

There should be a controversy section, and it ought to record the current (2014) campaign by Greenpeace calling for Lego to sever their partnership with Shell in the light of Shell's arctic drilling plans. Here's a neutral link: http://www.prweek.com/article/1305282/lego-handling-greenpeaces-pressure-shell-partnership . Michaelpeverett (talk) 11:02, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Please do a bit of digging. This Wikipedia article is about the toy. That information is relevant to The Lego Group, where all of that is already stated.--ɱ (talk) 11:11, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 October 2014

It says that there are 68 stores in the U.S., but there are actually 75. I should know because I'm a HUGE LEGO fan. 72.129.230.117 (talk) 23:16, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 23:20, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 November 2014

I would like to sort the mistakes out please 176.251.166.231 (talk) 00:47, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Stickee (talk) 01:03, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

semi protected edit request 84.80.43.229 (talk) 21:56, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Where dice are described under Lego board games, please add that "in some games the rules permit players to optionally change dice tiles, thus changing odds. Especially when the game uses 1x1 tiles to make up the dice, such as in Pirate Planks, the dice can have many different forms."

Do you have a source? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:21, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 December 2014

At the end of Lego#Clones of Lego, add:

After the 2014 release of The Lego Movie, independent toy retailers reported issues with shortages of Lego products and cited cancellations of Lego pre-orders without warning[2] as a motive to stock compatible, rival products.[3]

2001:5C0:1000:A:0:0:0:12CB (talk) 01:02, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

The sources provided seem to support only adding with the wording "..some independent Canadian toy retailers reported.. "? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:24, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Done — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 15:15, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Hirschmann, Kris. LEGO Toys. Chicago: Norwood House, 2011. Print.
  2. ^ "Lego shortage leaves independent stores with empty shelves". CBC News. 15 December 2014.
  3. ^ "Canadian company Brictek thrives amid Lego shortage". Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. 16 December 2014.

Semi-protected edit request on 3 January 2015

This section should be removed as it is patently untrue: "While there are sets which can be seen to have a military theme – such as Star Wars, the German and Russian soldiers in the Indiana Jones sets, the Toy Story green soldiers and Lego Castle – there are no directly military-themed sets in any line. This is following Ole Kirk Christiansen's policy of not wanting to make war seem like child's play."

Examples of sets with military themes:

Legopacific (talk) 22:33, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Those three sets don't seem specifically military to me. Pirates, western/historical, and a historical ship. Please come up with reliable sources to back up your claim that there are military-themed sets. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 00:12, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

These three sets are clearly military and there is no reason for any further research on the matter. What exactly are you looking for, a Lego dude to hold up a Geneva Convention card?

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. That is your opinion that they are clearly military. They don't look specifically military to me at all. Please establish a consensus before re-requesting this or come up with a better source that says they are military or something that can't be disputed as military. Thank you. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 11:39, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

No consensus is needed to see something that is plainly visible. For example:

  • Example 1 is a boat designed solely as a weapons platform. The interior is entirely devoted to hold cannons. Most of the figures are in uniforms styled like Red Coats. Even the vessel's flag is military: a pair of cannons.
  • Example 2 is a western style fortification complete with palisades. We know this is military because the kit includes signs reading "Headquarters" and "Fort Legoredo". Also, most of the figures are in uniforms similar to the US Calvary. Most of the figures are brandishing weapons, including swords, rifles, and even a field cannon.
  • Example 3 is a model of the USS Constellation, a frigate in the US Navy, purpose-built as a ship of war. The Lego model is named "USS Constellation" on the packaging and includes a sign reading "USS Constellation" in the kit. The kit also includes 36 cannons to match the real warship. There can be no dispute that this model is anything but military.

This notion that Lego doesn't produce military items is a marketing fiction. Legopacific (talk) 01:02, February 24, 2015‎ (UTC)

That's BS. RS and consensus are required. You are violating our WP:OR policy. You must provide an independent reliable source which makes this claim. Editors cannot originate content or insert their own claims and interpretations, regardless of how things look, even when it might be obvious to the whole planet. If no RS has written about it, we can't include it. We can only document what's been written. Editors are not reliable sources. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:58, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Say What?

Immediately after the word "Lego" in the first paragraph at the beginning of the article is the cryptic string: (/?|??o?/) , with a footnote to the effect that this information has been "retrieved" from a non-specified edition of the "Collins Dictionary". If this character string is supposed to convey some sort of meaning, that meaning needs to be explained. Otherwise, the string needs to be removed, or perhaps replaced with a pronunciation guide for the word "Lego".

I would have made the change, but the "edit" function of Wikipedia seems to be broken for this article.

Firstly, please don't delete the signature, it's just automatic if you forget and lets people know who said what in a discussion. Secondly, you cannot edit this article as it is semi-protected, and only those with accounts may do so. This is to stop the vandalism that has occurred on this page. Thirdly, and to actually get onto your issue, the string following Lego in the first sentence is the pronounciation key. It actually looks like this, (/ˈlɛɡoʊ/[2]), with the [2] being the citation from the Collins Dictionary you mentioned. It's from the online version which is continually updated, so there's no edition to cite. Therefore, no changes need to be made. If you're still seeing some broken string, then I'd recommend trying a different device to access the page or something. Hope this helps, SamWilson989 (talk) 07:50, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Lego. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:18, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Lego/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Calvin999 (talk · contribs) 20:57, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


Comment from uninvolved user: With so many unreferenced sections, the article in its current state arguably meets the quick-fail criteria. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 09:50, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I would like to hear Calvin999's input on what needs to be changed so I can fix it and the article can hopefully get approved. I will work on adding more references tomorrow but am not in the mood right now.Tortle (talk) 09:59, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
You only posted on my user talk about 90 minutes ago, and I replied.  — Calvin999 10:06, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
I meant that when you do do the review, you will obviously report what needs to be changed and Ill add references but I would prefer input from you and a chance at GA than you quick-failing it as Sovereign Sentinel suggested. Tortle (talk) 10:24, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Will have to be this weekend now. I haven't got time today and I have family issues to attend to.  — Calvin999 19:49, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Ok, sounds great Calvin999, no rush, and thanks for giving me a general time. All the best, Tortle (talk) 07:16, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Sovereign Sentinel is right. I can't conduct a proper review and do checking of sources when so many sections are unsupported. Furthermore, a lot of references are either missing dates, access dates or works, and are using different date formatting. Ref 3 for example has no title and a url showing. Ref 60 has capitals in the title, which violates WP:SHOUT. Structurally, I don't think you need so many sub-sections with such a small and short paragraphs. I'm sorry but until you source all of the sections then this can't be reviewed seriously.  — Calvin999 18:10, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I will try to fix any missing references and all the small reference title issues and stuff. As far as the subsections, I already had to remove some because the original version was worse than this but Ill look into it. How does one fix the dab link? I clicked on that link that you put and after looking at it for 5 min, I still dont understand how that page works or what the issue really is. If its a quick fix, would you mind doing that for me? And if its not, could you explain it. I did understand the issues with the problematic link and I will try to find another reference. If I was to fix the issues and renominate it in a day or two, would you mind taking it up again because it would be fresh in your mind? Thanks Calvin999. Tortle (talk) 18:36, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
It means it links to a redirect.  — Calvin999 18:37, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Bearing in mind this used to be a WP:Featured Article... maybe have a look at it's nomination, its demotion, and also its Peer Review, for ideas on what was being done right, what was being done wong, and what other uninvolved editors thought. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 18:52, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
I still dont understand Calvin999. The problem is the link to the lego disambiguation page from what I saw correct? And why is that a problem? And how can it be fixed? I think I did look over those pages Fortuna but not too thoroughly so Ill give them another lookover. Thanks Tortle (talk) 19:47, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Ok, well I fixed all of the issues (including the dab link) except the one problematic link because the problematic link was not in fact problematic. I added sources for everything as well. I renominated the article and if you could pick it up, I would appreciate it due to speediness and the fact that its fresh in your mind Calvin999. Thanks Tortle (talk) 00:12, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments from uninvolved user: A remarkable percentage of the sources are Lego itself. There do exist aspects of a company for which you can cite the company; but a company is hardly an independent source on itself. A quick look showed that among the newly added sources is this one within the self-publishing part of Project Gutenberg. A sizable paragraph is sourced in its entirety to

"USFIRST.org". USFIRST.org. Retrieved 3 October 2011.

but as of a few seconds ago, none of the material in that paragraph appeared on that web page. (Possibly it can be found here in the Wayback Machine.) Checklinks shows that more than a dozen links require updating, at least. And finding these problems took me less than one minute. (NB I don't want to criticize the work that has recently been done on the article: it's now better than it recently was, and time and effort went into this. But the improvement doesn't mean that the result is "Good".) -- Hoary (talk) 09:06, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Ill work on more reliable sources Hoary but sometimes all that can be found is from lego itself so well see. As far as the checklinks results, all of those links work so I dont unserstand the issue and what would even need to be fixed. I already resloved clear issues from other checklinks results in the red but I dont understand these. Thanks, Tortle (talk) 18:57, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 September 2015

Under Lego Set Themes in the last sentence of the first paragraph please change "introfuced" to "introduced". Macattackftw (talk) 15:54, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

 Done - Thanks for pointing that out - Arjayay (talk) 16:00, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Lego/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Article is not in good shape, mainly per 2006 FAR discussion. Not comprehensive anymore along with the image issues, insufficient cites. JJ98 (Talk) 09:46, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Last edited at 18:00, 18 November 2014 (UTC). Substituted at 20:41, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Tons of pressure

Tons are not a unit of pressure. The numbers quoted may refer to the mould clamping force ? (tons are not strictly a measure of force either...). I'd suggest removing the line if a citable injection pressure figure can't be found. Tommfuller (talk) 12:29, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2016

79.106.109.182 (talk) 17:00, 25 February 2016 (UTC) lego are toys

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 17:47, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 April 2016

Please change(stylized and trademarked as LEGO) to (stylized and trademarked as LEGO) as per Lego's official trademark. 216.197.175.150 (talk) 07:32, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

 Not done "LEGO" does not apply for italics, please see MOS:ITALICS. Lordtobi (✉) 13:43, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of trademark

Per Lordtobi's request for clarification... Of the many types of trademarks, most authorities recognize two types involving words:

  1. Word marks (character marks, in the US), which consist of a combination of letters, numbers and other characters, irrespective of typeface, color, case, line breaks, and any other style elements (e.g. "LEGO"). This protects the holder's right to use that combination of letters in any way, but does not protect any stylization thereof. While the filing documents for a word mark may include text case according to the filer's intended use, the trademark, once registered, applies to any use of the word in all customary styles, so the mark is effectively neutral with respect to capitalization. (One interesting difference between US and EU policy is that the USPTO generally records trademarks only as uppercase or initially capitalized, regardless of how the filer submitted it, whereas the EU records the form as it appeared in the application. But this does not restrict the mark to a particular capitalization.)
  2. Figurative marks with text (stylized marks, in the US), which include text with specific style elements, and optionally, additional graphics (e.g. ). This protects the holder's right to use that combination of graphical elements, but not the words contained within.

In practice, a holder will register a mark in both forms. If Lego only had a word mark, a competing company could make a logo in uppercase white text with a black and yellow border on a red field. If Lego only had a stylized mark, a competing company could use the word Lego, as long as they didn't represent it in the aforementioned style. So when we say "trademarked as LEGO", that's true, but that same trademark also applies to Lego, lego, LeGo...ad nauseum. The only trademark that specifically protects case is the logo. So it's a bit misleading to identify only the uppercase word as trademarked, when in fact all representations of that word are trademarked. Ibadibam (talk) 18:00, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Alright, that seems clear to me. Thumbs up icon Lordtobi (✉) 18:19, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Are Lego sculptures copyrighted as art?

copyrighted sculptures?

I am asking here about the copyright of Lego sculptures because I know there is a community of interested contributors here.

At Commons:Commons:Toys there is guidance that toys are typically copyrighted. Individual Lego blocks are probably not copyrightable due to being simple geometric shapes. Lego sculptures are more complicated and might approach being art.

At Commons:Category:Lego there are many images of Lego sculptures. Does anyone know anything about the copyright of these sculptures? Is anyone aware of previous discussion about this anywhere? Is there anyone here who is willing to speak up and say, "Yes, these Lego creations are copyrighted as sculpture and art by the person who created them because..." or "No, these are not images of copyrighted art because..."? So far as I have seen, this issue has not been raised either here or English Wikipedia or on Wikimedia Commons concerning Lego or other building sets. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:25, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

The place for this discussion probably should be Commons:Category_talk:Lego, but I think for now, it might be best to have a discussion here in English Wikipedia because the most active community of Lego content contributors seems to be here. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:27, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 May 2016

Please change [lɑjˀɡ̊oːˀ] to [leːɡ̊oˀ] for the "Danish pronunciation" in the very first line. Because, while it is true that Lego is derived from "leg godt" (as stated in the article) which contracted into Lego would be pronounced as [lɑjˀɡ̊oːˀ], not a single Danish person would ever pronounce it as such. It is a pronunciation which would only ever occur to people who know of this origin of Lego's name, and it is far from all Danes who know this (my guess is because it really isn't a very interesting factoid :D ). It has always been pronounced as [leːɡ̊oˀ] in Denmark. LightOrNot (talk) 23:15, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Edit below:
Danish Lego video ad: http://www.lego.com/da-dk/city/videos/2015-deep-sea-explorers-5aa174fb3ae94e54886e9b32e3a57c39
Don't know if you get the Danish commercial if you visit it from a foreign IP. If you get a commercial in another language then there are these youtube links to other Lego commercials (which are from private channels, but should be unedited videos):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RyGm5mGBJUw&t=18
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSNYfEDbQ5M&t=8
LightOrNot (talk) 23:14, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 21:59, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
I reactivated this request by setting answered=no after linking to several sources, and it was turned back to "yes" without any changes.
Am I to gather from this that the Danish marketing department of Lego isn't considered a reliable source for the Danish pronunciation of Lego?
Or perhaps the person who reset the answered=yes didn't actually read what had been updated?
LightOrNot (talk) 16:04, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
The problem is that the sources you cited are not reliable. I.e. Lego's website itself is primary-only, which means that a) they can make mistakes and b) claim anything they want without any doubt. Therefore it is generally not accepted to change secondary-confirmed statements with primary once.
Furthermore, the two YouTube links you are are self-published sources, why reach for the same issues as primary sources, just with even less reliability.
On top of that all, you only linked commercials where someone pronounces the name (of couse in Danish, but regardless) you cannot hear IPA the way it is generally known, I would not disagree with you, however, we need a reliable source to support this way of spelling it IPA-wise. Please look for such sources and comment below if you find any, and please do not forget to add colons in front of your message, as it will be the sixth in this conversation, add five colons – ::::: – to inline it. Lordtobi (✉) 16:15, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Surely you realize the problem with finding a reliable source of the written pronunciation for something which 6 million Danes just accept as a fact of reality. And come now, there is no way that the wrong pronunciation stems from a confirmed reliable secondary source. I realize that this has thus become a case of "both sources are equally unreliable, thus the system says that a change shouldn't be made (to an article believed to be more or less accurate) based on the newest unreliable source".
Well, whatever. Such a reliable source will never appear unless someone truly has too much time on his hands, so the error will remain in perpetuity.
I discussed quite seriously with myself if I should even post this last update. You will have to forgive me for updating this edit request without bringing anything new to the table. I realize that what I have written in this last update is not really useful, and therefore updating answered=no probably stems from a selfish desire to have my opinion read by at least one person.
Sorry for wasting your time. LightOrNot (talk) 21:39, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
@LightOrNot: Read the request, looked through the Danish Wikipedia on Lego-related articles. I couldn't find a pronunciation given. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 23:49, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
In 2014, no pronuncation was on the article. In January 2015, the pronuncation given was not Danish. It disappeared around May 2016 around here. It was added only 4 revisions ago with this diff by Sigehelmus, who may offer input. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 23:56, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 July 2016

Please change when ever there is written "Lego" to "LEGO". "Lego" is not a word or brand, but "LEGO" is. Thank you.

Nicolasjn (talk) 06:42, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done that would contravene Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization) - Arjayay (talk) 06:58, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Patently yes or no?

In some of the archives it is mentioned that 'some' patents have run out. But then that each new design 'element' has its own patent dates, and some of them have _not_ run out. Perhaps because of that complexity I can't find any mention in the article of when the initial patents ran out. The article has the initial patent start date, but no mention of end date. That is a 'hole' in the article! Shenme (talk) 01:35, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

due to the overwhelming number of legos brick designs it would be pointless to list them all, obviously some have years left to run but leaving this as a generalised statement would be desirable. the first patent lasted 20 years (as this is the maximum time allowed) so simple addition would reveal the end date.

Aguyintobooks (talk) 21:50, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lego/Archive_9&oldid=1136899699"