Talk:Blazing Saddles

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Material for Remake section stored for future use[edit]

An editor deleted the starter section below on Sep 27, 2012. In case there is a more substantial development on this topic or if there is consensus that it should be return, here is a 2012 quote by Mel Brooks. 5Q5 (talk) 17:41, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I highly doubt that this material will see any progress. "If they did a remake" =/= "indicating openness". Not by any stretch of the imagination. DP76764 (Talk) 17:59, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am the editor who removed the above. The quote is interesting and has merit, not for any claim about a remake, but because of Brooks' concern about the "N-word". Some place could be found for it, but not for supporting a claim that he is considering a remake, which is dubious. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 19:36, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am the editor who started this post. You are right about its use as a good reference for the N-word controversy and today I added a couple of lines with the above Brooks quote to the article. I think I was excited about any prospect of a Blazing Saddles remake or sequel (preferred) and I had never come across Mel Brooks even remotely okaying the idea. Here are some Remake sections already on Wiki. Thanks. 5Q5 (talk) 18:30, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The quote is a good addition (I thought it used to be in the article before), but the whole remake topic I find entirely dubious. The difference between the other articles you mention and this one is that the sources cited in those actually clearly discuss the associated remakes. Barring another source for this one, you're talking Apples v Oranges. DP76764 (Talk) 18:51, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Sue high"[edit]

An editor is asserting that Mel Brooks is saying "This is 1874, you'll be able to sue high!" I'd like to see a source for this (and have marked it as such.) It makes no sense to me at all -- I've seen this movie perhaps fifty times, and my ears (which, incidentally, are quite familiar with Brooklyn accents) tell me it's the much more sensible "you'll be able to sue her!" Mind you, I can't find the actual script online, and every other reference in the world to this line agrees with me...Anyway, I don't like edit warring, so I'll leave it to someone else to correct this nonsense. --jpgordon::==( o ) 06:01, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brooks is clearly saying "you'll be able to sue her," which makes sense in context because Hedy Lamarr could conceivably sue over the confusion with her name (and in fact did). Also, the closed captions and subtitles in all languages back up this as correct. I don't have the screenplay, but the novelization agrees with "sue her." So Keith, unless you have a source for "sue high," please don't change this back again. MFNickster (talk) 18:28, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's "her". Brooks was born in Brooklyn, but he still pronounces the trailing "r" reasonably well. Go to about 1:05 of this clip.[1]Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:00, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What's the Indian Chief saying?[edit]

I know it's Brooks himself, in headdress and face paint, appearing briefly as the 'Indian Chief' who speaks with Bart and his family as they're on their way West. Now, I've had a couple of years of college-level German, so I *think* I'm properly understanding parts of what he's saying in Yiddish. But I'd appreciate a more-or-less accurate and complete translation. Anyone up to it?  :) FWIW, I think his last comments are: From Yiddish: Did you get a LOOK at those people? (colloquially) English: They're darker than us! Whoo!

Regards, 72.0.15.8 (talk) 18:05, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to find a reliable source, but most of the translations are in agreement with:
Chief: "No, no, are you crazy? (shouted) Let them go! Cop a walk, s'alright."
Family: Thank you!
Chief: "If you're healthy, take off. 
 (to the other natives) Have you ever seen such a thing? They darker than us! Whoof!"

The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:40, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not "If you're healthy". It's "zay gezunt" -- "stay healthy". --jpgordon::==( o ) 01:35, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be some disagreement on that one. Several of the transcripts had it as "abi gezunt" instead, which got translated as "if you're healthy." — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 12:28, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Even that doesn't make any sense. "So long as your healthy" is idiomatically much closer. Molly Picon's song would have been quite familiar to Brooks; it contains its own translation:
A bisl zun, 
A bisl regn, 
A ruik ort dem kop tzu leygn
Abi gezunt, ken men gliklekh zayn
...
A bit of sun,
A bit of rain, 
A peaceful place to lay your head, 
So long as you're healthy, you can be happy.
--jpgordon::==( o ) 15:10, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note: "Contains its own translation" - not necessarily reliable. Since the translated verse has to fit the same pattern as the original verse, the "translation" could be not an actual translation per se, but something having an equivalent or near-equivalent sense (this has come up in my work) - although in this case it looks to be an actual translation.

This page gives "Be well!" for "Zei mir gezunt!". This page says "Zei gezunt" means "Be healthy". This discussion says it means "Be healthy", but that it can be used sarcastically. (I think almost anything in Yiddish can be used sarcastically or ironically). This page says "Zei gezunt" means "Be well" and "a be gezunt" means as long as you're healthy. (see the Molly Picon song above). And so on. BMK (talk) 01:43, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Just out of curiosity, how does this pertain to improving this article? DP76764 (Talk) 15:20, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • More than your question does, certainly. The Yiddish speaking chief is mentioned in the lede; what he is saying (is it gibberish?) might or might not be an interesting trivia to include in the article. --jpgordon::==( o ) 15:57, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No need for uncivil personal commentary, I was merely asking for clarification on the purpose of this discussion as it seems to be mainly Q&A with no stated goals on how to improve the article. DP76764 (Talk) 18:25, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
An accurate translation would be an improvement to the article. I thought that was obvious. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 14:27, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Seems a bit trivial, but thank you for the concise clarification. DP76764 (Talk) 15:29, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mongo punching the horse[edit]

This "infamous" scene was one of the ones the Warner Bros executives wanted cut (which Brooks rightly refused). I have a dim memory that there is actually a story in Greek mythology (or perhaps actual history?) in which a hero proved his strength by performing the identical feat (knocking out a horse or perhaps an ox with a single punch). Can anyone enlighten me on this? Thanks. Partnerfrance (talk) 23:27, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with that story. If it's Greek, sounds like it might be Heracles or Hercules, maybe? If not, Paul Bunyan? (But why would Paul punch Babe the Blue Ox?) Sorry, I got nothing here. BMK (talk) 23:35, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know of any mythology for such a thing, but Arnold punched out a camel in Conan. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:47, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Which was made after Blazing Saddles, so could hardly be an inspiration for it. --Jayron32 17:47, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not saying it was an inspiration, but it might be cause for mistaking that scene for some mythological tale. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:52, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brooks vocal on "I'm Tired"[edit]

This seems to be pretty contentious, so I just want to make it clear why I believe this requires a citation per the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. It clearly states "Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors." So regardless of how obvious it may be to you or me, for the attribution to be included it MUST be previously published by a notable source. If you think it's "obviously" Brooks, that falls under your beliefs and experiences and is not verifiable. So, what do you think is best to keep the article within the policy guidelines? MFNickster (talk) 21:33, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Anything on Wikipedia that is challenged must be sourced. And adding the legitimate citation needed tag either requires someone to add a source and allows it to be deleted. 75.177.156.78 (talk) 14:32, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I watched the Blu-Ray with Brooks's commentary, and as far as I can tell, it is the same commentary as on the DVD. I also watched the documentary featurettes Back in the Saddle and Blaze of Glory: Mel Brooks' Wild, Wild West, and neither of them says anything about Brooks doing the song. The booklet included with The Mel Brooks Collection also contains no information. I'm hoping another source will turn up, but so far nothing I've seen supports the edit. MFNickster (talk) 00:56, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's absolutely no doubt it requires a citation. If we don't get one in a week I'll take it out. GedUK  12:08, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The best lead I've found so far is from pages 64-65 of Robert Alan Crick's book The Big Screen Comedies of Mel Brooks, which offers: "As for Mel Brooks himself, his aviator and voice-overs as a German dancer and cranky film-goer provide funny cameos..." and credits him as playing "William J. LePetomane/Indian Chief/Aviator/Voice of German Dancer/Voice of Moviegoer." MFNickster (talk) 22:48, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah... that's not a "lead", that's a citation from a reliable source. BMK (talk) 23:13, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome! MFNickster (talk)
Ideal! Good find. GedUK  13:34, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! And might I add, this is how WP is supposed to work. MFNickster (talk) 03:16, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Possible tie-in to "Witness for the Prosecution?"[edit]

I happened to be watching "Witness for the Prosecution," which has its own page here on Wiki. I first noticed Marlene Dietrich speaking and having a slight impediment, which Madeline Kahn really emphasizes in her impression of Dietrich in "Blazing Saddles." Then came a flashback scene in "Witness" with Dietrich performing in a caberet for German troops in WWII. It was so much like Lili von Shtupp's performance in the saloon in BS that I wonder if Mel Brooks used "Witness" as inspiration for that scene. I checked both pages, and find no mention. It may be coincidence, but if there is a tie-in, it might be of interest to both articles. I am not a "real" researcher, so maybe someone could find a cite for this, if it exists. Thanks. Jororo05 (talk) 01:19, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There may be a connection, but for it to appear in either article, you're going to need to find a citation from a reliable source that specifically says that Brooks was influenced by the earlier film. BMK (talk) 02:15, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I meant about not being a "real" researcher. I don't know the ropes, and don't really have time to learn them. I just wanted to point out the similarity, on the off chance that someone more familiar with said ropes would be interested enough to look into it. I am aware of the need for references, which is why I didn't just add it to the article. I might be best described as a "dabbler" here, but thought it would be an interesting fact, if true. Thanks.Jororo05 (talk) 15:20, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to Leonard Maltin's movie encyclopedia (p231) it's a direct spoof of Dietrich's performance as a saloon singer in Rancho Notorious. Would Leonard Maltin be considered a reliable source? 167.123.240.35 (talk) 05:32, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maltin is a well-known and respected critic. I don't see any problem with citing him. MFNickster (talk) 12:31, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Groin attack[edit]

I am attempting to link to the Groin attack article in the line that references "shooting him in the groin." Another user (Beyond My Ken) insists that "shooting in the groin is NOT a 'groin attack.'" If a higher-ranking third party could provide some authority on this, it would be immensely appreciated. Thank you. Rowsdower45 (talk) 04:02, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A groin attack describes a physical blow to the balls, it does not include being shot in the groin, and nothing in the article supports the idea that it does - that's your own WP:OR interpretation. Please do not edit war, as you maybe blocked from editing for doing so. Alos, please do not return your link to the article until you have a consensus to do so here on the talk page, which at this time you do not. Finally, avoid personal attacks such as "[Beyond My Ken] ... possibly does not understand the meaning of the word 'attack'", as personal attacks such as that can also get you blocked from editing. Please discuss the edits and not the editor. Thanks. BMK (talk) 03:01, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RFC[edit]

The following discussion 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.

The article at groin attack defines the concept as "an attempt to cause pain to the groin area of one's opponent." A user editing this page disagrees that a man shooting another man in the groin falls under this definition, and therefore this article should not carry a link to that article. Please advise. Rowsdower45 (talk) 03:03, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Shooting someone in the groin is far more than an attempt to "cause pain", it is an attempt to cause grievous bodily harm, and possibly death. The phrase "groin attack" is apt in describing physical blows to the groin. BMK (talk) 03:01, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • May I also say that this is the silliest RfC I've seen in a month of Sundays. BMK (talk) 03:14, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Having just read the article there is nothing in it that immediately leads one to naturally equate a "groin attack" with shooting someone in the genitals. The article seems to imply it is mainly a hand-to-hand combat tactic, such as used in martial arts and wrestling. It seems that "genital mutilation" is just as applicable in this case i.e. really stretching the definition. Is there any known context where causing harm to the genitals with a deadly weapon is referred to as a "groin attack"? Betty Logan (talk) 18:01, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with BMK: this is a magnificently inane RfC, a groan attack if you will (or even if you don't). Guns have never been part of groin attacks, though. Not genital mutilations either (knives and scalpels and such only). Clarityfiend (talk) 23:12, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also agree, this is hardly worth an RfC -- but since we have one going, I can only agree with BMK that "groin attack" is not a term generally associated with shooting someone in the groin. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 01:16, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going to groin attack whoever filed this RfC, and I won't even link to it as I'm assaulting them. That way editors won't know what I'm doing because, as we all know, nobody knows what a groin attack even is without a link to an article on it. Of course I'm just joking, but seriously, do we even need a link at all? LesVegas (talk) 02:28, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The purpose of linking to another article is to let the reader easily find more information on the topic linked. I can't see any possibility of the groin attack article being useful in this case. It's also pretty clear from the categorization of that article that it's a term used in martial arts, boxing, etc., which is about as relevant to this article as linking heart attack would be if Hedley had been shot in the heart. I favor removing the link entirely. MFNickster (talk) 04:42, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • My point is that this is a work of comedy, and Mel Brooks (who frequently employs toilet humor) is deliberately making a reference to a well-known comedy trope. An inline link would allow users to learn more about the trope. The scene is obviously played for laughs, as groin attacks in film usually are. See the climactic moment for yourself at 3:28 of this video. Rowsdower45 (talk) 04:59, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trivia like this isn't what WP:RFC is for. As to the question at hand, the Groin attack article isn't about a "trope" (that's not what that word actually means, BTW), so the link isn't helpful to readers. It probably would not be difficult to write an article on groin injury as a comedic motif, and it would even be an encyclopedic topic if done properly, as is toilet humor, etc. But a tiny detail in an overly-detailed plot synopsis is not a subject for a big debate. That summary could be cut down by at least 50%, including removal of that detail, with no harm to the article.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  09:06, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think the linked article expands at all on the concept of shooting in the groin or its use as a device in this movie, so I believe the link does more harm (as a distraction) than good to the article. And on the meta-issue: I don't mind this RfC - the history shows at least two people care a fair amount about this detail and have conflicting opinions and this is what an RfC is for. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 00:38, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Blazing Saddles. 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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 15:12, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

unintentional anachronism?[edit]

The movie is filled with obvious anachronisms, but the sheriff explaining that he would need more vitamin E might not have been on the minds of the filmmakers. Vitamins were not named as such until half a century after the movie's setting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.114.251.147 (talk) 02:54, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If the film is "filled with obvious anachronisms" - which it is - why would you think that Brooks give a damn about when "vitamins" were named? He was making a funny movie, not doing historical research. BMK (talk) 03:42, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes -- I don't understand why you've singled out that particular anachronism. Were Nazi soldiers named as such in 1850? Or Academy Awards? Or Randolph Scott? Or student discounts at movie theatres? Or movie theatres? Or ... oh, this is ridiculous; I could go on for several pages. It's a movie. Let it go. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 05:03, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Probably just singled out for it being possibly unintentional; but I really doubt Mel Brooks or the other writers bothered to look up when vitamin E was discovered. I also doubt there were sex shows in Havana in 1874, but the reference was used in Godfather: Part II so it was topical for the time. MFNickster (talk) 01:38, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All those other ones--- the modern tollbooth, Nazis, don't pass the beast from behind on right--- and so on were one's I spotted on my first viewing. The vitamins didn't hit me until about the 20th.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎69.114.251.147 (talk)

Sorry, but what exactly does this section have to do with improving the article? It doesn't seem to be suggesting any content, just making commentary. DP76764 (Talk) 16:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

US TV version[edit]

The Wikiquote page - https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Blazing_Saddles - mentions that the line 'Land snatching. [searches books] "L-l-land. See snatch."' is changed to finish "see property", presumably because 'snatch' is slang for vulva and 'see snatch' could be considered rude by anyone so minded.

If they change that, how much else of the original dialogue is left?!? The censorship would be notable. Lovingboth (talk) 16:12, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw it on TV two nights ago and they included "see snatch" as written. This was, however, on cable, rather than broadcast TV, if that makes a difference. More to your point, they DID still edit out the N word and the F word that describes a bundle of twigs. I find it ironic that this film does not celebrate racism but rather pokes fun at it and they still censor certain words. Yet, you can hear 90% of rap songs using the same words, as well as the works of comedians such as Richard Pryor who, coincidentally, had a writing credit on this film. I doubt that you'll ever see this film uncut on television again. FiggazWithAttitude (talk) 14:28, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Blazing Saddles. 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:

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

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:44, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brooks did not expand Bergman's "outline"[edit]

Bergman wrote the entire first draft of Blazing Saddles, called "Tex X," by himself. Much of this article contains false information that comes from Brooks himself, who has always tried to diminish everyone else's contribution. Also, it says "Tex X" was sold to Mel Brooks; it was not; it was sold to Warner Bros. This whole article would be better off listening to The Library of Congress (https://www.loc.gov/programs/static/national-film-preservation-board/documents/blazing_saddles.pdf) and other sources rather than anything Brooks has had to say. He is not a trustworthy source about this film or Young Frankenstein (and I mention those alone because they are the only ones I know about; he's probably a bad source for everything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:645:102:3590:5C9D:4566:C41A:54DA (talk) 19:01, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Categories represent defining characteristics[edit]

According to WP:CATDEF, the instructions say that the category should represent a defining characteristic, "one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define." If the Klu Klux Klan appears in a film, the film is not necessarily categorized as a film depicting the KKK. The KKK category would be implemented only if reliable sources commonly define the film as one about the KKK. It's not enough to have sources mention the KKK along with Nazis, Hell's Angels and Arab horsemen – the source must be saying that Blazing Saddles is a film that is about the KKK. Binksternet (talk) 19:52, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why? How does that serve as an easy way to find KKK-related films in Wikipedia? Dimadick (talk) 00:37, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Black Bart" TV series[edit]

The section on the "Black Bart" pilot contains three long unsourced quotes -- from Louis Gossett Jr., Steve Landesberg, and Mel Brooks -- about the existence of multiple unaired seasons of "Black Bart," made for legal purposes only. I have been unable to find ANY of these interviews or quotes anywhere else on the internet. The only searchable material asserting that the series ever existed is sourced from this Wikipedia entry. 74.71.26.69 (talk) 23:22, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Now removed for two reasons.
  1. It's a copyright violation of [2]
  2. The writer of the FB post has confirmed via VRTS ticket # 2020070310002558 that it's all made up anyway and completely untrue (see also [3]). Nthep (talk) 14:04, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the fact they made 4 seasons worth of Black Bart is untrue, I think this should still be mentioned - with a debunk source - owing to it having been referenced now in multiple videos on the history of Blazing Saddles and I am certain I have seen an on-camera interview with Mel Brooks in which he mentioned this happening. Basically, I'm proposing a sentence be added to the effect that "Rumors that four seasons' worth of episodes were produced in order for Warner Bros. to retain the rights to make a sequel to Blazing Saddles are untrue." I know it's a bit of a Streisand effect in action - calling attention to something undesirable, in this case a rumor - but if the rumor originated here, or was propagated here - then we have a bit of a responsibility to include a corrective as some elements of the rumor cross into WP:BLP given that several of the actors who supposedly sacrificed four years of their careers to this supposed project are still alive. We can't assume readers will go to this talk page. 70.73.90.119 (talk) 15:17, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edits Made Between July 2016-July 2020[edit]

Why can't we see what edits were made during this period? Ron Stowmarket (talk) 03:19, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

see the section above. The article contained a large amount of copyrighted material so the revisions with that material in had to be deleted. Nthep (talk) 08:55, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:53, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
This article was not created within the last seven days, and is thus ineligible. Suggest taking it to GA and re-nominating.[reply]


Created by Scoophole2021 (talk). Self-nominated at 10:38, 20 March 2021 (UTC).[reply]

  • Symbol delete vote.svg This article was not created within the last seven days, and is thus ineligible. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 21:48, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]