# Talk:G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra

www.GIJoeMovie.net/media.html has the cast promos all in one place. Most of these pics have been taken down off of other sites and/or are scaterred around/hard to find.
When I put the link in it was removed, so should I upload all the pics to the article or something. These images dont come up in google images so Im sure people would appreciate being able to find them easily.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gijoelover (talk • contribs) 19:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC) 

You have to understand that, apart from the Snake-Eyes and Scarlett images on their pages, the rest were leaked without the studio's consent. Alientraveller (talk) 19:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so... I'm not seeing anything in any of the source articles that says that Cobra Commander is the same character as this "Doctor" individual, or even that Gordon-Levitt is playing the Doctor. Can somebody enlighten me with a link? - Chris McFeely (talk) 17:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Hasbro ordered the ID cards removed from Hiss Tank, and subsequently closed their part of the UK Toy Fair following the leak. Alientraveller (talk) 17:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
These files cards? I still don't see anything on them indicating that the Doctor is Cobra Commander. This is not actually me picking holes, as I'm sure it seems, but genuine curiosity. I'm not a frequenter of Joe messageboards, but I'm seeing a lot of chatter about the two characters being one and the same. Where is it coming from? - Chris McFeely (talk) 17:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
People who read the script and reviewed it before Paramount forced them to remove it. Alientraveller (talk) 19:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

This movie is not based on A Real American Hero.  It's a GI Joe: Sigma 6 movie.  Read the wikipedia page for G I Joe Sigma 6 if you haven't seen the show.
- The near future setting is from, Sigma 6 instead of the contemporary setting of the Real American Hero incarnations.
- The accellerator suits are from Sigma 6.  They're called "Sigma Suits."  They're the suits the larger toys were wearing you've probably seen at WalMart the last couple of years.  They're the ones that Heavy Duty calls "Delta 6 Accellerator suits" in the trailer.
- The size of the team is more like the size of the team from Sigma 6 than the size of the team on Real American Hero.
- The featured characters--the actual members of the team--are from Sigma 6.  Ripcord, for example, wasn't that prominent a character in the old cartoon or comic, but is featured Sigma 6 the way Flint or Gung Ho was featured on the old cartoon.  His place as comic relief and his crush on Scarlett are straight out of Sigma 6.
It's crushingly obvious to anyone who's followed the characters through the various cartoons and comics.  There are hints of other continuities dripped in (Destro's submarine, for example, from the America's Elite comics, or the nod to Larry Hama's comics by using the name "Hard Master" for the man who trains Snake Eyes and Storm Shadow, while distoring their actual history into something nearly unrecognizable), but the overall plot and setting is Sigma 6.  You can read refrences to most of the above on this wikipedia page and the wikipedia characters of most of the other characters talked about.
I don't know what sources you need for it, but there's the case for it.  Make of it what you will.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.84.176.5 (talk) 23:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC) 

It's not Ripcord in Sigma 6, it's Tunnel Rat.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.95.11.7 (talk) 05:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Cool, so it's Marlan Wayans starring as Ripcord acting like Tunnel Rat from G.I.Joe Sigma 6.  What about everything else?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.84.176.5 (talk) 22:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
If anything, it seems more like just a whole new take on the property as a whole, using bits and pieces from various versions, than a direct adaptation of any one version. Michael24 18:07, 25 July 2009
. I don't see no relationship with Sigma 6, the Accellerator suit aren't based on the sigma 6 suit, but based on the armor for Sigma Six. Plus the movie tell the begining of both G.i.joe and Cobra. 
(198.252.156.11 (talk) 17:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC))
When you think about it, many of the Joes in this movie are not Real American Heroes either. Remember the dreaded Global Integrated Joint Operating Entity in earlier news report? Although this name is not used in the movie, this description is very close to what the movie is about, which is what the movie producers confirmed. - Jacob Poon (talk) 20:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I've been wondering shouldnt their be a heading like 2009 film for individual characters and have info only about the upcoming movie The Movie Master 1 (talk) 22:54, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

"The Rise of Cobra toy line also includes 12 inch figures, and vehicles, including the first play set based on the Pit in the franchise's history"
Does this mean it is the first time the 12" figures have had a Pit playset? Because I am pretty freakin' sure that there was a Pit playset early in the Hasbro Line (even if it was just the top level of the multi-layer base.)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.153.29.23 (talk) 01:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC) 

The movie opens on the 6th in Korea, I think. I saw an early screening, and the article currently has quite a few errors. I'll try to trim or correct what I can. --Kjoonlee 18:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
On second look, there aren't many glaring errors that I can spot. Hmm. Well, here are a few.

Lee said he did not know G.I. Joe because it is an unknown series in Korea.
Not true, he just said he hadn't seen it. G.I. Joe toys were sold in Korea, and there were commercials for shoes and stuff with G.I. Joe art.

Sommers and Bonaventura told him not to watch any of the cartoons to prepare for the role.
Not true, they just said that Lee didn't *have* to watch any. --Kjoonlee 18:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

How come nobody has posted the plot for each individual character, I haven't seen the movie yet so I cant do it The Movie Master 1 (talk) 02:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Are there details missing from the Plot section you feel are important? Have you seen a lot of Wikipedia film articles that include the plot for each character? I don't think it is good to repeat the plot summary in character profiles but it can be good to include more detailed Character descriptions and background info that adds to the article but are not strictly plot details.  I'd like to have a bit more character description in the article. The other editors on this article have been very serious about keeping details out of the Cast list, it is not arranged as a "Cast and Characters" section as in some articles and it contains only a very little bit of detail and some Casting information, and some character specific Production notes. It will be difficult to change the article without convincing them not to revert your changes. -- Horkana (talk) 02:34, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I saw the movie and was submitting an accurate summary as a result. Listen, those who critize me though I was correcting myself, if you have a problem with my summary, just help me recorrect it instead of blasting it out of the water. Fractyl (talk) 00:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

There was no accuracy missing. All you added were "Meanwhile" and "However". The subplot about the Baroness being the first subject is not important, all the stuff at the arctic base with Heavy Duty is not important, that Destro looks like his ancestor is not important. There is a word limit beyind which plots are too long and too much the focus of the plot, add character beats to the character profiles, keep the plot to the point. And removing all the paragraph breaks makes it harder to read. Darrenhusted (talk) 00:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
But it is clear that Baron was one of the first to be subjected, that Heavy Duty was leading a attack to cover his team who are within the base. Though the part of Destro suffering the same fate as his ancestor could be shorten in spite he was the main villian throughout most of this movie. Plus, I've already provided some detailed plot in some character pages while using an abridged versions in the movie plot. Otherwise, I find the current plot used to be "too much bare bones" and too many redundancies and similar errors near the end. But like I said, you can help out with my plot summary, rewording it and such to make it descent enough to be an ideal summary.Fractyl (talk) 00:30, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Ice doesn't sink. The plot to destroy the base wouldn't work!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spotpuff (talk • contribs) 21:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC) 

Also aliens don't exist, magic isn't real and cars don't transform into robots. This information would be fine to include if you can find critics complaining about it or something. Otherwise, it isn't notable. BOVINEBOY2008 22:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, I didn't add the part about the water being warm, so I just removed that from this discussion.  There's a certain level of suspension of disbelief you have going into a movie.  In the case of a movie about cars tranforming into robots, that's the entire premise of the movie, so you accept it. Same w/ sci-fi aliens.  GI Joe is not about aliens or robot cars, nor about a mysterious plot to manipulate the density or buoyancy of ice. This is a glaring plot hole, not some minor oversight.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Spotpuff (talk • contribs) 

And yet you accept that it is possible to have an entire underground base with a super elevator? Or that nano-mites would only attack metal? Or that no one going to the Arctic base gets the bends? Goofs never rise above trivia anyway. Darrenhusted (talk) 13:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Not that I care, but "super elevators" and "nanomites" are based on technology, which is changeable (and part of the premise of the movie).  Ice floats at atmospheric pressure/arctic temperatures is physics, and unlikely to change. (Note: if it did change, the rest of the movie wouldn't occur because scientists would be running around pulling out their hair, and screaming "HOLY SH*T WHAT THE F*CK HAPPENED TO THE LAWS OF PHYSICS!!")  However, it's not really notable for this article. Maxvip (talk) 23:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC) There could have been something in the ice so the plan of destroying the base would work.
Right, you can suspend disbelief if it's an integral part of the movie or some "technology" involved, but where it's glaringly just against the laws of physics then that's where the problem arises.  I guess people disagree on the level of realism they're willing to accept in movies.  I added this to the "goofs" section because it's not really integral to enjoying the movie; it's just a goof.  People note continuity errors all the time in films etc. but a glaring violation of physics is somehow less important than, say, a character in a restaurant holding a utensil then not holding it in the next shot.
I thought the ice shelf sank because it had a network of tunnels and facilities built into it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.210.41.184 (talk) 19:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC) 
The information you added about "goofs" was very quickly removed. To get it into the article I found a review that mentioned it as a criticism and was then able to include the information as part of the critical response section. If you can fit your additions within the standard sections and provide any kind of a citation they are much less likely to be reverted.  -- 03:11, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

This film was actually released in many parts of the world on the 5th August, and more on the 6th August. The 7th August release date is misleading as that is only for the US. Canterbury Tail talk 12:58, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

It is not #1 who put that there, It hasn't even been out long enough to stand a chance to be #1. The Movie Master 1 (talk) 00:09, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

It was number one from Friday's 22.3m alone, unless Julie and Julia pulls 60m over the weekend. Darrenhusted (talk) 00:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
It needs to be cleared up. It is #1 in American box office for the weekend. BOVINEBOY2008 00:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
And will be for the week. Darrenhusted (talk) 00:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
You don't know that, that is considered crystal-balling. BOVINEBOY2008 00:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Not at any point in the last decade has the Weekend #1 film not stayed at #1 for the following Mon-Wed. Nothing else it likely to get to 70m as the #2 film barely reach 10m for the weekend. Darrenhusted (talk) 00:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I am not doubting it will. But to say it will definitely would not be "kosher". BOVINEBOY2008 00:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Bovine's right. You cannot assume anything in this case, because we cannot guarantee it will be number 1 throughout the week. Regardless, we don't report on "week" standings. We report on how they fair each weekend.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 01:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Never said we should, but Movie Master 1 doesn't seem to understand that the number 1 position is decided by at midnight Friday and doesn't change for the week, especially when GI Joe is on 4000 screens and the number 2 film is only on 2300. Darrenhusted (talk) 09:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
The article says it has grossed "a total of $164.7 million worldwide" ... but Reuter's[1] says it grossed $190.3 million.  This is probably all moot since it will most likely gross at least $10 mil more, but I don't know how reliable BoxOfficeMojo is vs Reuter's. Maxvip (talk) 23:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The Reuter's story is a reprint of a day old Hollywood Reporter story. Stick with BOM, as it updates every day. Darrenhusted (talk) 23:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The reception section says it has been positively reviewed. This doesn't seem supported at all by the reviews listed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.153.29.23 (talk) 02:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC) 

This phrasing about Zartan

At several points during the film he whistles "For He's a Jolly Good Fellow."
is trivial dreck. It's akin to, "At several points during the film, Ripcord flirts with Scarlett" or "At several points during the film, Snake-Eyes purses his lips." I've tried to rework it to explain why anyone should care -- but, it doesn't read very well. Someone else either tweak it, please, or remove the whole whistling thing as needless trivia. --EEMIV (talk) 05:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

After spending some time playing with the sentence, I decided to remove it mostly on the grounds that no other characters have similar information. Zartan's impersonation of the President is already included in the synopsis, and the mechanism of the reveal is pretty much secondary. The Mink Ermine Fox (talk) 05:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
The two comments above is hardly "a consensus" to remove the information as another editor claimed but a note on the admittedly awkward wording (the edit summary encourage others to rephrase if necessary). The character trait should be mentioned in the Cast (character) section. The information about the president is a plot detail and should be mentioned only in the Plot section. In older versions of the article that information was separate but but various edits put redundant plot and character in places they shouldn't be, and other editors then felt the need to junk the lot. The whistling is as characteristic of Zartan as not speaking is for Snake Eyes. -- Horkana (talk) 00:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing it here, Horkana. I disagree that the information should be included, though. It is largely an in-universe detail about a character, which should go in the plot section if notable (which it isn't). Cast sections, in my opinion, should speak about the casting of characters and any kind of research or investment actors had in the development of the character. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 00:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
That was basically why I removed the information, but I did not claim it was in any way a consensus. I went ahead and did it, what with the whole being bold thing. If it needs to be re-added it certainly can be so, but right at the moment I don't see that it adds anything to that section. Every other character snippet is basically "<Character> is <role>. <Actor> joined/was cast because <reason>." The one exception is Scarlett, who has a note about her non-understanding of men, but I'd frankly support removing that as well. Whistling the tune seems to have been used strictly as a mechanism for the final reveal, and is otherwise totally unconnected to the character or his past (as presented in the movie - I don't know about the character outside of that). In this fashion it is quite distinct from Snake Eyes' silence, given that that's a fundamental aspect of the character's relationship with his past. The Mink Ermine Fox (talk) 22:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Meant to reply to this sooner, this is nearly a comment on the article as a whole. In general a "Cast" section can and does more than cover just cast, it often covers information about "Cast and Characters" and this article does include some character details for some but not for Zartan (also since Zartan lacks anything resembling his costume there is no real distinguishing traits to mention besides his whistling). Including character information in the cast section allows for a slimmer cleaner plot summary which can succinctly focus on what happened not so much how and why it happened.  The better film articles provide good detail in the Cast section without spoiling the plot (in this film the Doctor/Cobra Commander makes it difficult to be tactful about spoilers). Also including character information gives space to introduce details that might be available from past incarnations or the novelisation of the film that would not be at all relevant in a Plot summary but still helpful and informative to readers, some of the extra information about Sgt. Stone for example. Sometimes as in this article the "Cast" section it includes "Casting" information which in other articles could be included under Production details in another article.  This article includes information about accidents on set (which could be considered trivial), and would probably be more appropriate under "Production" details which would also avoid essentially the same bit information being repeated for Miller and Nichols.  I want to be more thorough, I want an article that someone can read and have a detailed idea of the film even if they haven't seen it. There are so many things that can seem trivial but if carefully rephrased or put in the right place feel much more like an interesting and informative note for readers, I was really appreciated when someone changed the note to say what the tune was  Help a guy out, there must be is a way to fit this into the article in an appropriate way? -- Horkana (talk) 22:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I noticed the undo of my edit of the character's name "Klan McCullen" to James because that's what the character is listed as at IMDB. Klan isn't a name, it's "clan" as in family. Was IMDB wrong or is there some other reason his name is Klan here?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.147.171.103 (talk) 19:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC) 

The whole thing is moot, as that pre-titles section has nothing to do with the plot. Darrenhusted (talk) 00:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

The source is http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3i037ff6d0a46324115e7c3d8866311a1e and http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=gijoe.htm  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.128.17.13 (talk) 07:55, 15 August 2009 (UTC) 

G.I. Joe: Rising to a New Level of Techno VFX at VFXWorld. —Erik (talk • contrib) 22:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Has anybody noticed that the vectored exhaust "shoes"/paddles on the flying machines are direct copies of those on Robotech?124.170.26.235 (talk) 10:08, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Can it really be said that the nanomites destroy "much" of the area around the tower? They only appear to destroy several vehicles and segments of the tower before being deactivated. The tower then collapses due to lack of strucutral integrity - and not a great deal of damage is caused by the impact. Compared to, say, an explosive device, far less damage is caused! Can anyone justify the wording of "much of the surrounding area"? Cpl Syx [talk] 22:27, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)
This article has a few issues with the reception section and citations mostly before I pass it.
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS): 

"Lorenzo di Bonaventura wanted to cast Mark Wahlberg in the role when the script was not about the origin story,[4] while the studio met with Sam Worthington when it was rewritten by Beattie in its final incarnation.[5]". This comment could use some re-phrasing.
Done.
Per WP:SLASH I'm not sure we can have those slashes inbetween the characters. Is there another way to organize this?
Reworked it to "Codename" (name).
"Marlon Wayans as Wallace Weems / Ripcord: He has a crush on Scarlett, which she is aware of but, has no interest in him to begin with". Crush might be considered slang, but outside that, we should know what this character does, just like how we know that Hawk is the Team Leader and that Duke is The lead soldier. The lines about him flying aircraft do not seem notable and the Ace note seems speculative. Per WP:FILMCAST, this section should avoid further plot points about characters and be more about their casting.
Removed.
The note about Leo Howard as a 10-year-old Snake Eyes should be part of the same line as it doesn't need it's own separate bullet. Consider putting that one after the last comment on Snake Eyes. The same goes for the Storm Shadow character.
Done.
The text "Director Stephen Sommers said 'this is not a George Bush movie — it's an Obama world. Right from the writing stage we said to ourselves, this can't be about beefy guys on steroids who all met each other in the Vietnam War, but an elite organization that's made up of the best of the best from around the world.'" should have "'s for the Sommers quote, not apostrophes.
Done.
The citation for the Sommers quote should also relate to the page of the article as at first, I wasn't sure it was actually being cited properly. Update that URL!
I never seen such multi-page article complaints before, but separated the ref.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 

"Another cameo is by Brendan Fraser as Sgt. Stone, who is well known for his character from The Mummy series which was also directed by Stephen Sommers.". This needs a citation. The Mummy series should be in italics and wiki-linked as well.
Since it was redundant, removed.
"Zikova Street in Prague was used for the Paris sequence." We have Prague, but where is the citation about Zikova street?
Removed the street's name, it's not much relevant.
"A soundtrack album of the score is available from Varèse Sarabande Records on August 4, 2009." Needs a cite.
Done.
"Neil Faerber of Toronto-Fame gave the Blu-ray a 4/5 praising the features included such as a digital copy." This needs a cite and seems out of place on it's location. Reception of the DVD should be located in an area about the DVD release.
Removed.
UK Release date could use a cite.
Why? Nevermind, just removed it.
Cite 21 needs a better cite, examine Template:Cite book.
Done.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

Stating in the opening that "The film received mixed critical reviews," and later "The film has received mixed to negative reviews." seems contradictory. A statement like "The film received generally unfavorable reviews" seems more apt.
Done.
This section focuses a bit too much on the positive reviews, especially with the mostly low reception of the film. Can the focus on why the film was negatively received be more expanded upon? I don't think we need as many positive ones.
It now has 7 (plus that "sinking ice" note) negative vs. 6 positive reviews.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

The film poster image's source does not link to the poster displayed. This will have to be fixed.
Done.
Overall:
Pass/Fail: 
The article is generally very good. It needs re-editing of it's reception section and needs to clean out some excess information from the cast. I'd also like the citations filled out where requested. Good luck with the article! I'll have it on hold for a week. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Anything else? igordebraga ≠ 00:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow! Great and quick job. On looking through again, the only thing I can note that I'm not sure about is the intro where it says it's based on the toy franchise. The production section suggests the script is more based on the comics. Should the lead say it's based on the comics or the toy line? Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:21, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Rewrote to say it's based on the toy line, with focus on the comic. What do you think? igordebraga ≠ 22:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure if it's perfect. But it will do for now. I'm passing the article. Great job! Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

In the flashback scene where Snake Eyes is caught by Storm Shadow stealing food, Storm Shadow speaks Korean. I don't know if the master did too. But, they are supposed to be in the middle of Tokyo and Storm Shadow's character is supposed to be Japanese. No explanation was given. Why? I understand that the actors themselves are Korean, and that is fine. But shouldn't they be speaking Japanese? FYI, I'm an American and I could tell the difference. So I hope it's not just because they thought they could get away with it. 118.42.219.42 (talk) 11:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you ask Stuart Beattie. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Probably because the actor who portrayed Storm Shadow is Korean. Anyways, this movie is so far out-of-continuity, they could give Snake Eyes a speaking role and it probably wouldn't make a difference. -- Jake fuersturm (talk) 22:14, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
To be blunt, in most US centric views, which is essentially Hollywood, *ANY* oriental language or race is the same. Just as negroes played Native Americans in many, many westerns. Not a slight or insult, just pure ignorance and ignoring cultural issues that are foreign to the US.Wzrd1 (talk) 06:53, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
In the film, is it really explicit the training grounds are situated in Tokyo? The text on the banner appears to have CJK characters, so I believe it could be any of these countries. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 01:12, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't the sequel G.I. Joe: Cobra Strike, that should begin filming sometime this summer, have its own wiki page? The link on the sequel section of this Article just redirects to this article again. There are several actors signed onto film as well as a director, as stated in the article in this link http://www.deadline.com/2011/07/adrianne-palicki-joins-g-i-joe-cobra-strikes/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kosridge (talk • contribs) 23:09, 1 July 2011 (UTC) 
Will there be two actors to play the roles of Tomax and Xamot in the new G.I. Joe movie sequel Cobra Strikes? AdamDeanHall (talk) 22:48, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

As there has been zip for a sequel and zero publicity to date, it may be that the "upcoming" sequel is vaporware.Wzrd1 (talk) 06:51, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I immediately noticed that the uniforms used by the MARS technicians very closely resembles the Star Fleet uniforms from Star Trek: First Contact.  Was this coincidental or did the wardrobe department pull them out of a closet to save a few bucks? 67.166.155.113 (talk) 04:25, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Yet one of the categories is "Films set in Kyrgyzstan". Anyone cares to add it?--Adûnâi (talk) 15:33, 27 December 2016 (UTC)