Talk:Super Bowl XL/Archive 1

message: I quickly edited out the image of the Super Bowl XL logo provided by an anonymous contributor. Originally it had a navy blue background. I quickly used a magic wand tool in my image manipulation program to make the logo match with the other Wikipedia's Super Bowl logos. If you look closely to the image I uploaded, some of the Super Bowl text that was supposed to have a drop shadow effect were taken off due to my usage of the magic wand. --Anonymous Cow 03:50, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Of course, change the current Wikipedia Super Bowl XL logo in the future

message: Please do not add rumors and speculations, such as who will perform during the halftime show, unless they have been officially been confirmed. Thank you. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:20, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I also understand that Dr. John and Aaron Neville will be doing the National Anthem as part of a pre-game tribute to New Orleans post-Katrina. NoseNuggets 2:59 AM US EST Jan 18 2006.
Suzy Kolber will be working the sidelines for Super Bowl XL with Michele Tafoya for ABC.  Tafoya was solo during the regular season (until she had her baby). NoseNuggets 2:25 PM US EST Jan 12 2006.
*Please cite sources: If you read my previous edit comment , I need to see an official source that indicates that Kolber will in fact be the second sideline reporter. As you may know, Sam Ryan substituted for Tafoya on MNF, and I am currently getting conflicting reports that Ryan would be the second sideline reporter instead of Kolber — or all three of them will be there. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 19:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I have slightly altered the story to include all three. Ms. Ryan also works NBA games for ABC and she may be committed to that due to the Houston Rockets-New York Knicks game that day, so I wouldn't be surprised to see Kolber as her replacement. NoseNuggets 2:55 AM US EST Jan 18 2006.
* I have updated (with confirmed info from superbowl.com) that Aretha Franklin, Joss Stone and John Legend have been added as part of the pre-game entertainment.  Ms. Franklin will be joining Aaron Neville, Dr. John and a 150-piece choir on the national anthem, and Ms. Stone and Mr. Legend will join in a medley of Stevie Wonder's greatest hits with the Motown legend. I replaced one link from the Free Press with one from the superbowl.com web site to reflect those changes.  NoseNuggets 10:22 AM US EST Jan 19 2006.
*Update: ABC/ESPN finally issued the press release today. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 20:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rumors and speculations 

message: Is there any talk of punning off the abbreviation to create an "extra-large" Super Bowl?
:One word answer: "D'oh!" NoseNuggets 2:54 AM US EST Jan 18 2006
I'm not sure Shannon Sharpe should be credited quite completely. I mean, the league has been advertising this with either subtle or overt reference to the XL as "extra large" all season. And, certainly, Sharpe can't be the ONLY person to refer to it that way, and is unlikely to be the first. —Wrathchild (talk) 16:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  XL 

message: I dispute the trivia point that was recently added that says that Cowher and Holmgren both made their head coaching debuts against each other. According to the book Total Football II and the web site http://www.pro-football-reference.com both say that the Steelers first regular season game in 1992 was against the Houston Oilers, while Holmgren's Packers first faced the Vikings. If it is a preseason you are talking about, please cite a source so I can verify it. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 17:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If a source says different I say get rid of it. KramarDanIkabu 17:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

text: They met in week 4 of that year. Is it possible that they haven't faced each other since then? —Wrathchild (talk) 18:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I guess not. Best just remove it since it's verified to be incorrect. —Wrathchild (talk) 18:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry I added that and messed up the facts. Turns out Cowher and Holmgren made their coaching debuts on the same day not against each other. And Holmgren's Packers handed Cowher his first loss. So again sorry for the mixup. Lummie 05:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm a gambler, but that stat fails to impress.  How about this gem from the article:  "Hasselbeck was the first starting Super Bowl quarterback wearing number '8' to lose, where quarterbacks wearing number '8' were previously 5-0."   Incredible! 171.161.160.10 23:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

text: *Actually, if you read my comment on the "XL" section above, I favor removing most of those trivia points, including that one. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, fair enough 171.159.192.10 23:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cowher and Holmgren 

message: The Seahawks are the first team to go to the superbowl and face a wildcard team in every round of the playoffs. Why do people keep deleting this when i put that in? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Crd721 (talk • contribs) .
*Please read the edit summaries. The content was moved to the "Playoffs" section of the article. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why does this keep getting deleted

message: I added a small box recapitulating sundry statistics mentioned passim.  I readily concede that it is, in part, redundant, yet I think it well encapsulates the statistical matchup, just as the summary box at the right of the page well summarizes important points about the game.  That said, if the box is viewed as exorbitant, please revert. Joe 23:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Stats box

message: I notice that TMC1982 added the Steelers and Seahawks categories to the page, which I think is appropriate.  I'm wondering, though, if we want to decide whether to add the each Super Bowl to the categories of the participant teams; I think constistency would be desired.  I ask because, for example, I notice that, in the category of my team, the Packers, Super Bowls I and II are included but not Super Bowls XXXI and XXXII.  I'll go through and add each Super Bowl to the relevant categories if such formatting is desired, but I thought I'd check here to see if everyone is alright with that.  Cordially, Joe 18:37, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Categories

message: This page has been vandalized quite a lot by anonymous users today.  The vandalism will probably get worse during and just after the game.  Should it be semi-protected for a couple of days? --Idont Havaname (Talk) 22:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This page needs to be protected *now*, at least until tomorrow when all the idiots have found another interest. TaintedMustard 03:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, this is currently listed on the main page. As per WP:PP, "Articles linked from the main page should NOT be protected (full or semi) except to clean up vandalism. Protection should be kept to 10-15 minutes in these cases." Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Zzyzx11 is right.  Not to jynx us or anything, but vandalism is quite light considering sporting event + front page.  I think the article's coming along nicely. --W.marsh 03:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The vandalism was constant when I first posted, and then it stopped only moments later. I was surprised. TaintedMustard 11:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protect? 

message: How about a section for this?  I think the evidence of the officials calls is more than enough to cast doubt on their objectivity...  
And I say this as a fan of neither the Steelers or the Seahawks. Solar Flare 03:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wrote this section half-jokinly.  I don't honestly believe the officials were bought off... Solar Flare 03:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Investigation into whether or not the officials were bought off 

message: We have a list of calls that seem a little bogus. Let's post the details here. 
a. Which players were involved in the play and when in the game did the play take place?
b. What did the play initially result in?
c. What was the official call that overturned the play and who made the call?
d. What have experts said, or what is the consensus of opinion about the official call?
e. What happened as a result of the call?
As for experts who commented on bad calls against Seattle: Michaels,Salisbury and a former wide reciever on ABC's half time review, can someone get his name?(He didn't like the Offensive Pass Interference call.)
Let's start with the denied Seattle touch down:
-by kelly
DartFrog
First I'm going to say that I'm a Steelers fan.  Secondly, these were the same corp of referees that officiated the divisional round (which was known for its controversies).  Ultimately, while some calls went in the favor of the Steelers, there were several no-calls that would have helped them (at least two helmet-to-helmet hits I noticed).  To me, this controversy, while I think it should be mentioned, is more "my team didn't win," and more anti-Steelers sentiment.  Evidence of this anti-Steelers sentiment was when Kimo Von Oelhoven rolled onto Carson Palmer's leg.  Some people labeled it a dirty play, depsite the fact that it obviously wasn't.  Once the Steelers became the underdog, that sentiment went away, as they went and upset the Colts and the Broncos.  Now that they've won, the anti- sentiment is coming back out again.  No one bought off the referees in the game.  That claim, I believe, is rediculous.  The better team won the game, though it didn't play the best game of the season.  
More to the point, Seattle could have overcome those poor official calls.  But they didn't.  The Steelers did.  They won the Super Bowl.  myselfalso 07:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dude, I was kinda rooting for the Steelers and I feel the officiating against the Seahawks was utter crap.  I have a feeling this isn't the Seahawk's fans complaining, it's the Steelers fans who are denial that the refs gave them the game.  Period.   Just look at this poll on Espn.com  61% of people in the US think the poor officiating affected the outcome.  The only two states that more people think it didn't are, you guessed it, PA and West Virgina.   Solar Flare 03:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can't blame the officiating as to why Seattle had poor clock management at the end of both halves of the game.  And you can't blame the officiating for Hasselback throwing the interception.  The reason why everyone's complaining is because it wasn't the Steelers best game of the season.  And they didn't have to, because Seattle didn't show up to the game either.  The Roethlisberger TD didn't have conclusive video to overturn the ruling on the field.  It was too close to call, but I thought the ball crossed the plane.  People are using officiating as an excuse as to why Seattle lost the game, much like Steve Bartman took the goating for the Cubs blowing the NLCS, the kid who caught the "homerun" in the O's/Yankees division series in 1996 or 97, and Buckner as the reason why the Red Sox lost the 1986 World Series.  It's an excuse.  If the shoe were on the other foot, and Seattle won over Pittsburgh, yeah, I would be complaining about the officiating.  But I'd also be saying that the Steelers didn't play well enough to win the game.  A great team can overcome the adversities facing the team--Seattle didn't do that.  Pittsburgh did...they've been involved in several games with officiating controversies this season (including the playoffs)...they rolled on to win the Super Bowl.  And again, the refs also missed calls that would have gone in favor of the Steelers, too.  Several cheap shot hits that should have been flagged, as well as several hands-to-the-face calls that should have been made.  myselfalso 20:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't blame the officiating for Hasselbeck's INT?  Oh yes I sure as heck can.  That INT would have never occured if the refs didn't call "phantom holding" on the Seahawks.  I suggest you take a look at Espn.com right now because the entire front page is about how bad the officiating was. Solar Flare 06:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All I currently see is that fans are just coming here to vent their emotions. "People are using officiating as an excuse" and "the refs missed the calls" has been around forever. Do people forget that the Immaculate Reception, the Holy Roller, the Music City Miracle, and other controversial calls? What about the controversial 45-yard touchdown pass from Roger Staubach to Butch Johnson in Super Bowl XII? Or the controversial pass interference call on Benny Barnes that set up Franco Harris' 22-yard touchdown in Super Bowl XIII? How about the non-interference call in Super Bowl XXVI on Redskins safety Brad Edwards that led to Andre Reed drawing an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty in disgust? Zzyzx11 (Talk) 21:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I'll start out by saying that I am living in Pittsburgh right now, though I am not that much into football.  Even though I don't know an incredible amount about football, while watching the Superbowl I got the feeling from the numerous calls against the Seahawks that the refs were deciding the fate of the game and not the players.  While I like the outcome of the game, I would rather have watched a game that didn't seem thrown in favor of one team or the other.  I think the officiating deserves mention in the article.  Kevmo 17:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let's start gathering facts. 

message: Keep in mind that this article cannot contain speculation or original research.  While I think that it is totally fair to say that some of the officiating was questionable (specifically the hasselbeck penalty that was even denounced by the abc announcers at the time), you cannot put in:
# Speculations that the refs were "bought off"
# Speculations of what the outcome of the game would have been had certain calls been different
Or any other opinions that call for original research or speculation of any kind.  I would suggest you start with criticisms from official news sources, such as  this editorial from Fox sports.  Please keep the speculation to the minimum, and also, sign your posts please.  Thank you --DDG 06:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: DDG puts it quite well and states, to my mind, entirely properly what should and should not be in the article.  Surely if there is to be info inserted as to the propriety of certain of the calls that were made, criticisms can be found in "offical news sources".  In addition to the Fox Sports editorial, one may consult ESPN.com, inter al., which has several stories and op-eds on the matter (and in addition to which is running a poll as to the effect of the officiating on the game, so that those who here have expressed such strident views may perhaps do so in a place where one needn't to maintain NPOV). Joe 14:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What this article can/can't contain 

message: How about adding the trivia regarding the outcome of the Electric Arts Games simulation?
LexieM 04:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  E.A. Games Simulation 

message: Inasmuch as I gave the opening line the gambling section, I too intended to update the line in the game box as necessary.  Whilst some sports books have moved the line to, and some newspapers have given the line as, 4.5, USA Today, which compiles the lines as given by five major sportsbooks, shows each sportsbook as having maintained the line at 4.  Although surely it is likely best, in the case that the line is seen equally at 4 and at 4.5, to use the latter, in view of its better demonstrating line movement, I think the USA Today summary would seem to make clear that a consensus exists amongst major sportsbooks for the 4. Joe 05:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Betting line 

message: Should we cover a section on the supposed "no handshake" that occured at the end of the game.  It was reported that Holmgren could not get to the middle of the field, where Cowher was waiting, and can be clearly seen on screen mouthing 'Where's Mike?'.  Also reported was that Holmgren specifically sought out Cowher in the locker room after the game to shake his hand, and many people saw this as a huge controversy or insult without knowing the full details. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.14.135.82 (talk • contribs) 
:I'll look into that. Aplomado 02:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cowher-Holmgren handshake 

message: Hi, guys.
I would like to point out that the Rolling Stones agreed to have themselves censored. This is contrary to what is stated in the Entertainment section.
Sorry. Forgot to sign... Ben 22:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is?  It doesn't seem to me that it implies the Rolling Stones didn't know about the censoring or anything, it just says that it happened, without saying what they thought about it.  You can change it to reflect that they agreed to it though, citing that source would be good.  --W.marsh 23:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bleeping the Stones 

message: A Nielsen Rating of 0.9? That's impossible. Someone wanna change that? Grandmasterka 00:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nielsen Rating 

message: The game summary seems a bit buried in this article. Don't you all think it's one of the main pieces - if not the main piece - of this article? I'm not demanding that it be moved just wondering what you all think Aplomado 02:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At the risk of using circular logic, I'd say no, because all the other Super Bowl articles have sections laid out exactly like that.  I don't think it's a huge issue though, the table of contents is right there below the intro so people can easilly jump down to the summary.  --W.marsh 04:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep in mind that the entertainment, the commericals, gambling, etc. have all become part of the Super Bowl event, and thus all have roughly equal coverage. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Game summary moved up? 

message: I just saw a link added for LifeVision 3D, used by Homeland Security for the game, whatever that means. I noticed a couple of other dubious ones as well. Should some of them be cleaned out? Aplomado 08:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anything you think is dubious and doesn't cite a source, you can feel free to remove as far as I'm concerned (that applies to anyone).  As for the LifeVision 3D thing though, that actually appears to be true . --W.marsh 18:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When I said dubious I should've said irrelevant, but I see we did mention the LifeVision stuff in the trivia so never mind. Aplomado 18:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unnecessary links? 

message: Please stop posting the SportsNation polls in the article. The one we have on there should get the point across that a large number of fans had questions about the officiating. Let's not inundate the article with numbers to the point of redundancy. Posting too much of that also affects the balance of the section to favoring the Seahawks' point of view too much. Again, no one in the NFL is saying the officials did a poor job and not everyone thinks it affected the game. Aplomado 18:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Said polls are not really trustworthy because they are not scientific. Grandmasterka 07:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Enough of the SportsNation polls 

message: Anyone else think it was butchered??? 71.68.23.70
:Well some people do apparently. :) - http://mensnewsdaily.com/blog/malven/2006/02/another-super-bowl-another-super.html Aplomado 00:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the National Anthem, and the Rolling Stones performance, were both crappy. Solar Flare 03:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: National Anthem

message: Please, for the last time, we know it's a fact, but it is already listed in the television section of the article. As you will note by editing the trivia section, there's a warning that redundant information posted in the trivia section will be removed. Aplomado 00:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Football leaving ABC - stop posting it in Trivia 

message: After leaving the article yestereday I came back today to find the following in the article:
"but the play was called back on an offensive pass interference call against Jackson when he pushed off his defender, as clearly shown on the replays."
"The play therefore was not a touchdown."
"However, Locklear clearly had his arm around Haggans's shoulder, and it was a hold."
"Roethlisberger called a timeout before running the play, but a few critics claimed he called it when the play clock had already struck zero. But it didn't. Roethlisberger clearly called time out with one second remaining."
Anyone want to explain this? Aplomado 21:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What's to explain?  There are always going to be people incapable of maintaining NPOV on this article.  Myself included, which is why I haven't done much.  Powers 21:18, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, here's a tip. If you find yourself using words like "clearly" and "therefore," chances are it's POV. Aplomado 21:23, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: My most recent edit - some of you are fanatics 

message: I need some feedback here. I'm leaning in favor of removing the call where Darrell Jackson catches the ball out of bounds and his foot strikes the pylon. It seems that general expert consensus of this is that it was the right call and I simply don't see a big deal being made out of it in the media compared to the other calls listed. Can we get a vote on this? Aplomado 23:48, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree entirely. This call is not in question. Even the story hunting "Cold Pizza" show on ESPN didnt include it in a list of controversial plays. The page itself and the section are overly long and it's time to start weeding out unnecessary contributions.68.71.35.93 10:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I decided to cut it. If anyone disagrees with the move, feel free to state your case. Aplomado 21:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove pylon call?? 

message: "However, many officials say they will usually give the quarterback the benefit of the doubt and grant them an extra fraction of a second after the play clock has run down to call a timeout." I'll leave this in there since I've heard that somewhere before, but it really needs to be cited. Aplomado 17:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversial play #5 

message: I did so because the article is clearly biased in favor of the Seahawks. Let's award them their first touchdown instead of the field goal: 7-0 Seahawks. Let's change Roethlisberger's TD into a field goal. 7-3 Seahawks. Willie Parker 75 yard run. 10-7 Steelers. Stevens TD from Hasselbeck. 14-10 Seahawks. Randel-El to Ward TD. 17-14 Steelers final. I have a feeling people would be protesting the outcome had it been 63-0 Steelers.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.26.141.71 (talk • contribs) .
:Would you be interested in telling which specific parts of the article you consider biased? I've always thought that the early results of a sporting event affect the rest of the game so much that your argument regarding a potential final score becomes meaningless. And wouldn't people's "protesting the outcome" (which I'd prefer you better define) regardless of the margin of victory be more likely if what you consider to be biases were actually accurate concerns? I would not protest if someone removed the POV tag. --Maxamegalon2000 04:32, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You have not given satisfactory evidence, citing reliable third party sources, on why you believe the article is biased. You sound more like an emotionally upset Steelers fans. Thus, I am removing the POV tag for now. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:00, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Are you going to insist to us that there is no controversy over the calls in the game? If not, you really don't have a leg to stand on. Aplomado 02:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

text: You are only just speculating, which has no place on Wikipedia. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I added a neutrality dispute 

message: The Good article nomination for  has failed
:There are no references. Tarret 11:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Aplomado talk 01:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Where should the trivia section be merged? Also, any pointers on exactly what areas need a good copyedit, and why? Aplomado talk 22:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm working on the article, trimming unnessarry detail and trivia, and doing a copyedit, Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 22:20, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great, I appreciate it. Let me know if I can be of any help. Aplomado talk 22:24, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Good articles|Good Article]] [[Wikipedia:Good articles/Nominations|nomination]] has failed 

message: Does anyone have a better pic of the ring, the only place I have seen it was in my newspaper and that isn't great quality. I am still looking though. --WillMak050389 19:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevermind, Got a better quality image from here. --WillMak050389 19:15, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Ring 

message: Someone has yet again removed the phrase "meaningless game" from the article when talking about the Seahawks loss to Green Bay at the end of the season. The Seahawks at that point had clinched the #1 seed in the NFC and ended up resting many of their starters that game. I don't see how you can argue that it wasn't a meaningless game. It's not a big deal to me, but I don't think it should be removed. Aplomado talk 16:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meanlingless game 

message: I had heard some call this game "Super Bowl Extra Large" due to the "XL" Roman Numerals. I was wondering if anyone could corroborate that. I'm surprised the NFL didn't use the XL moniker more for marketing, despite the fact that the Super Bowl is already a gigantic event. Just H 17:34, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I heard it all the time. Shannon Sharpe, for instance, constantly referred to it as "extra large". Plus NFL marketing of the time, while not specifically calling it "Extra large" did imply that it was larger than normal. (I forget the exact wording.) You might also want to look at the archive.  —Wrathchild (talk) 16:04, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Super Bowl Extra Large?

message: I saw about the last dozens SBs and i know the history of the others, and my opinion is that this 
was one of the worst SB ever. :) Other people seem to be agree me on the America's Game site. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.201.95.137 (talk) 17:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Amercia's Game is an attempt to rank the teams, not the games.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.194.66.145 (talk) 04:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: All-time SB rankings

message: I vaguely remember this being the game when in the first quarter, like the 4th play into the game, Brady passed the ball right into the face of one of the referees. Was this the one? Who was the referee? Does it deserve noting in the "trivia" section? → JARED (t)  21:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wrong Super Bowl, bud. Aplomado talk 00:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Humor... 

message: Don't get me wrong the info looks good but the ref section looks awful right now. How did this pass?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bucs (talk • contribs) 05:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is a GA?