Talk:Michael Jackson/Archive 14

message: According to the 2008 edition of Guinness Records, released in October of 2007, it states Thriller has confirmed sales of 55 million copies world-wide, which makes it the best-selling album of all-time.  It's Sony who claim the album has sold in excess of 100 million copies, but there is no definitive way to track world-wide sales of an album.  So at 55 million, it's still the top seller ever.  Not forgetting, in Jackson's box-set; The Ultimate Collection, releasd in 2004, it states at the back of the booklet that Thriller is the best-selling album of all-time with sales of 47 million.  How could it jump from 47 million to 104 million within 2 years.  That's 52 million additional sales within 2 years - RIDICULOUS - it managed 40 million in it's original chart run.  The 55 million figure should suffice when speaking of sales of the album on this page.  Jackson's booklet stated 47 million in 2004, and Guinness claim 55 million in 2007, that's 8 million sales in 3 years, which is still very high.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.195.33.134 (talk) 09:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thriller...again 

message: It's a small point but the quote "Jackson is putting the "finishing touches on his new music" to be released next year." seems like it could be a little more specific... I don't know when it was written, but is there a date-certain (or even approx.) when this is supposed to happen? i.e. "Jackson is... to be released sometime in 2008." Not knowing anything about the supposed album, I can't do it myself. 
218.152.32.186 05:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vague/dateable language in intro 

message: "He has been symbolically named the "Most Successful Entertainer of All Time" by Guinness World Records.....maybe[6]"
I like it. It flows better now because of that. Not sure why but it's much less hard to get thru now. Well done.
Is there anything major left or can it not just be FA nom'd now? --Manboobies 01:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you should source that info using a book then? He can't complain if the information is from a book as that then simultaneously does what you want as well as bringing in book sources.--Manboobies 22:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead 

message: [] looking at this source which we have used in the past because of its reliability and accuracy I have calculated the single sales of each album.
*Thriller 19.55 mil
*HIStory 10.45 mil
*Bad 10.03 mil
*Dangerous 8.36 mil
*off the wall 6.8 mil
As I suspected HIStory was his most successful singles album after thriller and did exceptionally well considering it only released 5 singles as obossed to `bad 8` and `Dangerous 9`. This means the likes of Scream, You are not alone and Earthsong were HUGE internationally , I intend therefore to comment on the singles sales of HIStory in better detail, does anyone have any ideas? Maybe We should say after Thriller History was his most successful singles album? Realist2 13:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  single sales 

message: this segmentation is crazy. Sorry but it is. We have a HIStory era talking about singles, and about that scandal, but then we have lisa marie marriage, breakup, and ongoing friendship at the other end of the article. I'm sorry but chronology really does seem necessary. Also, why isn't the 'cocker' rubbish put under personal life? Well, I understand why that may be disputed, but this junting of information is really annoying. No one else seems to feel that way though. I suppose that if y'all think it'll get this article to FA, I'll have to put up with it.--Paaerduag 00:43, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I find it'll be more likely to be FA status when I can read it all the way through without becoming emotionally, physically and mentally drained by its overlong appearance and lack of, well, excellent prose. I was thinking perhaps some parts of it could be made into a timeline picture or something.--Manboobies 00:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  article segmentation 

message: I believe this is an A article, pretty close to FA. 75.43.168.13 00:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A article 

message: MJ's style is pretty clearly influenced by modern dancers/choreographers from the 70's, specifically Fosse (check out a video of 'snake in the grass').  There probably should be some mention of Fosse here.  74.135.164.249 03:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fosse influence 

message: it should be noted somewhere that the video "Scream", a colabaration with Janet Jackson, is the most expensive music video ever made.  That's an important fact to include.
it has dont worryRealist2 11:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it really an important fact though?--Manboobies 00:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The video "Scream" 

message: Go to the main page. Click "Printable version". Click print preview. Under File in IE. (If not using IE, load it for this one). 20 Pages. Insane. That's 20 pages I'm proud to have had a hand in, but it's still 20 pages. That's 10 pages overlong, IMO.--Manboobies 00:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  20 problems 

message: The MJ text in the lead is somewhat fancruftic however you have failed to deliver a solid argument against it, ProhibitOnions. 
dr.ef.tymac I notice the antagonistic tone of your posts and you don't have to outright insult ProhibitOnions to be worthy of a temp ban, I would support one against you if the case was made for it, given your tone. So take it down a notch and show some respect.--Manboobies 14:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, Manboobies, for expressing your concerns, and for recognizing the value and importance of mutual respect among all WP contributors. I have left a detailed reply on your user talk page. dr.ef.tymac 00:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The source cited in the lead for the inclusion of MJ, while it uses MJ in the headline, never uses it within the body of the article, but DOES use 'Jacko'. That same newspaper chain also uses 'Jacko' in a headline referring Mr. Jackson.   USA Today If 'MJ' is part of the lead in sentance, surely 'Jacko' should be too. 144.15.115.165 17:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  MJ in lead 

message: Now that an extra 35 sources have been provided is it possible to try to ask for FA? this article is 107,000 bytes long with 150 sources. Mariah carey`s article is FA and is 63,000 with 93 sources so the ratios are very similar. I no its not a clever way of debating the issue but it does show this article is very good in many ways. I still have an issue with pictures, im sure there is a conspiracy on this article to forget that mj is now infact white and that we no longer live in the 80`s,there is no pictures on this article after 1988 which stinks of lamentation of his 80`s career, something that annoys me entirely as you all no, dont get me started on the main picture, its actually quiet offencive to jackson, no other artist has a main picture from donks years ago, there all resent, I think a dangerous or History era picture is much more appropriate here although I no his loyal "Beat it" fans wont allow it. Ive laughed thinking about it, his critics always say "his only good thing was thriller ,it was all down hill from there" can you blame them when his own fans act in the same way? I always believed as a fan for many years it was important to dispel this myth created by the media, maybe im alone. However im not sure how much of an affect pictures have on FA statues.Realist2 22:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Uhh... I have never edited this article or anything, but I just stumbled on it.  I see you guys are talking about it being an FAC.  One thing I noticed that you have to fix before anything, is the references.  A lot of them are just a number, or some are missing information like the accessdate and such.  Xihix 18:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, there is an issue there that must be resolved. Those refs may have to be removed if they are not fully realised, textually.--Manboobies 14:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Article (Debate 2!!!) 

message: "While his sexual orientation is debated, it is more likely that he is either transgendered or a homosexual." Sounds like some massive speculation to me. Who says?
I deleted it, its just unsourced shit, Realist2 22:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speculation? 

message: There are/were rumors/facts(?) about him converting to Islam (Just search the web for it). I know I don't know much about it myself, but shouldn't the topic be mentioned in the article? Atleast as a rumor if it's not right, since it's still a question to me.GLdK 08:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  M.Jackson and Islam? 

message: Hi.  I removed the box that was previously enclosing the references list.  It caused references not to print, which in my opinion outweighs any benefit of fitting the references in a smaller space on the page: it doesn't hurt anyone to scroll a bit. :)  --jacobolus (t) 07:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Further to that I've changed the format to a two column layout, just to make the list somewhat shorted, yet still printable Ferdia O'Brien The Archiver, Reformatter And Vandal Watchman (Talk) 10:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  removing box around references 

message: While the 1993 and 2003 charges have been noted on here, no one has really done much to point out how much his career was affected. 
The disappointing sales for HIStory and reason why Jackson didn't bother to tour the USA in support of it were considered because the 1993 charges meant the cancellation of his USA Dangerous Tour and a negative profile. I have heard it said that he feared bad press if he did a tour without selling out all dates could further damage his career. 
Also I'm sure the fact that he had barely any free time during the trial that began in 2003 delayed the follow up to Invincible, as have the various troubles he's been in since then. Had Jackson not had these trials he would be a bigger star today and his career would probably have been nearer to the strength it had been during the Dangerous era.
I may begin writing some things up but doubt I have the time since it would be a large task.
(The Elfoid 15:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Impact of Michael Jackson's legal troubles 

message: I must say that picture is nearly 24 years old, somehow i i think we need a new picture of him when he is white? or mabe like a picture pith two pictures of him on white and black?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaogier (talk • contribs) 02:05, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time For A New Picture 

message: This site is utterly packed with "weasel" terms. Be careful about this.Boab 05:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Weasel" tag added 

message: I just wanted to point out that MJ's charity work actually began far before 1984. The Jacksons are noted in several publications as donating $100,000 from the "Triumph Tour" to Atlanta Children’s Foundation. Marnifrances 09:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Charity work 

message: This is the result of quick searches - very quick. Just tell me what you think, for the infobox pic. I know we decided on Dangerous era but I put in a few later ones. They're still during the time when he looked "Dangerous-style" before his face morphed yet again.
http://img.verycd.com/posts/0604/post-240106-1146057913.jpg - The Superbowl performance, Dangerous era. Did he ever get bigger than during that one performance?
(The Elfoid 01:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested photos 

message: I would choose the 1st picture of the superbowl mainly because i had suggesred that a million times previously. However the reason I dont want the other pictures goes as follows.
* The child molestation 1993 picture should not be the main picture it will only over shadow what the article is predominantly about (his music) it would be almost (but not quite) as bad as the mugshot as the intro picture.
* The history era picture isnt the best quality resolution, if it was a better quality i wouldn`t object to it. 
* The press release photo is just a little boring, . Realist2 07:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  comments on above pictures (all discussions on the above links to pictures should be kept here) 

message: why does everyone want the mugshot in the page so badly? it's such a sickening photo... please dont put it back again..
219.75.10.110 09:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mugshot 

message: This section appears twice in the article, once under the "Influence" heading, and once under the "Personal life". In both places it contains essentially the same information with slight variations. The information should be merged, and one of these sections removed.71.213.82.71 19:46, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Connection with Slash 

message: I have reverted the main image back to the previous one, as wiki guidelines and policy state that only free, not fair use, images can be used for the main photo in an article.  Please do not revert this image back, or change it to any other fair use photo, as you will be directly convening wiki policy.  Thnaks  Funky Monkey  (talk)  19:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is all very well, but wiki policy is that only free use images, not fair use images can be used as the main image on an article.  If you don't like the current image, I suggest you either; find another free image or change it to the more "recent" mug shot picture, as these are currently the ONLY images hosted on wikipedia that would be acceptable under the current rules.  Funky Monkey  (talk)  16:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is a snapshot of when he was probably at his most well known outside of the music business. "
that he's been forced and surprised by the flash light has a negative effect on visitor's impression of Mr.Jackson."
He has makeup in other pictures, you gonna complain about that being too positive too?
I'm sure Jews don't like the holocaust, it's "bothering" for them. I'm part Jewish, I know how much that upset people. But they don't want to erase the past - what happened happened.
He wasn't surprised by flash, a mugshot is prepared carefully and anyone involved is fully informed.
You have to realise this isn't a propaganda article.(The Elfoid 16:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main Image 

message: used in the rather flattering bio sections and happens to represent Jackson commercially.
, , ,  or most information from dedicated fan sites such as  and . 
, . Umm, is Wikipedia really allowed to reference itself?
 IMDB is a partially user submitted site. Its information and trivia sections are not journalistic.
:just a comment about IMDB- I have tried over and over to correct incorrect trivia, such as his height, which is clearly stated as 5'11" on his mugshot. it gets changed every week to 5'9" one week and 5'8" the next week. The trivia section there is changed frequently to also include "trivia" from old tabloids and even just from what people think Jackson has done here or there. IMDB is not a source and shouldn't be used. If you want more info on Captain Eo, have a look at 'the Magic and the Madness" or, even better, "The Visual Documentary"- they have filming dates and budget costs.Marnifrances 07:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Isn't there a problem with many of these sources regarding POV? 

message: There is a big problem with the newest Fox news article. RF said that MJ doesn't plan to release new material, yet R Bain and several producers have, in fact, confirmed that Michael is working on a new album. I believe Bain said 'Michael is putting the finishing touches on his new music'. Freedman's article contradicts everything that has already been confirmed. Is there a way that we can stress that or take the Fox news article out all together? It's confusing and is blatantly untrue, as usual. I also think it's misleading. Thanks Marnifrances 07:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of Fox News Article 

message: :thank you! There is also an article where Will I Am says it is a new album, due early next year. Here's the article- he had an interview with Aussie reporters: http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=312689&rss=yes   
Marnifrances 11:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Will.I.Am says new album due early next year 

message: here are links about Mr.Jackson and vitiligo please put them into the article for article's sake.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9SUwwJYD6aI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15TSEKXXIvI  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.38.12.224 (talk) 08:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: maybe that can be used as 'see also'...Marnifrances 11:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mr.Jackson and vitiligo 

message: Mr.Jackson is mostly known as king of pop or MJ if we put disrespectable UK media aside  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.38.12.224 (talk) 08:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mr.Jackson is mostly known as king of pop or MJ 

message: ** PLEASE REMOVE THE MUGSHOT **  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.38.13.223 (talk) 09:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  REMOVE THE MUGSHOT 

message: I am  unable to edit/change the image placed on this page. There is a mug shot from Michael's leagal harassments up there now. This undoubtedly was done out of spite. It would be great if someone with a qualified image that reflects Mr. Jackson's accomplishments as an artist and entertainer could edit/replaced the mugshot prank. Thank You Takingcare 06:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I keep wondering about this. quite a few people feel it is necessary, but where is OJ's mugshot on HIS page?, AND Hugh Grant's mugshot is not on his page either. Why does MJ's mugshot NEEd to be on this page? someone said it represents what his appearance is now, but I disagree. How about taking a shot from the L'uomo vogue to be really current? Currency is not an argument here and it should be taken out and never used again- Michael Jackson was arrested, sure, but he was NEVER convicted, in fact, he was acquitted and people seem to forget that. The mugshot just reminds people he was arrested which takes away from his ART, as it would for OJ, who was also acquitted OR Hugh Grant who is a fabulous actor. Why is Michael Jackson the LONE person who gets stuck with his mugshot?Marnifrances 11:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Ok that makes me FURIOUS! did you actually READ my argument Dronzo? The same goes for OJ and Hugh Grant!! It does NOt in anyway illustrate his current appearance- currency is a stupid argument and those who want it in. It also does not say under the picture "Michael jackson's current appearance". I am SURE we can find a newer free image. Marnifrances 10:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mug Shot Image 

message: why bring attention to tabloid stories by saying this: "Since the children outwardly have a phenotype caucasian appearance, the paternity of Michael Jackson's children has been heavily debated by the public, and fuelled by tabloid rumors". No one actually knows what the children look like considering any pictures of them unmasked are grainy, blown up and lightened - in effect, distorted. It is unnecessary to say his children have a "phenotype Caucasian appearance" or any of the above sentence. why do we need a debate about paternity, especially when Michael Jackson is the childrens' father no matter what people say?- he raised them and has sole custody. Marnifrances 12:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: thanks. It just seems un encyclopaedic and speculative to me. Marnifrances 10:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  another problem- paternity of Jackson children 

message: Wouldn't it be better to include "connection with Quincy Jones" or nothing at all? Slash only played on a few songs, I think it's silly to include a paragraph on Slash, when Michael Jackson has worked with a lot of artists repeatedly- Carol Bayer Sager, Greg Phillinganes, Rod Temperton, Louis Johnson, Paulihno Da Costa, Bruce Swedien, etc etc... why include Slash? I don't get it. It just lengthens the article. The use of the wording "regular guest after Dangerous" is silly, since it gives a total of 2 album appearances. Marnifrances 12:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's just unnecessary and confusing. I don't see how that connection is important when he has had a longer and more frequent connection with other artists.Marnifrances 10:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  confused about Slash- why is it in this article? 

message: * Recent photo
* Shows Jackson without heavy make-up obscuring his appearance - rare
* New photo of him without sunglasses - rare
* Photo of him when he was at the most famous he's been in a long time. The Number Ones album was a minor hit. Invincible was big but not ground breaking or special in terms of sales. In terms of singles, it was poor. So Jackson hadn't had this much of a spotlight on him since the peak of the HIStory tour (1996). 
* The man's face has changed a lot, but it is recognisable as how he looks now. Even a photo from 1999 or 2000 looks vastly out of date.
* Most newer pictures of him he has sunglasses on, or is carefully presented for magazine photoshoots
* It's a photograph taken by a professional and designed to give a clear and well defined view of his actual appearance - no trickery to improve his look or ruin it paparazzi style
* It's a close-up. Good view.
* Hundreds of millions of people have seen this. Career wise, he's best known for the Thriller/Bad/Dangerous/HIStory music videos, yes. But as a person, who the tabloids follow? This was his peak as a celebrity, even if it was for all the wrong reasons. Fans, non-fans, people who'd never heard of him (as a singer) were all into this.
* The picture's there, we haven't got a good replacement lined up
* It's been voted on before and the decision was to keep it. More than once.
* It's a free image
* Jackson lost a lot of weight shortly after, during the trial. He has regained that weight now, but it means he looks more like he does now in that photo than he did for some time after it was taken.
* Everyone who has disagreed so far has claimed to be 'offended' and are self-proclaimed Michael Jackson fans. You can be an unbiased fan, but it's often not the case.
* Contrasts greatly with other photos here - we show all sides of him
* Photo of Jackson as an ordinary man. It's something anyone can relate to and reminds a viewer he is really, only human. The media can present people as otherwise.
* Photo frequently used by the press - it is the most iconic photo of the trial and one of the photos of Jackson that will probably never, ever be forgotten. Next to the Motown 25 performance, various Superbowl shows and his best known music videos. 
(deleted- "humanity argued above) Marnifrances 10:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Justification of mugshot 

message: * Seen by some as distasteful
* Shows Jackson in the worst light possible, making him look uglier than usual
* He doesn't usually dress down this way. Poor representation.
* Other photos may be available
* Though it is recent, Jackson has made a few public appearances since this time.
* It significantly implies his guilt in the 2005 trial. The article should support the impression of the not guilty verdict. 
* It is hard to find an image on Wikipedia of someone not charged for a crime, where a mugshot has been used. It is unfair to make an exception out of Jackson.
* It can be considered racist to have that picture up, why is jackson being made an example of some might argue? many black and white people do believe there was an element of racism in the trial, with the no black jury, ridiculously expensive bail payment and the completely unnessary handcuffing.
* The picture of overwhelmingly used by the anti Jackson brigade so its usage and symbolism is automatically biased. 
*It doesn't look anything like Jackson does now in 2007 infact Jackson`s appearance has improved dramatically since the invincible era and a very updated picture would be better to show that his appearance has improved. 
* Drug abuse would have slightly affected his appearance at the time. 
* It is only America that has a known majority of its population believing in his guilt so therefore the mugshot has an american viewpoint bias. 
:more arguments:
*Takes away from the significance of his impact on MUSIC
::I would like to counter the points added by realist2.
1) [Image:Reinhard_Gehlen_1945.jpg], [Image:Richardgotti1.JPG], [Image:Josephguglielmo2.JPG], [Image:Edwardcummiskey1.JPG]. As you can see, many convicts have a mugshot on Wikipedia. So it's not a one-off. 
I'll admit I couldn't find in my 30-second-search any non-convicts with a mugshot, but that's because famous criminals are remembered forever. Can anyone honestly remember many cases where someone was really, really famous for being not guilty?
:OJ simpson? Marnifrances 13:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That he was found not guilty of and the mugshot has nothing to do with the 93 case.Marnifrances 13:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

text: actually, you can clearly see eyeliner. Makeup is not the issue here. Marnifrances 13:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

text: and the papers were notorious for rounding up "evidence" against Jackson which is why they used the mugshot over and over. When maureen orth reported on Jackson, a known anti-Jackson reporter, that mugshot was shown over and over.  Marnifrances 13:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

text: actually, you're wrong again: all the pictures here except the top picture were paparazzi or fan shots. None are promotional (again except for the whitehouse ones)Marnifrances 13:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

text: So you don't trust the American Jury?Sai2020 04:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I'd like to point out that what he was "doing" in 2003 was only reported by tabloid sources and you're correct, he was on other painkillers in 1993.Marnifrances 13:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

text: why can't we just find a current picture that illustrates his current look? I'm sure it will be easy to find one from a news source that is from say, his 2006 WMA appearance or something else. It's ridiculous to keep something that people are so passionate for and against and will keep arguing about. It's not his current appearance full stop. There is plenty of shots of him without sunglasses since 2003. Marnifrances 10:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reasons not to use the photo 

message: I just had an idea about the slash paragraph. I still think it is unnecessary and silly to keep it in but I had an idea that may satisfy everyone. How about we do a paragraph titled "connection with rock guitarists"? In the slash paragraph, it's already mentioned that MJ had other guitarists as guests on his records like "Beat It" and "Dirty Diana"- how about we keep all that in, change the title of the paragraph and add jennifer Batten and her 3 tours and ten years of work with MJ? I think this way, the paragraph would make more sense and wouldn't just look like another Slash resume on another page... what do you think? Marnifrances (talk) 04:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: actually, Jennifer Batten worked for all three of Mj's tours- Bad- 1987-1989, Dangerous 1992 and HIStory 1996-1997. That's 10 years. That's exactly what I am saying- she was hired by MJ for whole tours. It doesn't matter how well kown they are, I just don't see why slash should be singled out when he's had other rock guitarists working with him and I really do think "Connection with Rock' or "Connection With Rock Guitarists" would make much more sense. Marnifrances (talk) 12:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're right,  though a sub-paragraph for Slash would still make sense. Your point's good though - few pop musicians work with so many rock ones. (The Elfoid (talk) 17:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks. I know Slash is a good friend and all and I am not trying to get him off or anything, but yeah, Michael has worked with other rock guitarists for many years and he has kind of been a pioneer by collaborating in this way. Also, Carlos Santana played on Invincible. Marnifrances (talk) 00:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Slash Thing again- an idea