Talk:Hostel: Part II

Axelle and Sasha

No one else had pointed this out, but it seems heavily implied that Axelle is Sasha's daughter from her "He's old enough to be my father" line and the fact that there's a huge portrait of her on his wall. I added that to the plot, and removed the line at the end about Beth possibly joining Elite Hunting, since it seems more likely that she was teaming up with the bubblegum kids to get revenge on Sasha by killing his daughter. The first Hostel's original ending was similar, with Paxton abducting the Dutch businessman's kid instead of killing him (that ending will be restored in the director's cut of the movie being released next month). Treewaller 6:08, 3 September 2007

Sasha was Axelle's mentor according to an interview I read. Scream4man (talk) 02:07, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I interpret the film such that he is her father. She earlier says that her father says cheers as "Nazdarovie" - which is popularly believed to be how Russians say cheers. When he gets the head delivered at the start of the film he says more or less to himself отлично (otlichno) which means excellent, being a Slovak actor it comes out sounding like the cognate odlišná but the meaning in Slovak doesn't fit the context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.237.234.120 (talk) 20:10, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Trivia

Does anyone else think that the trivia section should be addressed? Information about a cast member's past work doesn't really (in my opinion) have any place here unless it is particularly noteworthy, if the actor is notable they will have their own wikipedia page, if not then why include the info? Also, and the main reason I'm stating this point, information about locations is repeated in the trivia section after being stated in the Locations section - is this necessary? I've tried to rectify once but had edit reverted by unregistered user. Any comments? RaseaC 11:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Confusing Plot

The plot on this page is VERY confusing. It talks about new characters without telling who they are first, changes setting without mentioning it, is very vague in places, and is generally confusing. A characters section describing who everyone is and a fairly large re-write of the plot section would be greatly appreciated and helpful.

If you're referring to the plot summary that I am currently writing, it is only a first draft. If you can give more specific examples (what characters, what settings, etc.), that would be very helpful. Seelie 06:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not the same guy as above, but I'm just going to say that the end of this plot summary is absolute shit. It skips a large part of the movie, and according to numerous other plot summaries on the internet is, in fact, completely false.

Well, when anonymous up there and I wrote our comments last night, my summary was purposefully incomplete since I wasn't done with it yet. A lot of things have been done to the summary since then--like, I see that someone has added back part of the summary from The Movie Spoiler, which I am about to remove since it is plagiarism. The plot summary as it is is still a work in progress and I will continue to write it and edit as needed. Seelie 21:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

It takes almost as long to read the plot summary as it does to watch the film. Concision, people, concision. The current version recounts one scene with 103 words:

"Roman and Lorna are shown on a secluded part of the shore. He tells her to "come to him" and close her eyes, which she foolishly does. As soon as her eyes are closed, two men come from behind and place a black cloth bag over her head. She screams for Roman as he calmly lights a cigarette, and when she is pushed towards him by the two men, he reacts by shoving her back into the river. As she tries to crawl out, one of the men stops her by hitting her on the back of the head with a wooden plank."

An improved version is 23 words:

"Roman and Lorna disembark on a secluded part of the shore, where Lorna is assaulted and knocked unconscious by two of Roman's accomplices."

The entire summary can be trimmed down accordingly to about a fifth its current length. Tomasboij 06:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I trimmed a lot and think that, in my opinion and from what I can guage is the consensus here, the length is acceptable (though still pretty long). However, feel free to edit/revert/correct as is the point of Wikipedia.RaseaC 19:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

This whole summary is poorly written with several spelling and grammar errors. I think this needs a total rewrite.68.227.184.246 20:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Why was my edit corrected? My correction are 100% accurate, I just saw the film. ~last son of krypton 07:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the plot is now complete and suggest that any major rewrites (either to lengthen or shorten it) are discussed here first.RaseaC 16:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Inconsistencies

I removed the inconsistency about leaving the torture facilities because it doesn't make sense and I don't think what the author cited is a valid inconsistency. The torture chamber guards set dogs loose to kill Todd because he broke the contract, and he never was allowed to leave the facilities.

Nothing to do with the above post. Lorna wasn't cut up by a sword. It was a long scythe followed by a much smaller scythe.

Reviews?

The reviews on yahoo movies were uniformly bad, with an average grade of a D+. http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/1809717133/critic The section on this page is misleading.

Yeah the reviews section is clearly biased. The reviews have been luke-warm at best and fairly poor at worst. A more accurate representation of the reviews should be written.74.75.66.95 03:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The review section was written before the movie was even released, hence why it says "early" reviews. If it needs to be rewritten, anyone is, of course, welcome to do so. Seelie 08:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. I feel it's very balanced now. If you disagree, feel free to discuss. --CWSensation 08:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Trailer?

Does anyone know why the official trailer released on the Hostel2 website is in german with english subtitles? I thought the action would take place in Italy or somewhere. Is it referred to the action or what is it?

It was just a stylistic choice because of the sound of the German language--Lionsgate says it's more "guttaral and harsh" than English. Seelie 22:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Actualy, I think it's in German, Japanese, Italian, Spanish, but I'm not sure, at least not only in German. If anyone knows what languages it was, let me know. --Steinninn 06:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe the original question refers to the teaser trailer, which was solely in German. Seelie 06:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Source?

Unless someone can provide source information for the plot and cast sections, I'm going to remove them. According to Eli Roth's own blog, he's still writing the script.Seelie 20:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I will continue to remove cast info unless a source is provided.Seelie 15:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Just revert them. The main person doing them is a notorious vandal whose main goal is to add incessant bullshit to Wikipedia. The best that you can do is offer this page up for protection.--CyberGhostface 03:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I've been reverting when necessary but it hasn't really been a problem until recently. I'm not sure if it meets the criteria for protection yet but if it continues beyond this week, might as well offer it up.Seelie 08:24, 25 August

Someone jacked this page up it should be offered for protection

Or you can stop vandalizing it. Seelie 00:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

i make a comment that it should be offered for protection i want to see this movie i am a fan and you want to accuse me of messing it up. You have serious problems, you need to leave you lil world of make believe and grow the hell up.

The person who vandalized the page has the same IP address as you. Seelie 04:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I am so sick of people messing this page up. We are trying to do a good thing here for the fans and people think it's a joke. We are trying to provide accurate information. That will never happen if people keep playing around.UnReaL 23:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Rachel Stevens

Since the only source for her rumored appearance in the film are early unsourced statements on this very site, I'm removing the reference unless someone finds a source with legs. Seelie 17:40, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

CAST FOR HOSTEL PART 3

Nathan Phillips (Wolf Creek, Snakes On A Plane)

Kiele Sanchez (Lost)

Danny Trejo (Spy Kids)

Evagfan 04:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• there is a wrong with last two film fix that --62.215.53.18 19:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Forget it, if you can read, the page clearly says Eli Roth will not make another Hostel. 72.49.227.218 04:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Movie Poster

So, why has the other poster been removed and replaced with this one? Was the other fake? Defunct Lies 16:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

There have been three official posters so far that I know of--meat, meat with headless Bijou, and the newest one with Heather. There's no real reason, I'd guess, why they've been removed and replaced. Likely, people just want to put the newest info available on the page. Seelie 06:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

And now four official posters! Seelie 21:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

workprint is out

if you search hard enough or just hit up vcdquality, the WORKPRINT is out there, someone should write up the summary/spoiler. robkehr

The workprint release on the internet-- I don't consider this wikipedia-worthy information. Anyone disagree?

However, due to the fact it is available, a summary would be fitting. The final version may be a bit different, though, as it is a workprint.

why wouldnt it be wikipedia worthy? i doubt the final product would be much different than the work print, although it will be slightly different, i recall one scene specifically where dogs attack a man in an elevator, a low angle shot CLEARLY shows green screen... so im sure that will change. before someone deletes it again in a few minutes because they have a god complex here's a summary of the movie

3 beautiful college women are tricked into entering a hostel where the 'hosts' sell them to a twisted business company where their clients find gratification in rape, murder, and cannibalism. Following a geographical tour of Slovakia, three women are lured into a hostel by a beautiful young woman whom they met the day before in an art class. The 3 women are separated at a party and rounded up one by one in order to "fulfill" the company's contracts. The Protagonist in the story buys her way out of her fate and turns her anger upon the young woman who lured them into the shadows. In addition, one of the planned revelations will be that the Slovak location is part of a chain, viewers will also learn the operating procedures of this business through a clever series of auction like bidding.

so i predict that someone will delete this off the main article repost the incorrect information, and then next week that person will see that this IS how the film plays out, but then justify their change by calling the work print non credible. further inflating their ego.

Plot Line Plagiarism

who ever has the IP address of 74.116.194.70 is copying and pasting the plot line from another spoiler website. <<http://www.themoviespoiler.com/Spoilers/hostel2.html>>

Put it in the sources? I did a little editing of the plot line to add more detail, and change use of wording. --71.238.57.45 22:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. I deleted most of the plot summary since wikipedia can't have plagiarized content. --P4k 04:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

There has been consistant vandalism of this page for the last day or so. The vandals are doing this anonymously and have multiple warnings on their addresses for past vandalism. How can we get this article semi-protected against unregistered editors?

D2K 19:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Plot question

Who is the victim who is getting his leg stabbed into and then the guy sits down and eats his leg at a table, as if he's out for a night at a fancy restaurant? Is the victim Miroslav? It looks sort of like him.----La Parka Your Car 01:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is Miroslav.

drat

Spoiler warning, anyone? Might be helpfull. Sliferjam 01:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The plot section can be expected to discuss the plot. --Tony Sidaway 16:19, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

However it needs to have a spoiler warning-tag on it anyway. Just like every damn other article about movies. If you need reasoning, how about: Unlike DVD cover, which gives you the basic plot line of the movie, Wikipedia's plot line section tells the story from the beginning to an end. Not everyone reading the article may know that. *rolling eyes* --84.231.187.95 22:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

As Tony says, plot sections discuss the plot. Some plot summaries are short, some are unnecessarily thorough before someone gets around to shortening them, but they always tell what happens. Jabberwockgee (talk) 01:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Milan Kňažko

I think it should be pointed out that Milan Kňažko is/was an actual Slovak politician. Already in Czechoslovakia he was a consultant for president Václav Havel, and was the leader of several political parties. Lately ('89, '91, '00) he was also co-founder of three parties.

I personally would also add that there is some controversy going around in Slovakia now, (soon to be raised when the movie is released here,) about him. His presence in the film is seen by some slovaks as a form of treason and selling out.

The 2nd paragraph might be slightly POV, but fact is: There is a controversy about mr. Kňažko.

-To call him founder of 3 parties makes him sound a bit like a crank to outsiders. In fact, one of each of those parties 1) led the Slovak side of the revolution against communism, 2) led Slovakia to independence and 3) led Slovakia into the EU and NATO. You could really tell a lot of the story of Slovakia from 1989 to 2006 with just those 3 organizations. He was also placed 4th in the election for president in 2014 as an independent candidate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.237.234.237 (talk) 22:45, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Linkspam

I was going to ad a link to an Hostel II video interview with Eli Roth and the cast (http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid429035712/bclid331394047/bctid570589509); but I saw that this someone had already added this link and another person took it down as link spam. I'm not new to editing wikipedia, but I am newly registered and trying to figure out the "rules" of the land. Is there a particular problem with this type of link being added? I can't seem to understand why it's spam if it's relevant. I'm just asking because I've seen several instances where video links are removed in and text links are kept. Is this a wikipedia rule against multimedia external links?

You can respond on my talk page if you'd prefer Torchwoodwho 02:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Plot Summary Question

At the end of the plot summary, it states that Beth has apparently become a member of Elite Hunting. Is there any evidence of this? I know that she is forced to get the Elite Hunting tattoo in order to leave with her life, but I simply thought her murder of Axelle was simply revenge for selling her and the other girls to Elite Hunting. 67.163.31.216 16:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree it was left ambiguous -- perhaps with a sequel in mind they wanted to leave all their options open. --Michael C. Price ^talk 16:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

---

It looks like she has joined. Sasha explained that nobody can leave without killing someone and must have accept a bloodhound tattoo. She paid for the privilege of killing someone as well. It looks like she's a member, though it's unknown if she'll be returning to kill anyone else. Imacphee (talk) 23:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't read the plot as I intend to see the film sometime. However, the ending has been ruined by a comment in the marketing section. Perhaps this should be removed???

Elite Hunting Co Asia

anyone want to take a look at this? [1] [2]

Brandi Chastain reference

I am thinking about adding this in the pop culture references. At the end, when one of the kids scores a "goal" he pulls his shirt up very reminiscent of Brandi Chastain after the 1999 World Cup win. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.184.128.226 (talk) 05:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

All soccer players do that following a goal. Imacphee (talk) 05:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 15:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Poster Design & Photography

What is the name of the person. I saw his book at MOMA NYC but have since forgotten his name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.56.64.138 (talk) 15:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

"Hostel: Part III" section?

So, from what I've read, Scott Spiegel is currently in talks to write and direct the third Hostel film, most likely as a direct-to-DVD release. (I read it on bloody-disgusting, it is unknown what role Eli Roth will play in its production.) Is it noteworthy enough at this point to create a section about it, or should we wait until more details emerege and it is set-in-stone? MaximumMadnessStixon (talk) 19:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Initial Stuart and Beth?

Initially when Beth is brought to the factory, Stuart releases her, then somethings changes in him. I think this warrants a sentence in the plot! Edwardando (talk) 00:58, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, he was membaling to himself "I'm not this kind of person", seem very stressed (because he knew that if he release her then they will kill them both, as he told her) and eventually, decided to kill her friend who was offered in very low price before he finally became the bad person. I also think that the disturbing bloodbath scene deserved more words. To say the true, I've never seen such realistic scene in any fictional movie. It was snuff scene, mixed with sexual content (and this mix, to my opinion, is what making it so dangerous). It got much critics around the world, more than appear here. The producers only sad they are most proud in this scene because it was so realistic.--Gilisa (talk) 15:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Globalize template

The Globalize template was added on September 2008 (not Jan 2010 as it was tagged) by an IP with no explanation. I have therefore removed as it seems unwarranted. Zarcadia (talk) 11:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hostel: Part II/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Stedil (talk · contribs) 19:37, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Greetings! This article has been sitting at the top of the GA noms list for quite some time, so I'll go ahead and review it. I'm about halfway through my initial read-through, and it looks to be in good shape overall. Progress will be updated in the table, with specific items to address below. Stedil (talk) 19:37, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: I haven't actually seen the film (nor, after reading the article, do I have much desire to). I am thus not terribly familiar with intricate details of the movie's plot beyond what has been printed in sources cited within this article. Stedil (talk) 21:23, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	only a few spots to address. Update: Issues resolved.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	I'm not much of an expert on reliable sources in film articles, though I don't see any reason to question any of the sources in the article.
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	A little heavy on direct quotations, but otherwise no issues here.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	The plot summary is a bit long (see below). Update: Plot has been trimmed to just below the word count limit.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Three images: one under CC license, the other two are movie posters with fair use rationales.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Not much to clean up. Should be good to go, pending the changes below. Update: all initial issues have been resolved satisfactorily. Critical Reception is being reworked - will hold off on passing for now so I can make sure changes fit within the GA requirements.

Action Items

• WP:FILMPLOT recommends that the plot should be between 400 and 700 words. The plot currently stands at 884. The film doesn't appear to be complex enough to warrant a long plot summary. Could it be condensed while still covering all the essentials?
• "7 Killer Facts" source was "consumed by zombies!" Replace with working citation, if possible.
• "Hostel 2 Movie Poster revealed" link cannot be displayed due to "robots."
• "it has been cut in Germany, Malaysia, and Singapore" no evidence beyond Germany presented.
• "releasing the movie in this or the uncut version is to be punished." Awkward phrasing, and vague. Consider revising.
• Citation needed tag at the end of "censorship."
• "wrote that the film's realistic representation of violence, but criticized the conclusion" ??? rephrase.
• "Worst Prequel, Remake, Rip-off or Sequel." not listed in source.

That's all I have so far. Let me know when you're finished. Stedil (talk) 21:23, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

@Drown Soda: Initial review is complete. I'm waiting for completion of the action items above to finish the review. Stedil (talk) 01:03, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

@Stedil: I've addressed your action points above (i.e. truncating plot, fixing some dead links--there are a couple of instances you point out in which I was unable to find sources to corroborate what was there, so I've trimmed those out; not a huge problem as they are mostly inconsequential). --Drown Soda (talk) 04:03, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

From an uninvolved editor

This is not a GA requirement but I was wondering if you could rewrite the Critical reception from scratch? As it stands, the prose consists almost entirely of direct quotations and it's quite a dull read. Consider rearranging them, and reducing the amount of quotes. See WP:QUOTE and WP:RECEPTION. See American Beauty and Leprechaun for excellent examples, on how to do this: try to build a narrative out of the commentary/reception on the film. What have critics in general picked up on? What are the main tenets? A bunch of quotes doth not great prose make. Apologies if this is such a strict requirement, I just thought this article could be good, if not great. Tks, Slightlymad (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:28, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

I think this is a reasonable suggestion. I also think the use of quotations is a bit heavy (and in fact mentioned it in the table). I didn't include it in the action items because, as you mention, it isn't a GA requirement. Quotations are actually used frequently in both the articles you cited as a tool for maintaining a neutral tone. The biggest difference is that the quotes in the other articles are truncated and supported with paraphrasing. Stedil (talk) 14:45, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

@Drown Soda: Thoughts? I'm not strictly requiring this, but I highly recommend it, as I think it will make the article better. Since this will cause a significant change to the article, I'm holding off on promoting until you've had a chance to respond. Stedil (talk) 18:11, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

@Stedil: I agree and can see what you mean--it does read a bit rote. I will try and collate the material and give a better overview in this area (will work on it within the next day). --Drown Soda (talk) 23:29, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Reception ideas

@Drown Soda: I have some thoughts to help you get started with revising the Reception section. The three main tasks for clean-up are: 1. condensing/removing extended quotes, 2. accurately paraphrasing the major conclusions of the reviews, and 3. reorganizing the reviews around central themes. Stedil (talk) 16:09, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Thoughts to help with paraphrasing

• New York Times: Make sure you convey that the review is generally negative - "fractionally more tolerable," "cheap sadism-as-entertainment gross-out."
• Hollywood Reporter: Should be fine after truncating the quote, with a little context. Generally positive - "step up in virtually every aspect" from the original.
• New York Daily News: fine as is.
• Village Voice: this one, I think, needs to be substantially revised. The author criticizes considerably more than the conclusion: "a riff on shock, a meta-movie lark," "too goofy to disturb, too silly to scare" "Routinely plotted and predictable" "In what passes for innovation"
• Entertainment Weekly: mostly fine as is, but I would would cut off "despite its lousy opening weekend."
• Total Film: very positive - "a superior beast," greatly improved technically, plot is "satisfying," main characters are "fun to hook up with," "astute and subversive."
• Independent: I like the pairing of Total Film with Independent, since they both use the term "subversive." Consider revising the American statement so it's more clear that the Americanness of the movie is a major point.
• The Guardian: two criticisms: the film is too similar to the original, and "Everything, save the bloody third act, is handled in a rudimentary fashion."
• BBC: fine as is - works well partnered with the Guardian, since they both criticize the plot similarities with the original.
• Film Stage: paraphrase/truncate the block quote. Stedil (talk) 16:09, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Reorganization possibilities

Try grouping generally positive reviews together, along with generally negative reviews. Look for general themes between positive critiques, as well as negative.

• NY times, Village Voice, The Guardian, and BBC are generally mixed/lean negative. I think each contains at least something positive about the film.
• Total Film stands out as a contemporary review that is very positive. The rest are mixed/lean positive: Hollywood Reporter, New York Daily News, Entertainment Weekly, Independent. A lot of these reviews compare the film favorably to its predecessor. Stedil (talk) 16:09, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

@Stedil: I made some slight changes to group the reviews from critics around a certain sentiment/stance (i.e. focusing on violence, psychology, etc.). There were a few unifying things between the reviews, though some are less connected than others. Let me know if this suffices in terms of organization. --Drown Soda (talk) 06:16, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

@Drown Soda: Thank you for your patience. I'll be returning to this article some time in the next few days, and will likely be finishing up the review. Stedil (talk) 09:51, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

@Drown Soda: Take a look at the reception section now - this is more what I had in mind. I think the article now meets GA standard, so I will be passing. Thank you for your work on improving this article. Stedil (talk) 17:48, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Reference to other media (Hercules)?

I've never edited Wikipedia before, but I was just watching this movie and when Stuart, near the end of the film, refers to himself as Hercules, it made me want to watch the Disney film Hercules. Then, when I started watching Hercules, I looked up the cast and I noticed that the actor that played Stuart was the voice for Hercules. So this line was obviously a reference to that fact.

I don't know much about Wikipedia, but I thought maybe this would be an interesting fact to be included on the page for this film.

I've also been drinking tonight, so if this is a bad idea, never mind. Jackalopalen (talk) 09:05, 22 October 2019 (UTC)