Talk:Game Show Network

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Move (June 2005): Name[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Talk:GSN (Game Show Network) – GSN (Game Show Network) → Game Show Network – {Game Show Network is still their official name, used on legal documents; HBO had renamed its page Home Box Office, and UPS is still callled the United Parcel Service, so obiously, based on what I had said, the "Game Show Network" isin't entirely gone from the media, so why figure?} — Roadrunner3000 00:34, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This article has been renamed after the result of a move request. violet/riga (t) 11:34, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Page move (November 2005)[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

See Talk:GSN 66.32.197.148 22:13, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No. I think legal names are represented for articles, like United Parcel Service (UPS), Home Box Office (HBO), Turner Network Television (TNT), National Basketball Association (NBA), all of that stuff; why don't you rename Turner Network Television TNT then!--Roadrunner3000 03:54, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed this page's entry from Wikipedia:Requested moves due to a lack of consensus on the move. If this changes, feel free to add another request. —Cleared as filed. 14:47, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Credit cutting[edit]

I remember reading a GSN post once where they talked about a CBS-affiliate cutting to a noonhour newscast everyday before the end of the credits of The Price Is Right. A poster said that the affiliate cannot do that. Something about production unions.

Also, every other U.S. network (cable or broadcast) airs the entire credits of shows that have credits, and do not cut them off in any way. This has always been the case. Every television network wants to make the most money possible, and the time used for credits could be used for advertising. But it isn't, and why is that? It seems like there is some obligation somewhere. Every other network would want to get rid of credits since they waste time, but they aren't, and there is some reason for that... What makes GSN different?--PsychoJason 02:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not forget that GSN does "box out" their credits for advertising. I HATE that. I just HATE IT! Why do they do it? 206.211.69.253 17:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much all networks squish the credits under commercials, but GSN is certainly one of the worst offenders. You'd practically have to have HDTV to read them in that tiny box. The next worse is SciFi, where they put them in about a 1-inch-wide strip on the left, and most of it gets cut off in the overscan. However, I've never noticed GSN cut the credits out. They're practically doing that already and not getting in trouble with any unions, so I don't see why it would make any sense to go through whatever lawsuits the production unions would throw at them just so the commercials can be 3% bigger. But I have seen stupider things, so I can't guarantee it. CrossEyed7 13:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Does anybody have a good graphical image of the original "Winnie" logo? I took a photo of my logo magnet, but it really looks like crap. File:Gsn94.jpg Lambertman 17:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This URL has it, it's just in black and white unfortunately. It is a PDF file. [1] --TRAiNER4 TC 18:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What did the first Game Show Originals look like with that first logo, or did they? King Shadeed 13:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think they had any originals before 1997  — JT (TRAiNER4)  [T·C·E] 18:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Casey Abell's comment needs more clarification[edit]

Casey Abell says that this network is about adult games. However, I watched this network when I was 14-15 years old. Please clarify further. Georgia guy 19:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Already clarified my comment in the textual note. Of course, GSN is watched by some kids and teens. But GSN's game shows are intended primarily for adults, unlike the shows on Nick GAS. In fact, GSN's audience skews substantially older than the usual audience for U.S. networks. Casey Abell 23:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. As usual. But Casey never will admit to being wrong. Casey, when you're ready to back up your claim with some actual evidence, I'd like to see it. Modor 10:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)Modor[reply]

At least Modor softened his initial comment. [2] Maybe those civility warnings on his talk page are having some effect. Anyway, it's not hard to find a great deal of evidence for GSN's older skew. For a typical treatment of the issue, see this article written when Rich Cronin took over the network. Despite Cronin's efforts the network has continued to skew old, as mentioned in this recent USA Today article that commented: "Cable networks Fox News, Hallmark, CNN and GSN had the oldest viewership, each with a median age of more than 60 in prime time."

Recent changes[edit]

The "Recent changes" section is getting awful long. The major trend at the network – the return to an almost all-traditional game show lineup, plus some poker and blackjack shows and a few documentaries – is getting lost in a sea of this-show-came-on-and-that-show-went-off detail. I'd like to boil it down, but I don't want to lose valuable detail about the network's history. Still, we shouldn't let the section grow much longer before we simplify and rewrite it. Casey Abell 18:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GSN mentioning in the Epsiode Status[edit]

I think it's ok to leave GSN in the episode status box, to let even know that GSN may be getting the rights to these shows. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nextbarker (talk • contribs) 03:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:PrimeGames.jpg[edit]

Image:PrimeGames.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 19:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a detailed fair use rationale for the image. Casey Abell 20:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The three shots of the same logo in the "Dark Period" section[edit]

Wholly unnecessary. The only thing different is the background of that particular spot. Lambertman 13:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe one of the first two could go, but the third is slightly different with a variant ball pattern and the omission of "network." But I don't care much one way or the other. I did provide fair use rationales for the images because of my general inclusionist principles. If you eliminate one of the two very similar logos, the image will eventually get deleted as an orphan.
Also, it seems that the "network for games" logo should be relocated to one of the following sections. Casey Abell 14:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recent changes to "Recent changes"[edit]

For some reason an IP editor axed the entire paragraph on 2006 changes. I restored it. Maybe the paragraph could be trimmed, but it makes no sense to drop it completely. I also rewrote some of the added material on 2007 changes for accuracy, NPOV and brevity. The switch back to traditional and older game shows began long before Cronin left the network, and the article shouldn't editorialize on which developments are "positive." The added details on the latest promotional campaigns are insignificant, in my view, but I'll let others decide if they should remain. IMO, the only slightly notable item on the promos is the "you can't write this stuff" tagline during the writers strike. Casey Abell (talk) 18:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also rearranged some existing material for better chronological order. The section now flows logically from 2005 to 2006 to 2007. Casey Abell (talk) 22:11, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Game Show Network 94.jpg[edit]

Image:Game Show Network 94.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New page move request[edit]

Since GSN doesn't refer to itself as "Game Show Network" anymore, and there is no other article on Wikipedia with the initials "GSN", wouldn't it now be appropriate to move this page to GSN? When the name-change was made, I specifically remember rhe fact that it was just GSN now, that it didn't stand for anything. -- bmitchelf•T•F 15:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article organization/content[edit]

I think that this article relies too heavily on programming information, and there is not much information on anything else but a very detailed list of acquisitions over the 14 years it has been on the air.

I think that most programming information should be removed from the history section and either moved to the programming section or be removed completely, because it just does not make sense to have all of these lists of games shows when there is already a section for programming, let alone an entire article with a list of programming. Since there is already a programming list for this television channel article, I think the amount of programming information on the main article should be severely trimmed or removed.

I'm not trying to say that the whole article should be removed, but it needs to be more focused on the channel and not be so overwhelmed with programming information. Does anyone have anything to say about this? Agree/Disagree? 53180 (talk) 22:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)53180.[reply]

I concur. There is no reason for the site to be loaded down with programming changes, etc. Modor (talk) 10:26, 14 November 2008 (UTC)Modor[reply]

The alleged "controversies"[edit]

The alleged controversies in the section are only shared by a small faction of the posters on GSN's message boards and don't represent a true sample of the population, nor do they represent GSN's audience as a whole. Suggest removing this section. Modor (talk) 10:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC)Modor[reply]

Contact Information for Corporations Listed on Wikipedia[edit]

I can not find the contact information (mailing address, phone number, e-mail, etc.) for the Game Show Network page. I suggest that all Wikipedia pages concerning existing corporations include the contact information. Case in point: I am trying to contact GSN because many of their shows do not have closed-captioning. It appears that the FCC has a "rule" that citizens must first contact - in writing - an out-of-compliance broadcaster. That may mean that we have to do the legwork for the FCC. I could not find any address or contact information on the GSN and the GSN Corporate websites. (Tesseract501) 00:13, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DirecTV's Game Lounge as GSN Game Lounge[edit]

I noticed on Friday night/Saturday morning while browsing the networks on DirecTV, that GSN had took over Game Lounge on DirecTV. Can anyone find the sources on this? King Shadeed 12:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mediacom Cable Company[edit]

Should it be added, if so how and where, that Mediacom Cable Company has removed GSN from all of it's systems. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.72.85.62 (talk) 16:12, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why was my edit reverted?[edit]

GSN doesn't air Password anymore. It hasn't in two years. The contract to air it went up a long time ago. GSN doesn't air Ray Combs Family Feud either. It hasn't for a while. Why was my edit reverted? 24.185.219.21 (talk) 22:21, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GSN Has No Slogan At All?[edit]

GSN's slogan is not "The World Needs More Winners" anymore!!!! So what is GSN's new slogan right now???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.95.62.117 (talk) 20:36, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is still their slogan! They haven't changed it or stopped using it! - Caringtype1 (talk) 19:57, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move (2013)[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I propose that the name of this article be changed to GSN. The network now goes by only "GSN" and now no longer "Game Show Network." As such, though "Game Show Network" may still function as a legal name, "GSN" is the common name nowadays. As a result, I feel that under its current name, the article would not be in line with the times. I believe that Wikipedia articles for current-era organizations (yes, TV channels included) should be named solely to reflect what is current. - Seth Allen (discussion/contributions), Saturday, January 20, 2013, 01:41 UTC.

I don't agree with that at all. Game Show Network is its name. That's what the article needs to be called. - Caringtype1 (talk) 01:49, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But "GSN" is the common name. In WP:COMMONNAME there is a rule that states, "The most common name for a subject, as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources, is often used as a title because it is recognizable and natural. Editors should also consider the criteria outlined [in the "Deciding on an article title" section]." In the case of this network, the "Game Show Network" name is used in a lesser number of sources than "GSN".
None of these sources refer to the channel as "Game Show Network" even once.
Examples of articles where the channel is still referred to as "Game Show Network":
The "Game Show Network" name has been retired from official usage by the channel. Taking all of that into consideration, it can be implied that that "GSN" is officially the common name nowadays. - Seth Allen (discussion/contributions), Saturday, January 20, 2013, 18:42 UTC.
The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

GSN Logo change[edit]

GSN has changed their logo again.Devann (talk) 17:03, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 27 July 2015[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 23:52, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

– While there is more than one thing called GSN, this network is mostly referred to by its abbreviation, and should be regarded as such by being moved to a more appropriate title. Billboard Man (talk) 19:44, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose per WP:NATURAL – WP:NATURAL disambiguation is always preferable to parenthetical disambiguation, and the present title provides that. RGloucester — ☎ 21:50, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as RGloucester basically noted above. --Roadrunner3000 (talk) 22:40, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the first. I might be up for the second, in theory at least. Red Slash 19:31, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 12 January 2016[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved due to lack of support after 2 weeks. Continues to be supported to stay at it's current location. (non-admin closure) Tiggerjay (talk) 01:23, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Game Show Network → GSN (TV channel) – That channel isn't called the "Game Show Network" anymore. AdamDeanHall (talk) 22:02, 12 January 2016 (UTC)--Relisted. Tiggerjay (talk) 01:11, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose, as above, per WP:NATURAL. RGloucester — ☎ 22:25, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Though "GSN" returns more hits in a search, we should abide by WP:NATURAL, as others have noted. Meatsgains (talk) 02:39, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisting comment - relisting for additional input from experienced editors regarding WP:AT. There appears to be some credibility to request per COMMONNAME, and appears to be the primary topic for GSN (sans gbooks). Given the history of this move request I don't want to see this hastily closed without further input. I feel not enough discussion has taken place to close this controversial move request. Tiggerjay (talk) 01:11, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing controversial about it, really. Natural disambiguation is always preferred to parenthetical disambiguation. Please read the linked WP:NATURAL. RGloucester — ☎ 17:35, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify on the word controversial, simply suggesting that it might be a controversial topic due to the multiple move requests that keep coming up.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Revived the "The Price is Right" section.[edit]

This section had/has a "no citations" notice tag. Please help me address this problem by finding reliable, valid sources for this section. Please do not remove it unless you absolutely cannot find ANY sources to use as citations for verification of this section. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wof2500 (talk • contribs) 03:52, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 7 July 2016[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved as consensus to keep the article at it's current name has been established. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Music1201 talk 18:39, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Game Show Network → GSN (TV network) – I apologize for trying to make the move myself, but I truly feel that the full name is completely irrelevant for an article name as I feel it is just known as GSN. Billboard Man (talk) 13:20, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose per WP:NATURAL again. Nohomersryan (talk) 19:32, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, "Game Show Network" is the name of the network, and as a name is clear and understandable, so there seems no need to move this one. The networks slogan is "We're game", not "We're g", so there's that. Randy Kryn 23:32, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Same as previous RM above, WP:NATURAL. Meatsgains (talk) 23:34, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for reasons stated above, and I'll also add that unlike TLC, A&E or KFC, Game Show Network has not officially changed its name to the acronym. The official name is still Game Show Network. — Crumpled Fire • contribs • 05:57, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – GSN isn't just a channel anymore; the old logo is still in use on a GSN gaming website, so shouldn't the article be renamed to address that? 67.87.222.82 (talk) 03:37, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support – The network hasn't been referred to as GSN for 12 years. Why refer to an article as its full name when it is rarely used? The fact that this is a strong debate on Wikipedia to this day truly bothers me, especially because of the ABC move requests. Therefore, channels should be titled what they are referred to on the network. 2601:8C:4001:DCF4:E549:4A67:EB24:FA15 (talk) 02:51, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Game Show Network, LLC is the company for the channel. So, like AMC (TV channel) and its company, AMC Networks, unless you are prepared to make the full changeover by writing about the company, this should stay. — Wyliepedia 15:38, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Game Show Network. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:26, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Game Show Network. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:39, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dates[edit]

Okay, I give up on the date titles in the history. They obviously should be 2004-12 and 2013-present based on the actual content of the sections. But for some obscure reason somebody keeps messing around with the date titles, so they don't match the content. Don't ask me why but I'm tired of the silly fight.--76.85.67.14 (talk) 14:31, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Removed all entries with no cited sources.[edit]

There was a lot of original research on this page. I've removed them and other edits with no citations. Since TV Tropes isn't a credible source ([as Pointed out here]), I've removed that edit as well. MarcoPolo250 (talk) 13:44, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring material[edit]

The entry was recently gutted of much of its substance and (frankly) interest. I've begun to add back much of GSN's history and related information, all carefully sourced. I will continue to expand the entry with other relevant and sourced material.72.180.62.216 (talk) 02:37, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The entry has again been gutted of carefully sourced content. The accusation in the edit description of "unreliable sources" is ridiculous. All the content I added was carefully sourced and completely accurate. The accusation of bias and "fan POV" - whatever that might mean - is also silly. It's clear that a certain editor wants to own the article. I'm going to revert his edit and let others decide the issue.--72.180.62.216 (talk) 03:36, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, important and well-sourced material on GSN's programming has been gutted from the article with no discussion on the talk page. My guess is that the same user is doing the gutting as before, though I can't prove it. The repeated allegation of "fan POV" in the edit summary is nonsense. The gutted material accurately reported on important changes in the network over the years. I'm restoring the content. Please discuss major changes in the article on the talk page, so other users can comment on them.--72.180.62.216 (talk) 15:45, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting ridiculous, but once again the user who wants to own the article has gutted relevant and carefully sourced material. I've restored it. --72.180.14.198 (talk) 16:57, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You mean, unimportant changes that only focus on a select few shows and throwing shade on the network's "non-traditional" programming. This is not a blog and the average reader doesn't about these things nor did they ask for your opinion on the network's programming.Thecleanerand (talk) 17:19, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what you mean by "select few shows and throwing shade on the network's 'non-traditional' programming." The material you have repeatedly gutted from the article referred to important developments in the network's programming. I'm not going to edit war on this but if a cable network's programming is not important, then what is important? In my opinion the article is still too brief in its discussion of GSN history, but at least some material still remains on important developments in the network's programming.--72.180.14.198 (talk) 00:42, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

People puzzles[edit]

Whoever is the person who dresses Leah Remini should get a new job. Most of the outfits look like ugly curtain prints, but once in a while a nice outfit is displayed. Also what is up with outfits that have long sleeves and cover her up over her neck. Please look into nicer outfits for her. Thanks Roberta Parks 2601:19C:4000:6550:F895:45F7:F1AC:41EF (talk) 02:50, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Game_Show_Network&oldid=1207353675"