Talk:Tunnels (novel)

Merger proposal
The Highfield Mole is now redundant, and should be merged with Tunnels (novel)  Dracoster (talk) 22:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

This page will be amended and restored back to The Highfield Mole page only. Tunnels now rightly has a page of it's own and this page will be about the original self-published novel The Highfield Mole, with appropriate references to Tunnels. I have replied to the email you sent me this evening. lifesawhirl (talk)


 * Where exactly is this discussion that resulted in the "not merge"?  Active  Banana   (  bananaphone  16:13, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note that this discussion was prematurely unilaterally closed and was re-opened Jan. 2011 Active Banana    (bananaphone  00:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Support merge, Mole is simply an earlier edition of Tunnels and can be appropriately covered in this article. Active Banana    (bananaphone  23:51, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Question
What are "the Styx"? Are they human? Nagas? What? Yes. They are human. They are the underground police118.165.204.207 (talk) 10:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

The character profiles will include a description of the Styx and their origin (as much as has yet been released in the book). Should be added in next few weeks, thanks (Lifesawhirl (talk) 09:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)).

Wikipedia Children's Literature Project rating
I have deleted the wikipedia Children's Literature Project rating as I believe the assessment and rating applied is neither accurate nor appropriate for an International best selling series, number one in multiple countries, including The New York Times Best Seller List for Children's books. (Lifesawhirl (talk) 19:11, 25 July 2010 (UTC))
 * Hi, as a reader of the book I agree and has reassesed the book as Mid-Importance. The article currently quite well written, but is far from a GA. I advise you to use less quotes, find reviews from everywhere and even ones that criticize the book. The reviews must by an accurate representation of how the books was reviewed. Also, I will do some rearraning of the article to match the Manual of Style (writing about fiction). The plot is too long and will need to be cut down to only the most important plot details.The Characters will also need to go as a well written Plot section will introduce the characters. There needs to be a themes section as well using SOURCES AND REVIEWS. This is most important as many people try and use WP:OR to write one. I will be happy to help it WP:GA if you like. Derild  49  21  ☼  13:36, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

To Derild4921: Thank-you for re-rating this page, as I requested. However, this article may well now sit well with the Wikipedia style guide, but it now contains numerous inaccuracies about the book, authors, publication history and more. Have you really read this book? This new article is badly written, repetitive and lacking in the all important detail of the original article. It seems to me that you value GA rating above a suitably accurate and complete reference for this book. I spent several weeks working on the original article and can confirm the integrity of all the information on the Tunnels page. I would like the original format to be re-instated. By all means tweak that and advise me of best practise (which I would welcome!) - as you originally offered, before you stormed ahead with this new version (Lifesawhirl (talk) 23:32, 16 August 2010 (UTC))
 * What are your concerns about the content? Your content did not meet WP:Notability standards, please help us understand what is missing, Sadads (talk) 00:03, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree, before the article contained a lot of information, but was badly sourced. I tried to rewrite the article using the same information, but only some of the information in the previous version was properly sourced. Therefore, I had to find my own sources and write it with that. Also, I have almost finished the book. I was preparing to finish it and then improve the article. Then, the next day I foud someone was asking for a reassessment of the article. I took the chance to reassess it and then help improve it. As for the inaccuracies, what problems are there with it? Derild  49  21  ☼  00:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

To Derild4921 and Sadads: If your main dispute is the sourcing with the original article then why did you not contact me, as I could have provided the additional source material - you can see from my contributions I just author Tunnels books on here. As I said above all the content of the original article is completely accurate and can be verified. I have provided a number of source links to justify that. Should I need more, no problem just advise me. As far as I can see I did broadly meet the Notability standards. This may not be in the GA format that you are looking for, but as Wikipedia content relies on volunteers passionate about their article subject, I feel you should be more supportive. As I confirmed above it was me who asked for the reassessment, only at that stage, a few days ago, did you offer to 'help' improve my article. The new article you created in your Sandbox, then only remains there for 1 day before you either lose the content or publish it - hardly enough time for me to discuss my objections about your new proposal to remove my article. To replace my article when you have not even finished reading Tunnels is ridiculous - surely any author on Wikipedia should at least have read the novel first, not sure how that can meet your verifiable Notability standards! That aside I have already correctly embarrassing errors concerning incorrect publishing dates and versions, wrong character and place names like Stynx and Hightail (not a one off). Others that come to mind include: The official publication date for the US Tunnels was January 2008 - it might have been that copies were available on Amazon earlier than that date, but that often happens in the UK and US. Nearly all territories have gone on to publish Deeper, and only a handful haven't yet published Freefall (mainly due to their own financial difficulties, and not because the performance of the series hasn't merited it!) - you can check this on the publishers website http://www.doublecluck.com/rights. The authors changed the title with Barry Cunningham - this article makes it sound as though he did it off his own back! There are two versions of the audiobook in the UK (the Davenport one is abridged), and also the American and German unabridged versions. Chester isn't "about to killed" under SETTING - he is sentenced to go into the Interior! The Plot emphasis is all wrong and does not give a true insight into the overall storyline. The Setting and Plot areas you have changed are so badly written - and I am well aware of my own average writing abilities, but in comparison this new version lacks significant maturity. References to the Highfield Mole are confusing. Barry is now Barry Cunningham OBE, and there's no question that he signed JK Rowling for her first two Harry Potter books whilst he was employed by Bloomsbury. I would like my article reinstated and with your expert help and support I would like to improve and expand my sources, and thus improve my own knowledge of Wikipedia article standards. My priority is not, however, achieving GA status at the expense of diminished quality or informative reading. I do have the support of the UK fansite team on this. The authors have often been kind enough to verify and supply content for my article. Following my notification about your changes, they have emailed me their confirmation that they would also like to see the original version restored. I await your response. Thanks (Lifesawhirl (talk) 14:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC))
 * FYI, I would like to direct you to WP:Ownership. This is certainly not your article, and if you have problems with the content, re-add the information with properly cited references. If you have difficulty with citation formatting, you might want to add RefToolbar 2.0 by going to your User Preferences under the Gadgets tab and clicking on the appropriate box.
 * Also, you mention the support of the Authors and fan site, I direct you to WP:COI, WP:Fan analysis and Fancruft, all of which provide good advice in this case. Remember, it doesn't matter what kind of support you have, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, therefore material is included based on WP:Verifiability. Please make as many verifiable changes as you can without decimating the referenced material already present, Sadads (talk) 14:29, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I did not finish the novel so for the parts I did not read I replaced with YOUR OWN WORK. Much of the last paragraph is your own writing, especially the epilogue part. As for the title change, it was a quote from the authors themselves. I am not insulted by saying my writing is bad, as I am aware of that. I was about to go through with a wp:copyedit of the article when you undid all of my changes just to take change the 200 to 2,000. As for that, it was the sources fault, not mine. As, for publication dates, the information that was provided by the sources was confusing, I admit, I was relieved to see you change that for me. I apologize for the plot and setting mistakes I made, but it is not your right to criticize me for what I am not good at. The previous summary was too long (see WP:PLOT) and I shortened it keeping only the important plot elements. Also, the foreign editions sectino took me an hour because of the launguage. Thank you for the link, it will make things much easier. Also, please see WP:Ownership. Thank you. Derild  49  21  ☼  14:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

My only interest is in reporting an accurate, informative and interesting article! It is not acceptable for you to completely remove my article, which you have save a few lines here and there, but even then the overall context has been changed. You have requested I do not decimate your article, which I have no intention of doing, but I will be reinstating my text and I will utilise your extended sources. As Wikipedia Children's Literature assessors and experienced authors on here, I feel your willingness to overide my credible efforts with an inferior article and your lack of support very much goes against the ethos of Wikipedia! (Lifesawhirl (talk) 15:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC))
 * Again, please refrain for the "my article" mentality. There is no ownership of articles on Wikipedia.
 * Additionally, the old version of the article was too plot heavy, had character sections that were unnecessary (because the characters were introduced in the plot, see WP:Plot about these issues) and had WP:Original research in the themes section. These certainly did not make the article better, though I agree your prose was better than what was added to the article, Sadads (talk) 15:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, is it the writing style because looking back at your previous article, the information there is almost identical to what I have except for the fact I have organized the informatin better. With the article as it is now with the changes you have made, I would like to know what parts are not to your liking? Thank you. Derild  49  21  ☼  15:13, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

We are on a talk page, hence my reference to “my article” is purely for the purposes of identifying which version we are discussing!! I am happy to merge the characters within the plot, but feel that would unnecessarily extend that section and appear clunky to read. I don't disagree that the plot was too long. In my experience people like a separate section summarising each character, just as in this current Wikipedia article Skulduggery Pleasant!!. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skulduggery_Pleasant If Wikipedia is too restrictive and values style over content then it risks alienating volunteers like myself. A number of observations the authors made, include: the "Concept and Development" section appears to draw heavily on the first reference (an article from AbeBooks) - this wasn't the most accomplished article published back in 2007, the authors were never actually interviewed by the journalist, although it certainly doesn't give this impression. Although I included this as a source, I did not refer to this heavily. And there are many errors in the new Wikipedia page - the date for the US hardback release is wrong - and the syntax is clunky throughout - "Gordon's wife suggested for them to write a children's book" is one of many examples I could give. And under "Sales", "the had and an initial 100,000 print" - sic - and does the writer mean "print run". Moreover the reference cited is for the US edition, not for the UK one. Under "Foreign editions", the Polish publishers' interactive game was based solely on the first book, and there are only three overseas publishers shown as having released Freefall! My observations above also stand (Lifesawhirl (talk) 15:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC))
 * Please, Be bold and make changes, but remember WP:Verifiability. If issues with what you add come up, we will certainly discuss it here on the talk page, Sadads (talk) 15:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Let me give you an example when a long plot is relevant, see the GA Quicksilver (novel) the plot is long because the book contains over 1100 pages and such an intricate plot, that analysis of themes would be almost impossible without it. However, notice how the characters section is condensed to make up for that long plot, Sadads (talk) 16:07, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for that. I still like the Skulduggery Pleasant page, but I don't suppose that is a format you would like me to follow!! I will look at the Tunnels article again and continue to utilise verifiable sources in the new version. This will take me a few days, but this is the only way forward for me. (Lifesawhirl (talk) 16:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC))


 * If there are mistakes, please go and correct them! I am not used to writing an article with so much information as my previous projects were on less well known books! Please WP:Be bold and fix any mistakes that I happen to make! I know my prose and writing is not that good. Also, I can not read all the languages on the websites I used as sources, thank you for that great source, please help cleanup the article and make changes. Also, I found Abebooks from the list of references you used yourself so please do not criticize it! Derild  49  21  ☼  16:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I said above that I did refer to the AbeBooks article, but it wasn't my prominant source. I did not criticise this, if you re-read my response above you will see that this was an observation that the authors have made, although I do agree with them! I will correct any mistakes, but in all honesty these should never have been introduced, bearing in mind that you wrote this article to improve upon the previous version. (Lifesawhirl (talk) 17:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC))
 * Ok, sorry for the misunderstanding, but why do you assume that just because I said I will improve the article, everything will be perfect? Like everyone else, I am only human and bound to make mistakes. In fact, except for some confusing parts of publication history and a few parts of the plot I believe I have improved the article. Now let's put his behind us and improve the article. Derild  49  21  ☼  17:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Amen!Sadads (talk) 17:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I made no assumptions about it being perfect and I will not be drawn into chirlish arguments. However, introducing fundamental errors about the book, publishing history etc. is not acceptable if you are going to remove an existing article which importantly was fundamentally sound (but yes with improvement in the layout)! As I have always maintained in these discussions my priority is to ensure we have an interesting, informative and accurate article. (Lifesawhirl (talk) 18:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC))
 * Ok, I understand. Now, would you mind going through the plot, fix any inaccuracies, and improve the general writing? After that we can go through the article section by section and fix up the article to both our likings. Ok? Derild  49  21  ☼  20:03, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Let me see if I understand this; the previous Tunnels page, which was factually correct and well written (although it required more attributable references, and the plot section was too long), is one day swopped out for a whole new page in which the prose is far from polished and the factual content decidedly wide of the mark. Then the compiler of this new page suggests to the compiler of the old page that he/she work on his/her effort! I must be missing something here. Is there some hierachial distinction within Wikipedia where some users are more equal than others? Can I remind you - and I quote - "No article is owned by its creator or any other editor, or is vetted by any recognized authority". So why not go back to the previous content which I had the pleasure of seeing evolve over a period of several years, and then Derild4921 can work on this with Lifesawhirl to make it GA worthy? If other followers of this page feel that there has been an infringement of the Wikipedia guidelines - as I do - then we should lodge a request for an investigation. Tantrumi (talk) 23:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No offense to Lifeswhirl by this, but the previous article as you described it was well and factually correct with a long plot. However, it was very poorly organized, and missing a lot of references. I tried to see if I could reorganize it with a few edits. However, I realized that due to the missing references, it would be easier to rewrite. I asked Lifeswhirl to rewrite the plot because he/she(?) has finished the book and can therefore fact check the information. Also, it is hard for myself to fix up my own work. Then Lifewhirl can point out the factual errors as he/she(?) has managed to find better references that I have. There is no hierarchical distinction, it is only that it is evident that Lifeswhirl has better sources for information and better prose skills than I do. Also, in response, the prose is not far from polished or the facts decidedly wide of mark. There are parts of the article that are not very well written, but it is not as bad as you say it is.  Derild  49  21  ☼  23:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

What is preferable for me is to re-write the original version (the one I wrote) of the plot, which I have always intended to clean up a little. Only yesterday after these discussions have I now been asked to re re-write the current plot and correct the factual errors. Which is to say is rather irritating and considerably more work than tweaking the original version. As I said above I am prepared to do this as I do not believe the current version offers the best reader experience. Surely the key requirement for any Encyclopaedia should be an accurate representation - over layout! I do absolutely agree with the length and source short comings of the original version. But at no stage was a discussion opened here outlining the improvements needed. Much of yesterdays discussions, in trying to establish why the article I worked so hard on has been replaced by inferior 'content' was an upsetting and quite frankly a rather intimidating experience! Perhaps we should as Tantrumi suggests open an investigation! (Lifesawhirl (talk) 09:14, 18 August 2010 (UTC)).

I have a question for Sadads who kindly posted a link to the larger book where brief character descriptions are deemed appropriate. Bearing in mind a large number of the Tunnels characters appear throughout the current 4 books in the series, totalling several thousand pages, do you think there should be a separate Tunnels 'series' page, containing a brief summary of the characters? Thanks (Lifesawhirl (talk) 09:14, 18 August 2010 (UTC))
 * If you want to reacquire your plot and insert it into the rest of the article, it can be found in the edit history here however, I will warn you, the rest of your old article does not go anywhere near the MOS standards for fiction.
 * As to the response on the series, the answer is: do the book reviews and other sources treat the series as a well developed overarching narrative? If so then yes their should be a central series page or the author's page should deal with the series as a whole (in this case I think a series page would be better because their are two authors, and how do you decide who's page covers the series?). Remember though, it needs to meet notability standards, which means reviews and other sources ought to deal with the series as a whole. I think some of the publication history in this article ought to go into a series page.Sadads (talk) 11:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary break
Lifesawhirl, I think it might be time to enter into Wikipedia's dispute resolution as it appears that a consensus won't be reached in this situation. Where's the spirit of cooperation here? I find this overt territorialism shocking, and the debate about the "Plot Summary" is a sideshow as everything else on the current Tunnels page now needs to be completely overhauled, which is ludicrous because the previous content was eminently capable of being revised to the requisite standard. Aside from that, Sadads, I think that the central series page is an excellent idea if you truly believe it is merited for these books.Tantrumi (talk) 13:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * IMO, the new page does not need to be "completely overhauled" as you say. Now, I neleive the plot summary is the main problem now. The only part I still am confused about is the audiobooks and why one is much shorter than the other one. I also support a central article as that is done for many of the more popular series. Derild  49  21  ☼  13:56, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * What content was "lost" in the conversion to the "new" version? What sources support that content?  Active  Banana   (  bananaphone  16:04, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Mostly long plot summary and long character information, a little bit of unsourced thematic examination and possibly OR qualifying research on the background of the book (from fan community), Sadads (talk) 16:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It was a being bold moment on the part of User:Derild4921. I have attempted to point out the availability of old content back in from the history to User:Lifesawhirl so that he could remerge some of the information (see last big comment by me). That hasn't been responded to, Sadads (talk) 16:16, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

This hasn't been responded to...yet!! Thanks for the link to old content - this was only 11am this morning. I have already stated above that I will re-work the plot from the original version and that would take me a few days! I will then have to look at the rest of the article to correct the errors as set out above yesterday, unless of course they have since been rectified. You didn't hesitate to remove the old version without discussion, but revising this article with a view to merging the two will take me some time and is still unecessary in my view. Seems there are now others who also prefer the original version! I won't check back on here until tomorrow, as I do have other things to do! I have to say the attitudes of some users on here does nothing to promote or encourage the expansion of Wikipedia.(Lifesawhirl (talk) 18:38, 18 August 2010 (UTC))
 * Not criticizing you, just giving a overview of what the situation was for Active Banana. I have never doubted your good intentions, I can copy edit or review once you feel the merge is off to a good start :)Sadads (talk) 18:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to say, the older version was always available, all you had to do was go to History and look for the version. Also, I have fixed the foreign language parts though the source is a little outdated as France has already released Closer, but the ref says no one has. Finally, when Lifeswhirl gets back, can you please explain why there are two version of the audiobook? Thank you for yuor work. Derild  49  21  ☼  18:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I just posted on my talk page:

Answer: Yes of course. I want these pages to contain the best content and fit with Wikipedia style guidelines. As I mentioned on the discussion pages I will look at the plot. I can start this today, but I do like to take my time. I didn't get chance to get back on last week, an unplanned medical and hospital trip came up. I will provide that info you asked for on the audiobooks. I am not very experienced at using the Wikipedia coding, so some help would be great. I'd like to get around to doing a series page - a bit like the 'Mortal engines Quartet' - this may or may not be a good example to follow, but that is the type of page I think the Tunnels series is ready for. I already have character information ready for that. (Lifesawhirl (talk) 10:39, 23 August 2010 (UTC))
 * A better model is what we are currently polishing at Warriors (novel series), it is going through GA review right now, and though it needs a little plot and set trimming, it is getting pretty close to our ideal ratio of real world to fictional,Sadads (talk) 13:23, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Note to Active Banana; some really great editing, but a thought re your deletion of detail on Barry Cunningham and your "fame by association" comment. One of the main reasons the first book received so much media attention at launch and why it was picked up by so many publishers worldwide was because Cunningham went on record (see the press from 2007 and 2008 in the tunnelsdeeper.com archive) with comparisons with the HP series. My view is that context is lost if this piece of information is disregarded. So it's not so much "fame by association", but an underlying and important factor in the early success of the book. And perhaps Cunningham, who is so prominent in children's publishing (for which he's recently received an OBE) and responsible not just for the HP books, but also the Cornelia Funke Inkheart series, should have his own Wikipedia page? I'd initiate this, but don't know how to go about it.Tantrumi (talk) 12:30, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Find a third party source that makes that connection. WP:OR. Active Banana   ( bananaphone  12:36, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Active Banana, here are a handful: http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/news/publisher-of-harry-potter-to-reveal-next-big-thing-452604.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture//3666582/Who-will-be-the-next-Harry.html http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/movies/have-we-dug-up-new-potter/story-e6frfmvr-1111113737650  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1554717/Will-this-book-be-the-next-Harry-Potter-.html Tantrumi (talk) 17:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Second merger proposal
I don't see why this wasn't merged to begin with. Unless there is sufficient scholarship to bring each article up to quality, it seems that the changing editions would be crucial in understanding the topic as whole, not dealt with seperately Sadads (talk) 03:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I see some information can be used in the Hightail Mole, but without sources we can't add it. Derild  49  21  ☼  00:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Why are they separate though? Alot of the information seems to be repeated. I would merge the few reviews and little background information on Hightail Mole into the Concept Development and Publication History sections, no?Sadads (talk) 00:24, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Not sure, I think it was just created like that. The information can be used, but we're going to need to find the sources. Derild  49  21  ☼  00:26, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep, definitely don't want to diminish the quality of this article, Sadads (talk) 00:33, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't merged because The Highfield Mole is available as a novel in it's own right, with a history quite different to that of Tunnels. The purpose of the original re-write of this page was to shorten the previous version. Therefore in my view there isn't enough room to merge all the information onto this page and do The Highfield Mole justice. Tunnels isn't merely a re-name of The Highfield Mole - and it is not called the HighTAIL Mole! This merger issue was raised before and duly closed after a suitable consulation period, please leave it as such. (Lifesawhirl (talk) 15:37, 1 October 2010 (UTC))

I'm reviewing Tunnels for GA and I too feel these articles should be merged. Some Highfield Mole material is simply duplicated here. Apparently Highfield Mole was edited and released as Tunnels but to what extent we don't know. A comparison of the original edition with the revised edition (from reliable sources) would be appropriate in the Highfield Mole article. What needs to be said about Tunnels can be said in a few paragraphs as a separate section in the Highfield Mole article. Tunnels doesn't warrant a separate article. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 08:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

The Highfield Mole merge
As far as I can tell, everyone seems to agree that the pages should be merged, with the exception of one editor who is firmly against it. I'm taking that as rough consensus and BOLDly performing the merger, since the tags have been up for two years and I doubt a unanimous decision will ever be reached. It does make sense, as far as I'm concerned, to have all this information in one article; its original run as The Highfield Mole is part of the publication history of Tunnels, and it's more useful to the reader for it to be presented as such. I've trimmed some of the stuff about signed copies and special editions purely because I can't see how it would fit into this article (and it's unreferenced), but the information's still there in The Highfield Mole page history if anyone wants to add it. DoctorKubla (talk) 20:50, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Tunnels (novel). 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090107001236/http://arts.independent.co.uk/books/news/article2643028.ece to http://arts.independent.co.uk/books/news/article2643028.ece
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090206154622/http://www.fantasticfiction.co.uk/edition/?isbn=0439871778 to http://www.fantasticfiction.co.uk/edition/?isbn=0439871778
 * Added tag to http://catalog.dclibrary.org/vufind/Record/ocn123539243/Reviews
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110716054200/http://www.recordedbooks.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=rb.show_prod&book_id=78110&prod_id=CR731&consumer to http://www.recordedbooks.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=rb.show_prod&book_id=78110&prod_id=CR731&consumer
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120825232200/http://www.relativitymediallc.com/News.aspx?pid=3d395c45-a48e-4cef-84e4-9d21012f05c3 to http://www.relativitymediallc.com/News.aspx?pid=3d395c45-a48e-4cef-84e4-9d21012f05c3

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:33, 26 June 2017 (UTC)