Jump to content

Talk:Allspark

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Hasbro Studios)

Removals

[edit]

JSH-alive, Background is just that background not history. It has to do with the fact that people might come to this article and expect to find something about the previous Clue movie that they saw and that Hasbro Films is currently trying to develop. It even states what you keep on claiming that I am missing that "You really don't understand the situation! Hasbro had nothing to do with that Cluedo film of 80s. Hasbro bought Waddingtons and Parker Bros. later than that!" Second, with your reversals you are removing new sourced information. Third, this article is not about Studio B Productions so no need to go into a length note about Studio B Production being acquired by DHX in 2007 when the production they are working on begins in 2007. A wikilink in this case is all that is needed. Fourth, no need to continue to removing history section to make other short sections. --Spshu (talk) 14:58, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My Little Pony: Equestria Girls

[edit]

My Little Pony: Equestria Girls as per the source is being done by Hasbro Studios, not Hasbro Films. Quote is included in the cite.Spshu (talk) 14:39, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no indication via a source at the article that there is a proposed spin TV show. Plus, a proposed show until green lit should not show on this article. --Spshu (talk) 16:37, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DreamWorks Hasbro merger

[edit]

Given that the merger between DreamWorks and Hasbro was only in the discussion phase, there is no need to mention on a Hasbro unit two levels down, Hasbro Films, given there is no information on how that would impact that unit. --Spshu (talk) 14:49, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tonka movie

[edit]

The Tonka movie has not had any news about be abandoned. [Movie Insider indicates that it is still exists as a TBA. Spshu (talk) 20:07, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Demands in edit summary to Hasbro to cancel the movie is not proof of cancellation. Spshu (talk) 20:13, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This particular vandal has been around for several years, rebooting long dead shows, cancelling films, etc. The IPs change fast enough that WP:RBI is the only real option, with occasional page protection. - SummerPhDv2.0 22:52, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@SummerPhDv2.0:, I figured as much but I have a wiki-stalker that might attempt to report me for edit warring over this. Yes, I have pointed out that the editor is stalking me to no avail on his several 3RR reports, so I have to drop it or they may just use it against me. And I did request page protection at RfPP. Spshu (talk) 14:32, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Joshua Raymond Hahn: It IS. Now take a look at this on Tonka: Revision history. It says "(Reverted 2 edits by 98.109.85.239 (talk): Revert... Old news, no apparent forward movement on this project. (TW))". NOW, call off the Tonka movie, YOU UNDERSTAND ME? DO NOT PUT IT BACK.
Sorry, but that isn't enough proof as that has been reversed. Spshu (talk) 19:12, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Until new information crops up, if and when that ever happens, I see no reason to keep this information in the article. ElectricBurst(Electron firings)(Zaps) 19:29, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

←The movie could have been place in turn around but just not announced. Give it another year for an announcement, if none then I will remove it (if no objections).Spshu (talk) 20:17, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding from entertainment news sources i.e. Variety, Hollywood Reporter etc... is that Adam Sandler has left Sony Pictures Entertainment mostly because of conflicts that he had with some of the executives over some emails that those executives sent to each other which was leaked on Wikileaks calling him a pre-madonna and costs related to his use of the corporate jet. He has apparently signed a new deal to move his production shingle over to Netflix. So all I can say is it seems that the production is just as dead as my grandma but until there is an official release announcing such I think it should stay in the article. YborCityJohn (talk) 05:08, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's just about been a year, and still no news about this movie still being in production. I'm removing it per Spshu, and it can be added when, and if, news comes out that this movie still exists. SkyWarrior 20:57, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article splitting between Hasbro Studios and Hasbro Films

[edit]

I've read the page but it's causing more confusion when these two pages are together into one. So my best suggestion is one article about Hasbro Studios and another article about Hasbro Films. Thank you. Fusionem (talk) 12:47, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The major problem is that Hasbro Films was not significantly covered in major articles thus doesn't meet notability. These articles stressed Hasbro, Universal or Hasbro Studios. I back into finding out about the films group when Hasbro Film Group was place under Hasbro Studios. Had to then backtrack the unit via Bennett Schneir and his appointment as an executive in charge of films as the media rarely called it Hasbro Films (ran across its logo in a "about Hasbro" PDF file) or Hasbro Film Group. Which ties back to its Universal six film pack deal. Of course after being placed under Hasbro Studio, even less is said plus then its financing-production label, Allspark Pictures, is mention more after its creation. --Spshu (talk) 16:18, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hasbro Studios. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 02:14, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Licenced Anime

[edit]

Why would you remove anime in Hasbro Studios? Hasbro had licenced some Anime. But they removed it. Why?

Here's the list of licensed anime to follow:‎ PascalMuganyizi (talk) 00:30, 30 May 2018

<removed>
Why, because none of it was produced by Hasbro Studios. Hasbro may have licenses for the toys, but that doesn't mean Hasbro's production arm, Hasbro Studios had any thing to do with the production. You are even listing shows that exist before Hasbro Studios even existed (back to Jetix). Spshu (talk) 12:22, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where to stick Power Rangers?

[edit]

Super Ninja Steel is airing this year, but Hasbro didn't have anything to do with actually making it, it's already in the can. Beast Morphers is in pre-production right now, and apparently PR is going to be under Allspark Pictures going forward.--Aresef (talk) 22:10, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Aresef: @The Nateman:, @BWTF96: - At this point naming Hasbro Studio or Allspark as Power Rangers Beast Morphers's production company is speculation (WP:NOTSPECULATION) which we cannot do. Saban Brands/Capital would have already arranged for who every is producing the season (perhaps SCG Power Rangers LLC). The sale of the Power Rangers and the other IP has not been finalized yet any ways. Just mention the potential purchase in history (and likely future production) is enough for now. Spshu (talk) 20:22, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
p@Spshu: I was basing it off the twitter feed of Melissa Flores, late of Saban, who is director of Power Rangers Development and Production for Allspark. The sale has been finalized and nearly everyone at Saban Brands has been laid off. Hasbro took control of SCG Power Rangers (and therefore Power Rangers Productions), and both Hasbro and SCGPR are mentioned in copyright language related to the show. I get you though, Beast Morphers isn't out yet and we don't know what the credits will look like. Allspark might have a role like Disney, where they signed the checks but it was BVS Entertainment on paper. I agree, though, a mention might suffice for now.Aresef (talk) 18:33, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Allspark Pictures is Hasbro's film financing and producing arm. Hasbro indicated a possibly that they might do a feature film. One cannot there for draw the conclusion that Allspark Pictures is producing Beast Morphers. Spshu (talk) 12:40, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Licenced Anime

[edit]

Will it be okay to do licenced Anime for 2010 and beyond? Some of the shows are still licenced by the same toy company & studio PascalMuganyizi (talk) 21:59, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is for those works done by Hasbro Studios and its units. What anime show that Hasbro has the license for toys is irrelevant to this article. Spshu (talk) 23:49, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 29 March 2019

[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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Reverted: this requested move was filed on the same day as the undiscussed move and as such a request to revert to restore the status quo could have been filed at WP:RMT. No prejudice against speedy renomination for a discussion about implementing the original change. (closed by non-admin page mover) SITH (talk) 14:24, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Allspark (company) → Hasbro Studios – Name change has not been verify nor found to be the common name. Just because Hasbro Studios' website name is current allspark.hasbro.com is not enough to determine that is its common or even current name. This could a temporary site, while a permanent site (studios.hasbro.com or hasbrostudios.com perhaps) is redone. The about page on the current website is titled "About Hasbro Studios" and the head of the studio's bio still has him leading Hasbro Studios while co-superivising Allsparks Pictures. Basic the prior move from Hasbro Studios to Allspark (company) is premature. Spshu (talk) 18:04, 29 March 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 20:17, 10 April 2019 (UTC)--Relisting. B dash (talk) 02:15, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, the name change is real.
--Angel135 (talk) 19:08, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, the editor that changed it included a "Citation needed" inline tag, so the did it on the change in url only. The editor had no source nor did I. Here on WP, whether it is "real" is not the point, you must have a source. There was NO source added to the article and you do know that tfw2005.com is a fan site and twitter is not official. On top of that, the apparently fictions "Hasbro Trinity".
Note that I tag the article as under construction. Its legal name is still Hasbro Studios, LLC. I use the incorrect field for the trade name (used trade_name= instead of the correct trading_name=), so stop with the tantrum reverts. Spshu (talk) 22:27, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Spshu, not everything is going to be changed right away, but we have multiple sources that the name change has happened at this point. You seem to have a obsession with keeping things the same all the time. If anyone's having "tantrum reverts" , its you. Is change nonexistent in your head? Plus, even though the legal name is still Hasbro Studios doesn't mean the page should still be named that. It's more easier for the user to find this page if it's under the title that the company markets by. HurricaneGeek2002 (talk) 22:16, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do not oppose it any more, can you read and comprehend? WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL. Source above were provided AFTER the move occur. Learn the order of events. You don't come here an attack some one for acting the way a good WP editor should act. "Is change nonexistent in your head?" Any you get this from what? You were running around shoe horning Fox Entertainment Group with out knowing just because it was previously 20th Century Fox's parent unit. They were ripping out that the legal name is Hasbr3o Studios, nor did I say "the page should still be named that". Spshu (talk) 17:41, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1. I was waiting for a SOURCE to come out before we listed FOX EG as defunct. Now that we have a confirmation, we can list it as defunct.

2. "A good way a WP editor should act" You've been blocked NINE times. The most recent one was late last year. And most of them are for edit warring. I'm not even sure why you're bringing this up when this is completely overrated. I don't care how much "experience" you have because it clearly isn't showing. Also, WP:CRYSTAL doesn't apply here at all. I wasn't even "attacking" you, I was giving you some constructive criticism. But honestly, that doesn't matter anymore at this point. By that logic, you're technically "attacking" me as well. Also, I could barely understand you, as you've made several grammar mistakes. HurricaneGeek2002 (talk) 17:03, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  1. There was no SOURCE for Fox EG as defunct. You claimed I did it. The SOURCE just shows head of which unit reported to who and it was already available.
  2. Then WP:GOODFAITH which you did not do in your prior post nor you bring up blocks, so your lack of experience. Edit war is a side of effect of administrators effectively are chosen to allow edit wars to go on. It is show and you are not aware since you have not got the experience. CRYSTAL DID apply here as you cannot do the name change until you have the sources. Which was the case as explain twice to you. What constructive criticism did you give? If you think you gave any - think again. You have not said any thing to show you have any knowledge of what is going on. You can not understand do to grammar mistakes - a smart person can understand people despite them. Spshu (talk) 18:16, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I never said I was a experienced user. Number two, you couod've said there was no source before but did you? No. Also, I'm pretty sure I did give crticisim. I don't think your worth talking to anymore, so I'm ending this here. HurricaneGeek2002 (talk) 23:48, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Um I did say that there was no source: "Name change has not been verify". Sources are used to verify. There for, I indirectly said there was no source. Spshu (talk) 20:34, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But it still WILL confuse the reader. It’s much better to go by the name the company uses in its marketing than it’s legal name. This eliminates confusion. By the “legal naming” logic, Nintendo would be named Nintendo Co. Ltd. HurricaneGeek2002 (talk) 18:12, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there is a source of the name change on the article itself. The site hasn’t fully been updated yet because the change just took place. You can’t use a outdated website as proof that a name change hasn’t occurred. HurricaneGeek2002 (talk) 18:18, 17 April 2019 (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.

Hasbro Films

[edit]

What happened to the list of feature films? Brian K. Tyler (talk) 23:46, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. I fixed the problem. Brian K. Tyler (talk) 23:53, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fansites

[edit]

I have noticed a lot of editors are trying to add these into the article. Please do NOT use fan sites as sources on this page. They aren't reliable sources as they aren't written by a recognized authority and have a tendency to not cite what they report sometimes, which can lead to incorrect information. If there's apparent news about the future of an Allspark property/product and only the fan site is reporting it, don't add it until a reliable source does so. HurricaneGeek2002 talk 14:28, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Allspark being folded into EOne?

[edit]

I have noticed on most news at Hasbro (For example, the new Dungeons and Dragons movie was originally going to be done by Allspark before being folded into EOne), Allspark wasn't mentioned at all. Mariossentry (talk) 08:19, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Allspark was folded into Entertainment One- which is Hasbro's media division.84.203.96.107 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:05, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, as we have no source. It could be the other way around. Spshu (talk) 20:35, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If Allspark is being folded into eOne, does that mean all upcoming feature films will drop it's Allspark logo? Brian K. Tyler (talk) 20:40, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does it mean Hasbro will no longer do it’s movie business in the United States? Brian K. Tyler (talk)

My Little Pony: Pony Life

[edit]

How do you know Allspark has no involvement in making "Pony Life"? Brian K. Tyler (talk) 07:40, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Allspark Animation is not listed in the credits. And you have Boulder Media making the announcement. So, it was up to you to show that Allsparks Animation is involved. --Spshu (talk) 17:36, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it’s logo will show up when it airs in the US. Brian K. Tyler (talk) 01:44, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Maybe" isn't proof. Hastro Studios LLC is (or was - as could be the holding company for eOne now or just an IP holder) Allspark not necessarily its Allspark Animation division. The Twitter account is not official and the EW.com gives nothing of note. Spshu (talk) 12:48, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Website

[edit]

What happened to the original Allspark/Hasbro Studios website? Why was it replaced with the link to the Entertainment One website?Austin012599 (talk) 21:20, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hasbro moved their entertainment operations to eOne Family Brands, but Hasbro Studios is not dead + SOURCES

[edit]

Allspark disappeared from the television market this year, that's very clear. Productions that were represented by Allspark in previous editions of the Worldscreen magazine (including Transformers Cyberverse, Power Rangers, MLP: Pony Life, and more) are now represented by eOne Family Brands this year, but also, Allspark got deleted from the Worldscreen website and some of their titles (including series acquired from SCG like Glitter Force, unreleased Allspark titles like Micronauts and finished productions from Allspark like Hanazuki) are now on eOne's library on the website.

Sources: https://twitter.com/PwrRngrSite/status/1311316156804988934 https://worldscreen.com/worldscreenings/screening/?screening_id=1475

Even so, Hasbro Studios, LLC continues to exist, as they continue to be the shareholder of Power Rangers Productions, LLC and eOne's Darren Throop is now officially a manager of Hasbro Studios, LLC.

Source: https://opencorporates.com/companies/nz/2494848 https://app.companiesoffice.govt.nz/companies/app/ui/pages/companies/2494848/detail https://opencorporates.com/companies/us_ri/000509966

But there is no proof that Allspark Pictures and Allspark Animation are producing anything in 2020. Hasbro no longer mentions Allspark Pictures and Allspark Animation in their press releases like they did before, now they only mention eOne. For that I don't need a source, just search Hasbro's Investor website and compare releases.

Anyway, it would be very difficult to put all that in the Wikipedia article, but in conclusion, Hasbro Studios is still active as a company, but the Allspark labels are no longer being used in Hasbro productions and are no longer representing Hasbro in the market of television. --Angel135 (talk) 20:12, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately links to Hasbro Studios redirects here. This article was full of "was a" without much effort being put into current status or anything about the demise of these "was a" entities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.72.40.86 (talk) 20:21, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly happened on October 9, 2020

[edit]

I carefully took a look at the Kidscreen report "eOne takes the reins on Hasbro’s content efforts" dated October 9, 2020, and I couldn't find any mention that Allspark was absorbed into eOne starting that date. Correct me if I'm wrong as English is not my native language, and yes, the report was published on October 9, 2020, but it only mentions how Hasbro and eOne have been collaborating since the completion of the former's take over of the latter in December 2019 and during (and despite) the COVID-19 pandemic. There's no mention of the fate of Allspark (f.k.a. Hasbro Studios) as a company. If what I've read is right, then the relevant mentions at Allspark (company)#Entertainment One era (2020–2023) and Entertainment One#Sale to Hasbro need to be corrected. JSH-alive/talk/cont/mail 09:34, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

JSH-alive, RfCs should have a clear goal in mind (i.e. a specific change), but this one lays out an issue you have with the two articles, without proposing a solution. Because of that, I've removed the RfC template. SWinxy (talk) 01:49, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 21 June 2024

[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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

– Looking at the "Allspark" DAB page, I have executed a self-thought that the Transformers character bearing this name and the entry at the "See also" section can be incubated into a hatnote at this title's main/article page. The disambiguator is unnecessary. I would have listed this at WP:RMTR, but instigated an RM instead due to the numerous RMs on this very page in the past and the tendency of a WP:PCM arising at RMTR should I have listed it there. Intrisit (talk) 08:23, 21 June 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 08:58, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject California, WikiProject Film/American cinema task force, WikiProject California/Los Angeles area task force, WikiProject Companies, WikiProject Animation/American animation work group, WikiProject Animation, WikiProject Film/Filmmaking task force, WikiProject Television, WikiProject United States, WikiProject Television/American television task force, and WikiProject Film have been notified of this discussion. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 08:58, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Intrisit. You may want to fix Deleted to make way for move above. Did you mean Allspark (disambiguation)? –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:46, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the fixing the second RM consideration, No, because I'm firm and justified with what I put in there for a possible action! Besides and by the way, the page at the title you mentioned (Allspark (disambiguation)) must (not even should) be non-existent by now; I call for its deletion, if possible the "Allspark (company)" title post-RM-move/post-RM-non-move be either deleted or moved without leaving a redirect behind, since you're an admin. I could even argue this page is this title's PRIMARYTOPIC if you studied then and now the page histories of the pages/entries on all Wikimedia and Google statistical metrics. Intrisit (talk) 18:48, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. It was confusing and I couldn't tell what you meant until you explained it. In that case, I would recommend changing it to Allspark (disambiguation), then WP:BLARing or WP:AFDing that page if this RM closes in your favor. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:51, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tweaked the second by your recommend(ation) – (I wanted close to a rhyme with that line there). Anyway, that could mean that the "Allspark (disambiguation)" title could be a CSD G14 candidate, as post-RM it could be targeting an article or non-DAB page, which could make AFD a bit unnecessary to venture into with this, not to mention and never mind BLAR. Intrisit (talk) 19:11, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My recommendation is that #2 should be Allspark -> Allspark (disambiguation). "Deleted to make way for move" is what confused me in the beginning and that seems non-standard for RMs. Hope that makes sense. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:46, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, unambiguous. 162 etc. (talk) 18:32, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sure you'll or may agree with me ever since this Allspark name over from Hasbro Studios came comparable to the currently non-existent article on the Transformers character using the same name that this page is this title's PRIMARYTOPIC?! And that DAB page shouldn't have existed in the first place? Intrisit (talk) 18:51, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

@Paine Ellesworth: I'm not advocating or pushing for a move review of this, but I thought I made it clear that the DAB page must be deleted, because the entries in there are in a hatnote which 162 etc. removed as this RM wasn't closed then, which I've now reverted. In short, please delete the DAB page. Thanks. Intrisit (talk) 09:05, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Intrisit: yes, the dab page, Allspark (disambiguation), will be deleted if no other entries are added to the page. That's the purpose of the {{One other}} template installed at the top of the page. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 09:19, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS Please do not use the "Deleted to make way for a move" phrase nor list a redirect as a current title in any future move requests, because the bot sees these as reasons to list the RM as a "malformed request". P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 09:23, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the hatnote 162 etc. removed because I inserted it prior to the closure of the RM above and per WP:NAMB. @Novem Linguae:, since you're an admin, can you please delete the Allspark DAB page as redundant? Because what ever made it a DAB page at first is now incubated in this topic's page's hatnote. Or I can list a CSD G14 on it for it to be deleted? Intrisit (talk) 15:31, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed it again. All Sparks is not known as "Allspark" in any sources. "Allspark" is also only trivially mentioned at Transformers. This is un unambiguous title. 162 etc. (talk) 16:39, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Allspark&oldid=1231677273"