Talk:Guinness World Records/Archive 1

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

Miscellaneous record breakers

I removed the section on "miscellaneous record breakers" as it will necessarily be incomplete: if it weren't, we'd be duplicating the book. So how to select entries for it? Funny records? Important records? What's important? Many of the records will probably not be considered encyclopedic by some—for example, who grew the not in an article about the Book, but in a separate article, if anything. -- pne 14:22, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

First edition

I seem to recall reading that the first edition was originally distributed free-of-charge to pubs as a gimmick, and only printed for sale in bookshops when Guinness noticed that large numbers of publicans were looking for replacements for stolen copies. Any truth in this? Joestynes 09:36, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

I have a copy of the first edition (1955)and it was suplied to my grandfathers pup, free of charge. It does have a order form for the next issue included, at a price of 5 shilings Sterling now would be 25p —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.159.107.222 (talk • contribs)

Timing

So many records of guiness are based on timing? I know this might seem like a trivial question but what watch is used to time these records? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.65.136.88 (talk • contribs)

It depends on what kind of "timing" is pertinent. If it's a speed-based record (for example, fasting 100 meter sprint), a stopwatch is used. For others, I don't know the exact instrument used, but I'm pretty sure computer software can replicate it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dstebbins (talk • contribs) 05:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

That plant

So what is "the most poisonous plant"? The Deadly nightshade is the obvious choice, but its page claims to be "one of the most toxic in the western hemisphere." Is there something worse in the eastern hemisphere? Ojw 20:11, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

This page[1] seems to suggest Ricin. This doesn't appear to be one of the selected records taht they make public on the Guinness World Records website. -- Bovineone 18:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Easy records

I just read in a news article about the record for continuous movie watching. It is only 53 hours! If someone were ever ambitious enough to do this, they could easily do it. Croat Canuck 15:06, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

So what's stopping you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.207.25.194 (talk • contribs)

The problem with this is... is there anyone willing to go through the hell to do it? One time, I knew someone who could break a record, but you have to pay for the Guiness Reps' airfare AND room & board, both ways. Also, even if you make it and break the record, you only get your name in the book and a plaque as a trophy. No money, nothing materialistic. I stopped trying to goat this friend into attempting to break the record when I learned about that. Besides, world record holders aren't even that famous; I used to watch the new, color version of I've Got a Secret; all the record holders are people I'd never even heard the names of, so throw sentimental value of breaking a record out the window. All in all, there's no reason to go through the crap they make you go through.Wikieditor1988 (talk) 03:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Screenshot of dodgy break this record

I remember seeing a screenshot of the "break this record" link on a page that was something along the lines of dedliest terror attack or something like that. Anyone know where this image can be found and if its real or not. If we can get some confirmation that it was authentic we should probablly mention it here. Plugwash 02:40, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

I believe that has been confirmed to be an internet hoax, but I'm not positive.--Visual77 03:08, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Budapest isn't in Romania

If you check page 267 of the 2006 edition, it will say that the womens' 4 x 400m relay record was broken in Budapest, Romania. Scott Gall 12:51, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

  • You're right. I saw that error somewhere last week. Nazism isn't cool 12:57, 8 October 2005 (UTC) PS: Anyway, happy birthday Scott, before I forget.
    • I got a copy of the 2006 edition for my birthday, and it had the same error in it as well. 203.167.171.247 11:59, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

They've made many ridiculous assertions about computers over the years too.86.5.107.158 16:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Different editions, grossly different styles

The article says:

The published book has gradually changed in format from a text-heavy reference book, containing many tables, particularly in the sports section, to a colorful book with many photographs highlighting a selection of entertaining records. The change has not been universally popular...

But what this fails to mention is that the hardcover edition has gone much farther down this road than the paperback. Or at least, this was true for the US editions, through the 2005 edition.

I have at hand the 2005 US paperback, from Bantam. It's a normal mass market paperback with a small page size and about 600 pages. Flipping through it, I would say that something like 1/4 of the total paper area is taken up by photos, averaging about one per page. While I think this is a greater use of photos than was the case a few years back, the rest of the book is still text (and some tables) and in pretty much the traditional format. I have not seen the 2006 edition; I don't expect it to exist yet.

The hardcover versions of recent years, on the other hand, now use oversize pages with extensive use of color, including large amounts of text on colored backgrounds -- or at least that's what I remember from looking at them in bookstores. I haven't looked at the 2006 edition, though, and indeed it's been two or three years since I looked at one of the hardcovers at all. (And I've never had the inclination to compare the textual content of one with the paperback; sometimes I wonder if the two editions even list a different set of records.)

This style variation needs to be mentioned in the article, but I don't know enough to write it. I don't know what the non-US editions are like, and I don't even have current information about the US editions. Perhaps other readers could add comments here until there is enough information (at least for the latest US and UK editions).

Also, once this difference is being mentioned, I think it should also be pointed out that although the two editions have diverged far enough that they seem to be aimed at different markets, publication of the paperback is still delayed until months after the hardcover, just as for most other books that appear both ways. Bantam published the 2005 US paperback in May 2005, so it was not available for the Christmas 2004 season as the hardcover was, and as I said, the 2006 one probably isn't out yet.

On another point, the current managing editor should be named in the article. For the 2005 US paperback, that was Claire Folkard.

66.96.28.244 07:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there was ever a UK paperback edition. The UK hardback has always been coffee-table sized (at least since the 1973 edition). I think the new-style hardback is a global edition (hence doesn't include national records, which the old UK edition did for many categories). Maybe for the US paperback Bantam are just using the Guinness brand and database under license? Joestynes 10:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
After doing a little research, it appears that both the Hardcover coffee-table book and the paperback are still in production, including the 2007 edition. I looked it up at Barnes and Noble, and the paperback edition is set to release in May and has 640 pages. http://www.booksamillion.com/ncom/books?id=3674836865339&isbn=055358992X I think this is worth noting in the article, as I was confused and thought the paperback 'reference' edition was no longer produced. - meateebon 21:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move. —Nightstallion (?) 08:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I used to read the 1991 and 1993 Guiness Book of Records when I was a young child and this enhanced my love of statistics, information, and maths etc, and gave me mental stimulation in these areas. From the mid or late 90s and onwards the book lost about 80% of its content, including most of the interesting tables of data and statistics, and turned from a respectable and fascinating reference book to a shameful attempt to sell out commercially. I hope another company sees this opening and writes a book like the versions from the early 90s and earlier. To say the new designs are gimicky is almost not enough. Perhaps they are being aimed at a younger audience now, but I was probably five or six years old when I first read versions of the Guiness Book of Records and in hindsight it was a very good educational book to read, with short enough sections to make it fit a young child's short attention span, and enough statistics, maths, and other information to educate and develop a child's mind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GhoulsNGhosts (talk • contribs) 08:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Page move

  • Support the move. The new name has been official since 1999 and now it is 2006. Georgia guy 17:04, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support plainly evident on the official website.—jiy (talk) 00:29, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support per comments --Lox (t,c) 15:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Citation needed

I don't have a copy of the book, and I need a citation for the Cane Toad article. There is the following claim in the article:

""Prinsen", a specimen kept as a pet in Denmark, is listed by the Guinness Book of Records as the largest recorded specimen, which measures 37cm from snout to vent"

Could someone please look this up, and cite it in the article, or reply here with the appropriate information of the book, to cite it on the page (title, publisher, edition, pages, authors (?) & ISBN). Thanks --liquidGhoul 14:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The Simpsons

The story about Guiness beer is similar to in the simpsons where it is DUFF beer. I think this needs to be noted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnston49er (talk • contribs)

I'm a bit confused about what story. This article is about the Guinness World Records which no longer has any connection to Guinness breweries or Guinness Stout. Also, a quick check on the Guinness page and the Duff page shows no obvious connection between the two either... Nil Einne 03:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
There's a Duff Book of Records mentioned in one of the episodes, I believe. Daibhid C (talk) 16:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Indeed there is, and homer uses it at Moe's to settle bar quarrels, just as the Guinness book was supposedly for. It's a very clear reference. The episode is called "Sweets and sour Marge" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweets_and_Sour_Marge), and included an attempt by the springfieldians to enter the Duff book of records by building a human pyramid. The original plan fail, but they accidentally gain the record as the fattest city in the world in the attempt. This seemed to suit the springfieldians just as well as the original plan, as they were more than happy to have made it into the book Andrimner (talk) 14:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Scantily clad women

The focus on scantily-clad female celebrities has led to complaints from school librarians.

It's not particularly clear what this is referring to? Are there lots of records like largest bust size, largest number of scantily clad females in one photo, etc? Or does Guiness use scantily clad females to help er illustrate their photos of largest tumours, fastest cars and other such stuff? Nil Einne 03:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Looking at Guinness World Records 2008, I don't think the criticism would still hold up anyway. Even for a subject such as "highest earning supermodel" (Gisele Bündchen), the current edition does not use an overly sexy photo of Gisele to illustrate that (she's wearing a long dress and standing at an angle that doesn't display any cleavage). I didn't see any obvious examples in the book of using sexy photos for their own sake. Perhaps the book's photo policy has changed over the last two years. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Merging in Beer Drinking Records

Guinness World Records is easily long enough to absorb the Beer Drinking Records data encyclopedically into the ethical section of the article. -- ∞Wirelain 08:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Edits by 24.106.226.44

I reverted these because it was not stated by 24.106.226.44 which earlier version the edits reverted to, and why the editor thinks it is better. These edits deleted the addition of relevant information citing the sources of my claim that the elevation GWR give for Khardung La is wrong. Viewfinder 10:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

External Links

What is the significance and relevance of the headless chicken link? I believe it should be deleted. Petrosino

Well spotted. Viewfinder 20:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Ethical Concerns

This section needs an edit but I would like to seek agreement first. It currently states in the article that GWR does not track eating and drinking records yet if you follow this link http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/content_pages/record.asp?recordid=56408 you will clearly see that even as recently as 2004 there are new records being set and also this link shows a press release concerning a mass toast as recently as May 30 2006 being acknowledged. http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/06-20-2006/0004383563&EDATE Can we have clarity on this? KsprayDad 03:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I've followed the link you supplied. Apparently this is an "interest" article on the website. The beer drinking feat noted to have occurred in 2001 did not make it's way into the guinness book in that year or subsequently. If you have a recent copy, you will note that there is no section listing eating and drinking records. Apparent Logic 13:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I removed the sentence "Likewise, records related to dangerous stunts are often not published, for example those closely related to freediving," because in my 2005 and 2006 editions it has a whole page devoted to Free Diving and goes into great dept about the records.Thelegendofvix 15:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I have a copy of the 2008 edition, and eating and drinking records have been reincluded into 2 pages. They have one record on the fatest drinking time for ale and beer. Would this be any bit concerning, even if they did limit the amount of liquor used? Chimichimi 00:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Guy who eats planes: lol

my friend and i were talking and he dont belive theres a guy in guiness who eats planes. lol and i was wondering if you guys could tell me his name so i can prove it to him thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.184.167.11 (talk • contribs)

Hi! Serious. You can read about him at [2] and [3]. In the 2006 book (pp26-27) it states that "he has consumed ... a Cessna light aircraft". Personally, I am sceptical about the claims about this guy. GWR may have hyped them for thir entertainment value. I do not think they have been verified beyond all suspicion. Viewfinder 02:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
HAHAHAHAHA Imagine telling a girl at a bar that you eat planes for a living! Excellent!! --Coheed56 (talk) 08:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I recently heard from someone that he died earlier this year after having eaten something which caused his death apparently. Extremely sexy (talk) 16:18, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Doctor Who is the longest running sci fi

Just found out that Guiness World Records does not consider Doctor Who to be the longest running sci fi TV series and awarded to Stargate SG-1 instead. Their justification is that Doctor Who had long production breaks. Even if that is the case SG-1 is nowhere near being the longest running sci fi. Otherwise they are idiots running things at Guinness.--Rachel Mules 05:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

slightly in error actually, The Guiness Book of world Records does list Doctor Who as the "longest running science fiction TV series". It lists Stargate SG-1 as the "longest running science fiction TV series (consecutive)". Doctor Who's 695 episodes between 1963 and 1989 surely make it the longest running "consecutive" SF TV series as well though? Or do Guiness not consider at least one series per year to be "consecutive"? Bob Steele 16:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
According to the BBC website "there will be an exciting development to this story later in the week". Bob Steele 14:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Where is Guinness World records Museum at Surfers Paradise

Last time I went to surfers I did not see any adverts for Guinness World records Museum please provide me with UBD map listing of this Museum? if you refer to Ripleys Believe it or not! than you should list all the Believe it or not! Museums around the world. Adding Surfers paradise to this Wiki is FALSE INFORMATION either list ALL Ripley's or retract Surfers paradise of the list as there is not a Guinness World records Museum at Surfers Paradise —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.43.233.10 (talk • contribs)

A guy ironing? Really?

Is that the best picture of a Guinness World record you could get? I'm sure there is a myriad of better and more representative photos of records being broken! I'm not asking for a gross-out pic or anything, but it would be nice to get at least one that doesn't doze you off! Kreachure 22:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Find it then. While we have photos of other things that have world records, like the CN Tower, the only other attempt is the drinking pic below. -- Zanimum 18:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

RE: Doctor Who vs. Stargate

Just a thought, but couldn't "continuous" be interpreted to mean "continuously broadcast on a weekly basis" as in airing repeats when no new episodes are available? And wasn't there a break in broadcast between Troughton and Pertwee in Doctor Who (circa 1970)? Anyway, can't be too certain unless we hear official word from GWR. DonQuixote 00:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Apparently, this is the correct answer according to GWR via the BBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/news/cult/news/drwho/2006/09/23/36558.shtml). Removing the relevant lines from the article. DonQuixote 01:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Chain letters

Does Guiness have any record for the longest running chain letter? Found one such letter claiming to have begun in 1887. See the link: http://www.breakthechain.org/exclusives/guinness.html 59.183.177.153 21:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC) (Vader1941)

  • I doubt they would compile such records given the difficulty of proving the letter's history. Such letters ought to be discouraged anyway. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

References

In the article itself 1 and 2 are definitely not shown, since their numbering starts with "3": how come? Extremely sexy 16:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

If you click on the carets after the reference numbers, the page will jump to the reference location in the text. At the time of your post the first two references were in the caption for Madonna's photo. Hoof Hearted 16:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, and now still one apparently then. Extremely sexy 00:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Merge from Features of Guinness World Records Books

Please, merge any relevant content from Features of Guinness World Records Books per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Features of Guinness World Records Books. Thanks. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-08 21:44Z

Rarest plant in the world?

The Guinness book 2006 claims that the mandrinette (a Hibiscus) of Mauritius is the rarest plant in the world, with 46 individual plants. But there are much rarer plants - in Australia for example, the rarest is Eucalyptus copulans (Wentworth Falls, NSW) of which there are only 1 or 2 left. Blimmin' heck, where are they getting their data from? --59.167.9.6 00:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Like Wikipedia, Guinness World Records eschews original research, and therefore like Wikipedia, Guinness World Records is frequently wrong. -88.110.37.189 (talk) 18:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The two individual Eucalyptus Capulans you mention were not discovered until after Guiness 2006 was published, before when it was assumed to be extinct. However, this statistic is pretty meaningless anyways, since it is impossible to know how many species presumed extinct actually have one or two living individuals, and it is impossible to know if the Eucalyptus Capulans actually has thousands of other undiscovered individuals.Eebster the Great (talk) 22:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Reliability questions

In my opinion, this entire section is original research. The only entry in this section which has references at all is the L. Ron Hubbard one, and those references fail to mention Guinness at all. I believe that the whole section should be omitted as it is original research; it will surely act as a magnet for additional cruft and OR. Pburka 01:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

At the time when it was added, most of the Reliability Questions section was properly referenced and was not OR. But recently GWR rearranged their on-line records, killing off the appropriate links, therefore I will not contest the deletion. I cannot find the reproduction of the Khardung La falsehood in any current GWR publication, but it was definitely in the on-line version at the time that it was added to this section; the addition was therefore entirely in order. Viewfinder 03:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Shortest river?

This article mentions the Roe River in Montana as being the shortest, but the Roe River article itself mentions that the 2k7 Guinness books does not mention any river as being the shortest. The Roe River article also mentions the "D" River in Oregon, which the Oregon department of parks claims is the worlds shortest as 120 feet. Anyone actually have a copy of the book for verification?

Naznarreb 22:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

See also

This section currently includes the following text: "Ashrita Furman, who once held the record for the most Guinness World Records, a category which is no longer monitored and therefore not an official Guinness World Record."

The way this statement is written it seems to imply that Furman no longer holds a large number of records, when what has changed is not his records, but the policy of Guinness towards them. In fact, he currently holds 65 Guinness World records.

In a book called Guinness World Records to the Extreme published by Scholastic in 2007, there is the following:

"If there is one person in the entire world guaranteed to have a record featured in the yearly edition from Guinness World Records, then it is Ashrita Furman. This is the man who knows how to set and break records - around the world, underwater, or atop his chin, multiple and simultaneous, in categories not even thought about before he made his attempt. He is the MOST PROLIFIC RECORD-BREAKER, with more than 100 records set or broken, and the holder of 38 current records...and he's still going strong!

"Ashrita looks like an average 50-year-old man living in Jamaica, New York. But beneath his everyday exterior beats the heart of a strong-willed, imaginative competitor who holds the MOST INDIVIDUAL RECORDS and has set a different record on every continent!"

It would be more accurate to replace the above-mentioned text with "Ashrita Furman of Queens, NY, who is recognized as the individual with the most current records although Guinness no longer counts having the most records as a Guinness record." Northstar7 17:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Go for it. wikipediatrix 18:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but you mention two different current totals of records for him though: is it 38 or 65, and are you also sure about 157, plus what are your references exactly? Extremely sexy 14:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Museums section unsourced

The whole section on museums is entirely unsourced and smells strongly of original research. I'm quite new to wikipedia but IMHO it should be either sourced, removed or tagged as unsourced.Sboucher 03:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

You are indeed right. Extremely sexy 13:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

web site reorganization

I not that GWR has reorganized its web site and our hundreds of links in other articles pointing to specific World Records based on a simple integer index no longer work: They all come back with 404 Not Found. See [4]--76.221.184.185 05:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Representatives from Guinness

Quite often I read statements like Guinness World Records had a representative in attendance, who confirmed the feat. Does Guinness have some staff who are on salary that travel the globe? Or is this just a notary in the area that is contracted with Guiness for a $50 fee? Some info on these "Guinness representatives" would be helpful. -Rolypolyman 22:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Guinness does have adjudicators that will validate world record attempts. I will try to get some additional details on this. 209.17.183.209 (talk) 17:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


Yes, they have several people that travel the globe to do this. But if you want one there then you have to be willing to pay the company for the service. Of course, you can also break records without them there but it certainly makes it easier to have them judging it then rather than sending in your materials after the fact. So it costs extra but that way you can be certain that the record guidelines were followed and that the record will get accepted. (UTC)BP102

Error on the page... could someone please correct it?

At the bottom of the 4th paragraph of the "Evolution" section it still says that they're owned by "Hit Entertainment but at the bottom of the "History" section it says that HiT subsequently sold Guinness World Records in early 2008 to the Jim Pattison Group. It would probably be a good idea for someone to update this BP102 (talk) 23:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)BP102

Drinking 10.000 ml of beer?

It is not possible for human to drink 10.000ml (10 liters) of beer or any other liquid at once. Human stomach can only expand up to 4 liters! Where did this guy put the remaining 6 liters? And also...in 0.4 sec.? More possible number would be 1.000ml (1 liter). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.61.29.77 (talk) 21:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's true either. And, I don't believe anybody can drink a liter in 1 second! 76.110.82.251 (talk) 23:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

i'm wondering

These days i and my groupmates have to do a presetation about GWR. We want to talk something about GWR more deeply not just introduce it. We want to talk about why the people want to make a record. You know, sometimes the record is very dangerous. It does no good to the people who make the record. So, I'm wondering why they want to make that record... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.62.42.144 (talk • contribs)

Pint Sized Book of Records

I think something should be added to the article about the Guinness Pint Sized Books of Records. These were pamphlets that were given away by pubs to Guinness drinkers in the 1980s as a promotion. If anyone knows, or can find out, when exactly this happened and how many pamphlets there were (I think there were two series, each with various pamphlets detailing records on different subjects) could they add it? Daibhid C (talk)

Evolution subsection

This section is still not neutral. I tried to remove some of the weasel words, but it still needs some work Snailwalker | talk 22:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Redirect to the same page

How come in the Gamer's Edition section, it says main article and then redirects to the same page? I tried to change this and failed. Someone make the internal link red, not a redirect. I don't know how to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NS Zakeruga (talk • contribs)

Original title?

No time to research this now so I'm probably just plain wrong, but I thought the original title of the book was The Guinness Book of Superlatives, not "records." Dpbsmith (talk) 12:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The Guinness Book of Superlatives was the title of the first US edition. Early copies of the UK edition (such as Oct 1958) mention The Guinness Book of Superlatives in a note on the copyright page about obtaining back copies 212.219.240.8 (talk) 10:20, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Chain mail, important?

"Chain letters are also not allowed. "Guinness World Records does not accept any records relating to chain letters, sent by post or e-mail. If you receive a letter or an e-mail, which may promise to publish the names of all those who send it on, please destroy it, it is a hoax. No matter if it says that Guinness World Records and the postal service are involved, they are not."[9]"

Deleted this paragraph, as it was just taking up space, and is in no way relevant to the ethics section, or ANY section for that matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.113.228 (talk) 22:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree Darrenaustralia (talk) 10:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Citation on potential litigation

As you can see, I've asked for citation on how injured competitors may have the chance at litigation again Guinness. Along with the fact that they may have citation, I would also like information on exactly why Guinness is held legally responsible for a person's injuries in their rehearsal to break records. I can see when they attempt the real thing, because then they're under the supervision of Guinness employees (of course, then, they could always have the person sign a liability waiver), but rehearsal? I'd like citation on how the courts will entertain a lawsuit on those grounds.Dstebbins (talk) 05:02, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Virtual Bands

Is Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band not a virtual band? Their music was of course played by a real band, but so is the music of the Gorillaz, the sole difference being that the Gorillaz routinely release animated videos. But there were animated performances of Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band as well, and unless I'm mistaken they sold more than seven million copies. Guinness is a joke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Badmuthahubbard (talk • contribs) 12:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hi, new here. Noticed some vandalism in the museums section, I don't want to screw anything up by trying to fix it. 75.153.95.203 (talk) 02:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

To create

The Universal Record Database.[5] Badagnani (talk) 05:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Date of the Shooting-Party

in his personal Article Hugh Beaver was on this Party on the 10th of November, here it says the 4th of May - so what? -- Hartmann Schedel (talk) 22:10, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Remove Jim Pattison Group info box

This article has a large info box linked to Jim Pattison Group and its diverse products. This group has as the article states only owned Guinness World Records since early 2008, moreover the recent history of ownership has been one of change. This makes this info box inappropriate since

  • the article is mostly about its history before this time.
  • Further, info boxes should be fairly permanent features of an article and
  • relate to its content in a manner that those visiting it might find useful.
  • It is not the function of an info box to promote a company which this info box seems to be doing.
  • It would be more appropriate to have an info box in its place concerned with other similar reference products.

There does not seem to be a procedure for information box deletion except to do an article edit. Does anyone else also feel this info box should be deleted from the article?--LittleHow (talk) 08:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Criticism

Can we include a criticism section. I believe some of the records are becoming so specialised that you can make a record for almost anything. Such as the latest 'thriller dance' record attempt. I could make a record for the most people dancing to Mika in a Smart Car. I know this is my opinion and this is not a forum, but I think we should include a critisim section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sweetie candykim (talk • contribs) 17:35, 6 September 2009 (UTC) Sweetie candykim (talk) 17:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I am shocked that there is not a criticism section. The vast majority of new "records" are obscure things that people come up with for the sole purpose of being in this book. I have never seen a positive reaction to this trend; the consensus in my experience is that Guinness would not accept such joke records unless its primary goal was staying in business rather than being an encyclopedic source of world records. 209.216.208.251 (talk) 22:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

@Both. Any criticism would need to be reliably sourced from competent commentators. But bearing in mind that the GWR have themselves in recent years ruled out dangerous stunts such as some eating records, you might think that doesn't leave much. Whereas you might also think some records are "trivial", or specialised, it is not up to Wikipedia to judge these, since we are not a publisher of original thought. In other words, we leave the GWR to include what they will under their prevailing editorial policy, and should anyone else think it appropriate to level criticism for that, we can cite it. Until then, we just report the facts. Rodhullandemu 22:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I am also surprised that there is not criticism, or at least debate about their denial of some records. Having read stories of stigmatists like Therese Neumann and Marthe Robin who are supposed to have survived for decades solely on Holy Communion, I have wondered why Guinness World Records has not been either:

  1. criticised for denying these records by Catholics
  2. defended on this point with explanations given for the invalidity of such records
  3. the problem is that I cannot tell what medical surveillance was done in such cases, though biographies insist there was some

The only thing they have done is to stop publishing fasting records (perhaps for ethical reasons), though according to one source they still recognise the record of Andreas Mihavecz published in the 1999 edition. I still have trouble understadning why they do not challenge claims of mystical inedia seriously.luokehao 23:04, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

In the currently existing criticism section, I'm not certain it is factual to include Guinness' rebuttal to John Oliver's critcism. Their rebuttal simply was a statement of what they believed to be his motivation and while it did call his allegations "false" it didn't even mention a specific allegation, and some of what he shared is obviously true, and can be confirmed by looking at the appropiate records on the Guinness site. They have allowed authoriatarin governments to have records and in fact Oliver's main source *is* the GWR website, and one other article by NPR, which GWR hasn't denied. It seems like their response was a PR move since they didn't deny any specfic allegations and clearly at least some of them are definitely true. Koibeast (talk) 21:08, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Nationality

Why is The Book listed as coming from Ireland when the man who started it, Sir Hugh Beaver was British? Antarctic-adventurer (talk) 21:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

It is listed as originating from the Rep of Ireland, because itdoes originate from the Republic. It was conceived in an Irish brewery, settling arguements by Irish people in an Irish pub. No British people. And, in fact, the founder was South African. But it was born in Ireland - not Britain, if it was conceived in London by an Irish person, then it would be British in origin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark Sheridan (talk • contribs) 16:45, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

This needs a reliable source, which you have not provided. Yet. Article states "After founding the Guinness Book of Records at 107 Fleet Street"- that's Fleet Street, London, not Dublin. Rodhullandemu 17:58, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Also, it seems from [6] that Beaver was based at the London (Park Royal) Guinness brewery, not the Dublin one. Which makes sense if "The parent company has been headquartered in London since 1932" (Guinness article). Humphrey Jungle (talk) 23:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
The template {{infobox book}} advises that "country" = "country of first publication"; this makes sense, because, to cite only one example, George Orwell's "Homage to Catalonia", was first published in England, even though based on his experiences of the Spanish Civil War. There are many other examples, but this article is about the book, and not its influences. Rodhullandemu 00:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Whether you like it or not - this book is Irish. Don't go into some kind of nationalistic period of denial and deny the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark Sheridan (talk • contribs) 16:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

And where's your source? --Yowuza yadderhouse |meh 17:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Wording issue

Hey guys I was thinking of removing a word that seems a bit editorial on our part. Here's the quote "...so entries such as these were removed sadly..." Referring to cat weight. I'm a little confused as to what precisely "sadly" means in that context. Are we sad the records were removed, or were the records removed in a sad manner? That seems a bit ambigous and really not an encyclopedic way to describe what happened I think. I'm deleting that word, but figured I would mention the edit, in case someone disagrees. Musing Sojourner (talk) 13:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Languages

How come only some of the languages in the infobox are linked? I'd understand if there were other links within the article (to avoid double linking), but there aren't. --17:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.42.231.116 (talk)

English Robert Vega (talk) 19:22, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Dirtyest place per square foot Robert Vega (talk) 19:23, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Shooting Records

Want some criticism of Guinness World Records? http://www.bob-munden.com/records.htm "In 1981, the year most shooting records disappeared from the Guinness Book, I called David Boehm of the Sterling Publishing Company and asked why. He told me that there is a committee that approves books to be used in school libraries across the nation. The committee informed Mr. Boehm that it would only approve the Guinness Book for continued use as a reference book in school libraries if gun records were removed. To protect the Guinness Book from a black list, that's what the publishing company felt it had to do. If you look at recent editions of the Guinness Book of World Records, you will notice that most gun records by shooters using real firearms (not gimmicked with things like light-weight aluminum barrels,) are no longer listed, including those set by the famous Annie Oakley, Ed McGivern, Tom Frye and myself. It is a shame that a small group of people on that education committee, people who probably grew up in cities away from the shooting sports millions of Americans and citizens of many other nations appreciate and enjoy, can have the power to effectively erase history." -- Bob Munden (Ironic that they've sent gun records down the memory hole when the record book got its start at a shooting party!) Bizzybody (talk) 09:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation VS See Also

I feel that the DISAMBIGUATION entry at the top should be removed and replaced by a SEE ALSO section at the bottom, listing the various entries. These are merely different variations of the same product. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 13:53, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

As an authority

Related to its famous book, Guinness World Records has become the authority on practically all non-sporting world records. At the moment this is unrepresented in the article. Thoughts on how this can be amended? LukeSurl t c 13:35, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

worth looking into Historyhorror (talk) 17:22, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Videos

Would it be possible to link some of the information provided in the article to some videos showing some of the records that have been broken? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurammasachs (talk • contribs) 18:37, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Controversy

The "Controversy" section seems to be a WP:COATRACK for a discussion on Helen Skelton's kayak record. If no-one objects (or modifies this section) I'll cut it in a few days. LukeSurl t c 11:46, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I deleted it Bhny (talk) 12:35, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I think there is a justifiable basis for this section, see Talk:Helen Skelton#Kayaking the Amazon - if, as it being claimed there are a number of cases where the basis for records is "dubious". However the OP only seems to be able to come up with controversy in relation to Helen Skelton. The point trying to be made is I believe - GWR are not necessarily the World's Best because of the way GWR choose to award them and this is misleading the public because the public believe that GWR and World's best are the same thing. Trying to make that point at the article of Skelton I would argue is coatracking on that article, hence my suggestion that the discussion be made here. Correctly referenced and presented there is a case for inclusion. As an example take the kite skiing record, when challenged that others had gone further and at higher average speeds, GWR's response was that "We are aware of explorers who have achieved longer distances, but Helen Skelton’s application was the first that Guinness World Records had received specifically for the 100-kilometre distance." (ref - [7]) To me that does seem to devalue the feat as a world record, awarding it because no-one else had made a claim for that record before when maths says it must have been bettered as part of another person's feat. NtheP (talk) 16:12, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
I think, in general, this article should discuss more the GWR's de facto position as the premier authority on world records - at the moment the article weighs too heavily towards a depiction as simply a book of curiosities. A lot of what the GWR does is to define records - and a neutrally worded section on the processes and general criteria for this, with a couple of carefully-selected examples, would be a welcome addition. There's some text roughly along these lines in the "Ethical issues and safety concerns" section already. The problem with a "controversy" section is that it becomes a place for any person with a gripe about a particular record to vent - and this does not lead to good article content. LukeSurl t c 17:43, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Agreed, the effort will be in keeping such a section neutral. NtheP (talk) 18:04, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
There were 2 problems with the section 1) All criticism in the dedicated section should be attributed to a specific critic 2) Separate sections containing negative evaluations may become a troll magnet WP:CRITS. It would be best to add the info back into the body of the article after a reference to a critic is found. Bhny (talk) 19:44, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
NtheP provided a reference to criticism in his comment above - that is the article I remember reading, which I should have included as a reference to my original edit (as evidence of controversy). I have also seen plenty of controversy about her kayak records - though I think only on forums, and I understand why those aren't acceptable references (though they do give the lie to the criticism that this is original research). So you have verifiable and referenced criticism, along with verifiable and referenced issues with the records. If this information is not suitable for here, then could you suggest where on Wikipedia it should go? Having no mention at all of these issues is with Helen's records is being economical with the truth, and on NtheP refuses to accept such information on the Helen Skelton page. I put it there and it gets removed as coatracking about GWR, I put it here and it gets removed as coatracking about HS - it must apply to one or the other. Cpmcsweeny (talk) 10:17, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
I presume http://www.canoeicf.com/icf/NewsGallery/News-Archive/March-2010/Helen-Skelton-s-Amazon-Adventure.html is a suitable reference for controversy about Helen's kayaking records? I note that Wikipedia has an entry on Freya Hoffmeister which mentions and references her achievements. Cpmcsweeny (talk) 10:37, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
I can't really talk for those people at Talk:Helen Skelton, but it seems like WP:COATRACKing here - there must be hundreds (if not thousands) of GWRs somebody somewhere disputes, and there's no particular reason why this particular one should get a such a large amount of focus here. I'm not against an example or two in a section about how the GWR defines records, but they should be a few sentences in support of the general points of the section, rather than its principle content. LukeSurl t c 17:18, 9 May 2012 (UTC) (P.S. Perhaps List of world records in canoeing could be turned from a list into an full article and include a discussion section?)
The trouble with putting it in List of world records in canoeing is that one of Helen's controversial records is for kite skiing. Given all of these high profile issues do relate to Helen, then the appropriate place for the comments is probably on her page, but NtheP keeps censoring any such comment there. There may be hundreds or thousands of disputed world records, but I'm not aware of any others which have received anywhere near the amount of publicity - I suspect there's a pretty good chance (given that nobody seems able to come up with another example) that these are the only such disputed records mentioned on Wikipedia. Can you suggest where such comment should go to maintain Wikipedia as a source of full information rather than just a censored version? Cpmcsweeny (talk) 21:49, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
It's not censorship but a lack of concensus over what the article should say. The dispute is about what constitiutes a world record. Cpmcsweeny's arguement appears to me to be that calling these achievements world records is bogus because there are better achievements out there and that GWR are not what they claim to be i.e. they are other than the "worlds best". That maybe the case but my view is that the place for a discussion on this point is here, not in an article about a person the subject of a "dubious" record just because they are the highest (only?) profile case that objectors can quote. NtheP (talk) 22:05, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Sloppy work

If I'm not mistaken, this graph (archive) is defective. I can't find a way to interpret it that allows the graph to match the numbers in the image. Whether I choose the tip of the blue arrow, the center or right edge of the object, the numbers clearly don't match. (blue arrow:no, 114 > 111; the center:no, 110.3 ~= 111; right edge:no, 114 onl slightly > 111). (source)--Elvey (talk) 19:53, 14 September 2013 (UTC)


is this article about the book or about the guinness records ?

i think this article should split, so there should be an article about the book, and other about the guinness records because ATM its very confusing

also, where is the list of the guinness records? or at least the list of the records titles, i mean what is covered by guinness world records, as you know guinnes world records does not cover all records, just a some. so i belive there should be this info somewere, if Copyright is a problem, just dont state the number on the record, unless that particular guinness record is public domain (example biggest continent or country, fastets athlete on 100m hurdles, etc,...

if this article is about Guinness World Records annual book, then we need a separate article about the records there can also be addresse lots of things this needs to be clarified,

IMHO the current article should be renamed "Guinness World Records (Book)" and the "Guinness World Records" should be redirected to disambiguation page

Guinness World Records isnt (like it was years ago) a book, at least since the name change. now when you speak about the Guinness World Records, you refer to the Authority and the record itself, not the book. thats why the wikipedia articles about this subject need to adapt to reflect that fact. as was done with lots of other articles about other topics that were updated to modern era changes.

Today World Guinness Records its a brand that moved away from what it was (a book) even if still includes a book as just one part of it. http://corporate.guinnessworldrecords.com/index.aspx

all this is why i belive we can change it to make it better and really be a enciclopedic reflection of what is Guinness World Records today

i hope someone figure out what can be done, if rename this current article Guinness World Records to Guinness World Records (book) and start a new Guinness World Records article or just rename this article to Guinness World Records (book) and use this page Guinness World Records as an disambiguation page, and then start creating new pages like Guinness World Records (Brand) , list of Guinness World Records etc,...

i hope i explained myself to be clear enough to let all you know what i mean.
kind Regards --WiZaRd SaiLoR (talk) 12:06, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Why isn't nationality mentioned?

Weather it's British or Irisih it should be mentioned in the beginning just like anything else on Wikipedia. Like "The Guinness Book of Records is a British book..." or there should be a section on the right mentioning the country of origin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.233.90.246 (talk) 19:41, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

siblins 100 years or older

The following sisters of Chapito Maryland in St Maries County,are one hundred years old or older. Lillian Theresa Mills Fenwick celebrated her 100th birthday 8/24/14 Agnes Mills Carter 104. Mary Mills Settles 105.

We would like to know if this is a national or world record? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:3BA3:88D0:30B0:5A9D:8B63:C793 (talk) 16:36, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Guinness World Records. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

www.worldguinnessrecords.com

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:44, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Guinness World Records. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:41, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Questionable claim about being best-selling book

Can someone please provide a reliable and up-to-date source for the claim "The book itself holds a world record, as the best-selling copyrighted book of all time"? This is highly questionable, and we cannot use the actual book as a source. The ref provided is Smithsonian Magazine, but the magazine does not claim it's the "best-selling copyrighted book of all time", it simply reports that the book itself says this. I don't think that really qualifies as a third-party source[1], but either way it's a decade out of a date. I'm fairly sure at least one of the Harry Potter books has surpassed Guinness, if that was ever true. My quick search only brought up sources that conflict with the claim. If no one has a RS which is recent and independent of Guinness, then I think it should be removed. LibertyOrDeath (talk) 21:00, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ If my friend Bob writes in a book, "Johnny Depp was abducted by aliens as a child", and then my other friend Jill, who is a journalist, writes in a magazine "Bob's book says Johnny Depp was abducted by aliens", that doesn't mean I can now write "During childhood, Depp was abducted by aliens" in Johnny Depp's Wikipedia article and use Jill's article as a source.


I have inserted the most up-to-date and reliable reference I could find, but it could probably do with something better. FrankSier (talk) 17:07, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I am also suspicious of this claim. Guinness itself reports a different regularly-updated book as holding the world record: https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/news/press-release/2016/4/gwr%20announces%20xinhua%20dictionary — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.185.160.28 (talk) 01:03, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

History Today, the reference for the Guinness book, says "sold more than a hundred million copies" in the 50 years to to 2005. The claim for the Xinhua Dictionary is "As of 28 July 2015 (last updated date), Xinhua Dictionary had sold 567 million copies globally." The wording of the records is not quite the same, but I would think that the Dictionary would be copyrighted, and I would think that they could both be described as "regularly updated" so the two are probably basically the same. There is a 10 year gap between the two dates, but it looks like the Dictionary is probably still likely to be ahead. It would be interesting to know Guinness's take on this, and they would have a conflict of interest in both directions. There may also be another contender since 2015 as well. FrankSier (talk) 20:16, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Addition of ISBN from Wikidata

Please note that this article's infobox is retrieving an ISBN from Wikidata currently. This is the result of a change made to {{Infobox book}} as a result of this RfC. It would be appreciated if an editor took some time to review this ISBN to ensure it is appropriate for the infobox. If it is not, you could consider either correcting the ISBN on Wikidata (preferred) or introducing a blank ISBN parameter in the infobox to block the retrieval from Wikidata. If you do review the ISBN, please respond here so other editors don't duplicate your work. This is an automated message to address concerns that this change did not show up on watchlists. ~ RobTalk 01:23, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi

Hi BearLover10 (talk) 04:55, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Reliable source??

http://macmillan-services.supadu.com/macmillan-us/maccatalog/assets/current/GUI_Fall-2017_11_2016.pdf

This source says that starting with the 2018 edition, GWR Gamer's Edition books are no longer going to be named after their year; they're going to be simply called "Volume 11", "Volume 12", and so on. Is this a reliable source?? If not, please explain why. Georgia guy (talk) 22:43, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

This source, however, suggests that the above idea is wrong:

https://www.amazon.com/Guinness-World-Records-2018-Gamers/dp/1910561746/ref=pd_sbs_14_t_1?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=K641S3JYNF25X9C91VCW

Georgia guy (talk) 12:11, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Guinness World Records. 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) 10:10, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Guinness World Records. 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) 07:16, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Guinness World Records. 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) 22:47, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Guinness_World_Records/Archive_1&oldid=1136779860"