{{User:Joturner/Current Events Portal Redesign/Newsbrowsebar}}
{{User:Joturner/Current Events Portal Redesign/Highlights}}
{| style="background-color:transparent"
|valign="top"|
<!--
To add a new date, add the new day's template below (e.g. 
{{Portal:Current events/July 21, 2006}}) and remove the 
oldest date from the bottom, so only seven days remain on 
the portal page. Do NOT use leading zeros (i.e. use July 1, 
2006, not July 01, 2006).

If after saving the page a red-link shows up with the new 
date, click the link and enter something like...

{{subst:Portal:Current events/DateHeader|2006|07|21}}
|}

...where the first number is the year, the second number is
that of the month, and the third number is that of the date 
of the new day. The closing |} is very important.
-->
{{User:Joturner/Current Events Portal Redesign/July 1, 2006}}
{{User:Joturner/Current Events Portal Redesign/June 30, 2006}}
{{User:Joturner/Current Events Portal Redesign/June 29, 2006}}
{{User:Joturner/Current Events Portal Redesign/June 28, 2006}}
{{User:Joturner/Current Events Portal Redesign/June 27, 2006}}
{{User:Joturner/Current Events Portal Redesign/June 26, 2006}}
{{User:Joturner/Current Events Portal Redesign/June 25, 2006}}
{{User:Joturner/Current Events Portal Redesign/More events}}
|valign="top"|
{{User:Joturner/Current Events Portal Redesign/Current events}}
|}
{{User:Joturner/Current Events Portal Redesign/Events by month}}

[[Category:2006|*]]
[[Category:Portals under construction|Current events]]

<!--*** Foreign language links removed ***-->

tag that goes with the calendar links. It prints the date and its day of the week.

[edit] /Current events box

Like with the original, this contains the calendar part of the /Current events transclusion.

So that's about it. Discussion, feedback, and suggestions on the proposal would be appreciated in the appropriate section below. Forgive my poor grammar if it exists in this post; it's getting quite late for me. joturner 05:59, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Straw Polls

Just to get an idea of what's going on...

[edit] Overall Impression

[edit] Support Redesign

1. joturner 12:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
2. —Nightstallion (?) 12:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
3. -- ^Evanx(tag?) 13:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
4. the wub "?!" 22:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
5. NCurse _work 05:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
6. LC@RSDATA 06:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
7. Batmanand | Talk 09:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
8. --Jpkoester1 09:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
9. · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 15:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
10. - Patman2648 05:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
11. Bolivian Unicyclist 14:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
12. --Longhornsg 02:53, 8 July 2006 (UTC) (UTC)
13. --Lurker 10:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
14. --Shizane 19:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
15. --Eloquence* 20:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
16. --Kayaker 01:35, 9 July 2006 (UTC) (I'm assuming "Overall Impression" means #Overall Asthetics)
17. --Zoz (t) 14:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
18. --Reo ^On. 13:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC) Nice
19. --Tyman 101 21:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oppose Redesign

1. • I dont think that the light blue and grey go well.
   • The third box with details about sisterprojects could be smaller
   • I like the fact the the news is enclosed in a box by date, but there is too much white space in the second column
   • The template currently used for List of Events by Month is more visually appealing imo.

   Nice job, and I'll be happy to support if the above is addressed. --Osbus 23:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm wondering why my vote was discounted...a vote is a vote. What joturner left on my talk page didnt address the issues raised. Thanks.--Osbus 22:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Time of Archival

[edit] Daily Archives

This is the method displayed on this purpose whereby only a certain number of days (in this case, seven) are displayed on the main portal page and rest are on their respective monthly pages.

1. joturner 01:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
2. the wub "?!" 22:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
3. NCurse _work 05:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
4. Batmanand | Talk 09:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
5. Kayaker 01:35, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Monthly Archives

This is the current method on Portal:Current events and the former Current events. All the events for the month are kept on the main portal page until the end of the month when all of the months events are moved to another article (with the chronological order changed from forward to backward). The main portal page is cleared for the next month.

[edit] Location of Archival

[edit] Article Space

As currently: June 2006, May 2006, etc.

1. Batmanand | Talk 09:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC). They will, in the future, need to be wikified, but the material in them is encyclopaedic.
2. Kayaker 01:35, 9 July 2006 (UTC) (agree with User:Batmanand)

[edit] Portal Space

As such: Portal:Current events/July 2006, Portal:Current events/August 2006. etc.

[edit] Both

The full archives would be kept in portal space, but a shorter summary of the month should go into the article space.

1. joturner 01:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment: It would be hard to maintain such a system (especially sicne this resembles double book-keeping). -- ^Evanx(tag?) 13:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Method of Section Editing

[edit] Normal Section Editing

This method employs the use of section headers, like on most of Wikipedia (see this talk page here and the alternate design. Little formatting can be done.

[edit] Table Section Editing

This method employs the use of tables for each section, as in this proposal. Formatting possibilities are limitless.

1. joturner 01:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
2. -- ^Evanx(tag?) 13:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
3. the wub "?!" 22:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
4. Batmanand | Talk 09:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No Section Editing

This is how the current portal looks.

[edit] Date format of name subpages

What should be the date format of the sub-pages: US-format, ISO-format or European format?

[edit] ISO: Portal:Current events/2006-07-01

The ISO format has the advantage of automatically chronologic sorting.

1. Seems the most neutral. --Donar Reiskoffer 10:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

   I'm indifferent. joturner 10:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

2. Ordered. LC@RSDATA 14:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
3. It's the only system which makes sense. --Oldak Quill 19:58, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] US: Portal:Current events/July 1, 2006

[edit] European: Portal:Current Events/1 July 2006

• Batmanand | Talk 11:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC). ISO looks bad, and then you have arguments about whether it should be yyyy-mm-dd or yyyy-dd-mm, or mm-dd-yyyy, or dd-mm-yyyy. I go for European, cos it is the clearest, the easiest to type (no punctuation); and hell, I am a European!

The ISO format is YYYY-MM-DD. Your alternatives are no ISO formats. --Donar Reiskoffer 13:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, although I still think it can cause confusion about whether it is YYYY-MM-DD or YYYY-DD-MM (even if the first is correct, that does not proclude confusion). Batmanand | Talk 13:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ISO Variant: Portal:Current events/2006 July 1

1. This is used on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion and the use of a month name removes ambiguity and assists in user-friendliness. joturner 01:50, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Use wikified month and day only

Use July 8, July 9, etc. Solve ISO vs. Euro vs. U.S. issue by wikifying month and year as in current version, which supports readers' date preferences and conforms to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Dates containing a month and a day.

1. Kayaker 01:35, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

   That's not possible. This is about the location of the subpages (Portal:Current events/July 8, 2006, Portal:Current events/8 July 2006, or Portal:Current events/2006-07-08). joturner 01:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

My mistake. What I am really voting for to have the portal contents honor readers' date preferences one way or another. As a contributor of events I can deal with any naming scheme for the portal subpages. Kayaker 02:29, 9 July 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Your Straw Poll Here

Add a new straw poll at your leisure. joturner 01:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

[edit] Normal Section Editing

I love to see an option for normal section editing. Events by monts template should be widened as in original version though. -- tasc ^words_deeds 10:36, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I've checked if you just take it out of the table it would work. Cheers. -- tasc ^words_deeds 10:38, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Here's a version without the daily transclusions (but with this one, the entire month would have to be shown and monthly archivals would have to be done). I didn't get the change to widen the events by month template in this version; perhaps I'll do it a bit later. joturner 13:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Well you're just taking template events be month out of table. and using current template - not the one you've created. Do you want me to show you? 2nd version is closer to what we have now. -- tasc ^words_deeds 13:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure go ahead. You can put it in my userspace if you want (or yours). joturner 13:29, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I made a change to the alternate version. joturner 13:32, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it's very close. I've added correction to the alternative version. The same I've proposed to your original variant (not an alternative one). -- tasc ^words_deeds 13:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I see. Note also that "normal" section editing would only work properly if the daily events were in a table like on the alternate version. Wrapping the text around the sidebar, as you may remember, prevents that effect from showing up. joturner 13:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't object to a table. Only thing what I was saying is that events by month template could be taken out of it. Cheers. Good job. -- tasc ^words_deeds 15:00, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I incorporated the change regarding the month links into the main proposal. joturner 17:02, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks perfect to me. Thumbs up! :) —Nightstallion (?) 23:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• Well done on the redesign. It is much more userfriendly. Hopefully, it will be much more userfriendly. Capitalistroadster 23:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Archivals

Big question: should archivals stay on the article namespace (i.e. June 2006, May 2006, etc.) or should we keep all future monthly archivals in the portal namespace (i.e. Portal:Current events/July 2006, Portal:Current events/August 2006, etc.)? Regarding the issue, I stated (in the Documentation above):

Well, if we're still going to maintain the monthly archives in the article space, we'd have a huge problem because obviously we cannot have all this formatting in the article space. However, if we were to maintain the monthly archives on the Portal and just redirect the future monthly articles to their respective years, this would not be a problem. In my personal opinion, I like this idea because right now those month articles don't really say anything about the months (like articles). Instead, they are just the places we dump the old current events pages (like an archive, which is not what the article space should be used for).

However, Kayaker on the portal talk page stated:

Your idea about putting monthly archives like June 2006 under Portal:Current events (i.e. Portal:Current events/June 2006) is an interesting one that didn't come up earlier. Davodd (talk • contribs) envisioned a yearly portal e.g. Portal:2006 in a comment posted at Wikipedia:Portal/Proposals#Portal:Current events. It was and I think still is my thought that we need articles for each month and year in the article namespace for both a theoretical and a practical reason. The theory would be that a given month like May 2005 or year (e.g. 1066) is as much of an encyclopedia subject as anything else in article namespace. The practical reason for leaving them in article namespace is that there are lots and lots of links in article namespace to those months and years, so you'd have a greater and greater dependency on redirects if the current event archives are kept under Portal:Current events. Kayaker 05:59, 1 July 2006 (UTC).

So what does everyone else thing we should do? Archive in the article/main space or archive in the portal space? joturner 23:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Also as a third option: I have nothing against keeping the years. 2006 looks like an article; June 2006 looks like an archive. Of course, we can always have both. For instance, we could make the June 2006 article more brief and more article-like like 2006 (see July 2006) and then link to the portal and its monthly archives. joturner 23:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

A variation on your third option is to add a highlights section to the archive, explicitly sourced from the list of archived events but written as a narrative. Unlike a lot of new articles, an encyclopedic article about a month comes built in with reputable sources via the archive. If the mundane part of the current event archival process were to be improved that would free time that at least in theory could be spent on collaborating on a highlights section.--Kayaker 00:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Series of incremental improvements

I like a lot of what I see in the new mockups, the code behind those mockups, and the processes implied by them. Before I start responding to specifics though, I'd would find it useful to understand what the priorities are. I think its much easier to arrive at a rough consensus if

1. the problem being solved or the requirement being addressed is identified
2. if the problems are numerous enough, a series of changes are proposed and adopted in a series of steps rather than as part of a big bang.

If I'm in the minority about this, I'll muddle my way through somehow, but I would like to see User:Joturner pick one or two changes included the proposals and let us focus on those first. Perhaps there's one easy one and one important-to-do-even-if-it-isn't-easy, or whatever.

Personally, I'm tempted to choose an improved archival process as the next priority. After doing the one for June 2006, I ended up with a list of five or six problems that need solving either in terms of improved documentation or changes to the way that the currents events portal is structured and maintained. The new proposals include changes in this area, so I guess I'm not alone in this.

Thanks--Kayaker 00:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Overall Asthetics

The switch to a portal allows us to make a page more aesthetically pleasing. What falls under aesthetically pleasing varies from person to person, but I hope the introduction of a bit more color accomplished that task. joturner 02:44, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't like pastel boxes so I disapprove of how every crazy little heading in this version is a pastel box. Ashibaka tock 06:12, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

You have a mix of colors for the title bars of the various sections (highlights, day sections, events, events-by-month links, etc.) I'd be tempted to have a default color, probably gray, used for each title bar, and then let readers have more varied color via user styles.

I have two comments on the bottom box of User:Joturner/Current Events Portal Redesign/Highlights, the one with the Wikinews link:

1. It de-emphasizes Wikinews too much. Wikinews should have a lot of prominence on whatever aesthetic update we end up with; reducing it to the same size of screen real estate that Commons:Current events has provides the illusion that the latter is as actively updated as Wikinews.
2. All of the stuff in that box to the left of the two sister project icons is given a prominence over actual event links that IMHO isn't deserved. For the "To suggest a news story for the Highlights section" blurb, perhaps a link somewhere in the Highlights title bar would suffice :e.g. Highlights (suggest a news item) . I'd find an infobox-like side location for the "News about Wikipedia • About this Page • Adding a New Date" items.

Thanks--Kayaker 07:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC).

Also wanted to mention I liked your suggestion for having only a week or two of current events on the main portal page, with a "more July 2006" link. Kayaker 07:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC).

I made some changes to the Highlights section. joturner 20:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the color scheme, mentioned by both Kayaker and Ashibaka, I'd like to point out that most portals (see Portal:India and Portal:War, both featured portals) have color schemes without the use of user styles. And yes, they have the pastel styles too. So the coloring here is actually quite tame. joturner 23:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I really don't like the gray title bars. I suggest changing them to blue. --Zoz (t) 12:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I like the blue better than the grey as well, but the problem is that there are links on top of most of the title bars. And so (dark) blue on (light) blue may not sit well with some. joturner 12:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh I see. But then we could use brown (or even green). Imo nearly any color would look better than gray. --Zoz (t) 12:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The newsbrowsebar and the Wikinews/Commons links should be moved to the top of the right sidebar. They're currently taking up a rather large percentage of the immediately visible area of the page by shifting the daily events down. --The imp 12:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I must admit the actual news is a bit far down (particularly for those with lower resolutions). However, I believe the newsbrowsebar has too many links to fit nicely on the right side of the screen. And the sister page links take up so little height that little would be gained by moving it to the sidebar. Perhaps, however, they could be moved to the bottom (although some, including myself, may argue that they're too important to be at the bottom of the page). joturner 12:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

On my setup, with Firefox 1.5 on WinXP and a screen resolution of 1280x1024, the first line of the most recent daily event is about 640 pixels down from the top of the screen. That really is too far, especially since what's above it appears so sparse, with the padding around the text, the box borders and the padding between the boxes. For me, the newsbrowsebar moves things down by 82 pixels and the sister site links by 45 pixels. Without them, the actual news might be actually visible at, say, a resolution of 800x600. Currently they are not. And I do believe that even the newsbrowsebar's links do fit on the right sidebar, provided that they're in the same column. Contextually, there's a good pace for both these boxes just above the "Events" listing. --The imp 08:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, the "Recent deaths" are currently shown by a link in the Highlights box as well as its own right sidebar box. Is this repetition really necessary? --The imp 08:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Improved Archival Process

The transclusions allow the archivals to be made easier, by allows the chronological order of the events to made much easier. However, none of other issues addressed in Kayaker's list of archival problems. joturner 02:44, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

In addition, the archival would be faster because it would be done on a daily basis (moving the oldest date to the archive page) instead of on a monthly basis. At the end of the month, little additional work will need to be done. joturner 19:29, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Section Editing

This is included in both the main proposal and the alternate version allow for section editing. This is accomplished through a table format where the daily events are in the left column and the sidebar resides in the right column. joturner 02:44, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Problem with highlights section

Two people, one of whom is using a customized version of Internet Explorer, reported a problem with the style settings for the hightlights section. You can see the thread of conversation here and the image at right is what the problematic part of the screen looks like in Mozilla. I don't have a way at the moment to test this on IE and am wondering if anyone else is seeing the problem. Kayaker 00:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC).

Yes I do see the problem in Internet Explorer 6 (WinXP). It's quite odd. Upon opening the page, you see Internet Explorer Image 1. Upon moving the mouse over some of the items, you get something along the lines of Internet Explorer Image 2. However, upon minimizing the IE window and going to another program, it reverts back to Internet Explorer Image 1. Very strange. Of course, I use Mozilla Firefox (which is, in my very humble opinion, a much better browser). By the way, I don't believe your image falls under fair use. You don't actually see any Windows Internet Explorer parts, so like with Image:Www.wikipedia.org screenshot.png and Image:He-Wikipedia.png, you don't need to credit Windows. But I'm not 100% on that. joturner 01:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

For the record, this doesn't happen in this redesign. joturner 01:56, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

By "this redesign" do you mean User:Joturner/Current Events Portal Redesign/Alternate?

You were prescient/smart/lucky enough to not attempt to change the background color of the in-the-news bullet items. :-) Ashibaka (talk • contribs) (I'm guessing an IE user) got annoyed enough about the behavior you documented to eliminate the color change in a check-in that produced this. I'm hampered by lack of IE access so I guess I won't attempt to sort through common.css, {{*mp}}, etc. to attempt to restore the gray background. Instead, I'm thinking that for now we could follow your example and do the highlights this way, adapted from User:Joturner/Current Events Portal Redesign/Highlights:

Highlights

{{In the news}}

Kayaker 06:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

By "this redesign", I meant the main one (and will also mean the main one unless specifically said otherwise). However, it does not happen in neither design because they both have the same transclusions. The only reason the alternate was made was to demonstrate "normal" section editing, at tasc's request. joturner 06:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] In other projects

IMO the in other projects box should be moved to the bottom to make the top less cluttered as it take up a lot of space above the fold which should be used for actual content. LC@RSDATA 06:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I think we should, however, emphasize that their are other places (namely WikiNews) more devoted to current events and that Wikipedia is first and foremost an encyclopedia. joturner 12:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe in the side bar then, there isn't much stuff in it at the moment. LC@RSDATA 17:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dates

Wouldn't it be more neutral to use the ISO date for the names of the subpages than the US date format? This will have the additional advantage that the pages would be sorted chronologically when included in a category. --Donar Reiskoffer 09:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

That's perfectly reasonable. joturner 10:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aesthetic appeal

Cyan, ugh! Please use a different color! Perhaps a contrasting color... there's already a ton of blue on the page. ~MDD4696 16:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

What color do you have in mind? joturner 16:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps a subtle blue (#CFD4E6) or bold pastel blue (#809FFF)... I'm not really a graphic designer. Should the headings really be colored seperately at all? I like the look of Wikipedia:Community Portal and Help:Contents. ~MDD4696 16:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The bold pastel blue would be good. Also, those double-borders are a bit weird. Make the outer (blue) border a bit narrower – Gurch 13:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Newsbrowsebar

I like where this redesign is headed. Though, in the newsbrowsebar, there needs to be a link back to the main current events page. That way, the newsbrowsebar can be used on Current events in the United States, and one can easily get back to the main Current events page. -Aude (talk contribs) 20:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I added a World link. Do you think that is clear enough? joturner 22:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks good. Thanks. -Aude (talk contribs) 22:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] So Now a Problem...

So now there's a problem. A couple users have suggested that the archives go in the article space. However, as you clearly can see, there are a lot of tables and formatting, etc, etc for each of the dates. That (as far as I know) cannot go into article space. So we can't have the appearance of this page and the archives in article space (without a considerable amount of extra work). I noted this in the Downside Section on this page, but I had a feeling the section wasn't fully read. joturner 01:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Let me clarify something first. The straw poll about "Method of Section Editing" talks about Normal Section Editing, Table Section Editing, and No Section Editing. I think those phrases are equivalent to "Method of event organization" with "Organize by section", "Organize by templates", and "No change" as the options. What you call tables are more commonly called templates.

If I am correct about all of that, then the problem is solved with Wikipedia:Template substitution. One real advantage of introducing templates for each day of a month is that during end-of-month, you can generate a chronologically-ordered article through substitution, something possible through a WP:BOT. The per-day event templates can stay in portal space, yet we have a monthly article generated in normal chronological order, which through substitution loses its linkage to the contents of the portal namespace.

My assumption is that what the July 2006 article looks like once we're into August is unaffected by any decisions about the look of the portal. The appearance of monthly articles like May 2006 is based on the archival process. Switching to per-day templates for the bulleted list of that day's events is a step towards improved semi-automated generation.

Or have I missed your point? Kayaker 02:08, 9 July 2006 (UTC).

So you're essentially saying that at the end of each month, we would subst: all of the templates from the portal and then remove all of the formatting? So, what would happen on, for example, July 9 if someone wants to edit something from July 1? July 1 won't be on the main portal page, and per the article space-only; archive and subst at the end option, it would not be seen on a page (except the somewhat hidden /2006-07-09 page) until the beginning of August. joturner 03:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

What I am saying is that July 2006 is left as is throughout the month of July. When we reach August 1, we would create a new July 2006 from the previous month's current events, as is currently done, with the change being instead of copying the events then manually reversing the order of the month's current events it could be done by starting with a standard month's skeleton and then doing a subst of each of July's daily templates. All other steps could remain the same—there's room for improvement to those steps of course, but that's a separate matter. The contents of July 1, 2006 (as proposed) can be edited on July 9 or any other time, and would be accessible, as I thought was currently proposed, through the "More July 2006 Events..." link at the bottom; that link brings the user to an exact duplicate of the current events portals, except that instead of containing a rolling window of the most recently fortnight's worth of events it would contain events since the first of the month. Kayaker 05:50, 9 July 2006 (UTC).

This was what I was getting at too with my vote above. Batmanand | Talk 23:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Alright then; that sounds reasonable (and not too far from the both idea). joturner 01:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)