Talk:Bath, Somerset

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Featured article star Bath, Somerset is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 25, 2005.
Archive
Archives
Archive 1
Bath, Somerset is included in the 2007 Wikipedia for Schools, or is a candidate for inclusion in future versions. Please maintain high quality standards, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the CDs.
Peer review This Geography article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated FA-Class on the assessment scale (comments).

Contents

[edit] 17th century

Bath in the seventeenth century – it is not mentioned yet, that Daniel Defoe in his novel Moll Flanders has written about Bath. Consequently Bath was "full of life" already in the 17-th century. Kalevi Kvell, Estonia -- User:77.233.90.11

[edit] Somerset?

I lived in Bath most of my life and have never really thought of it as "Bath, Somerset". Until 1997 it was in the county Avon, and since then it has been in the unitary authority Bath and North East Somerset. I wasn't aware that Bath was now considered in the ceremonial county Somerset as ceremonial counties don't present themselves in anyway. Since there isn't another city called Bath in the United Kingdom, why do we need to be so specific? --Oldak Quill 17:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

If you take a look at the archive of this talk page you will see a massive discussion + votes etc on this issue.— Rod talk 17:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I was merely pointing out that the name is wrong (that is, "Bath, Somerset" is not a name used to refer to Bath, and Bath is not in Somerset). It hardly matters how much discussion or voting has occurred: voting can't be used to decide the truth of something. The discussion to which you pointed seemed to mainly concern whether bath or Bath should sit at Bath. I'm not suggesting this city should be moved to Bath, but there are at least half a dozen better qualifications than ", Somerset". --Oldak Quill 12:27, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
P.S. In the discussion to which you pointed, User:MichaelMaggs said "As the name suggests, this authority covers only part of the old county of Somerset. But in practical terms a resident would never say "I live in Bath, Bath and North East Somerset", but might say "I live in Bath, Somerset". More likely, however, he or she would simply say "I live in Bath", as that's all that most people would need. So "Bath, Somerset" is at worst redundant, but is not wrong.".
I have never heard anyone use the term "Bath, Somerset" when referring to Bath (Google, with only 250,000 hits for "Bath, Somerset", mostly hotels trying to increase the romantic appeal of the city, seems to confirm this). Normally, when Bath is said to be somewhere the term "BANES" (or "B&NES") is used, more rarely "Avon", and never "Somerset". Somerset doesn't exist and Bath can't be said to be in it. I'm pointing out these comments because they might have been used to decide the move, but are wrong. Just as another point of discussion: the term "City of Bath" is quite commonly used as a name for the city (the term is used by the UNESCO website site, the university website, the semi-official website for the city...) --Oldak Quill 12:35, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I would just use "Bath (UK city)" or something similar (along the lines of Georgia (U.S. state) or how Encarta does it[1]). But for some reason, people seem to not like using standard Wikipedia disambiguation guidelines when disambiguating place names. --Polaron | Talk 13:11, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I live in Bath, and have never heard of a local refer to "Bath, Somerset", and AFAICT no one in Bath has a sense of belonging to Somerset. I pointed this out in the renaming discussion, but that view did not prevail - and it still grates every time I see the article name! A pertinent fact is that Bath has been a County borough since 1889, so not part of administrative county of Somerset since then, and hasn't been the county-town even though it is the highest population city in the ceremonial county. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places)#Counties of Britain isn't at all clear on the naming of places within a larger unitary authority, as opposed to town/city which composes the whole of a unitary authority: 'We should use the current, administrative, county ... We should mention historic (traditional) counties in articles about places ... but only as an afternote. If a place is a unitary authority and not administered by a county council, it is acceptable to use ceremonial counties as geographic references, as this is often more in line with common usage"'. As Somerset is not the common usage in Bath, strikes me that existing Wikipedia policy suggests that it should not be "Bath, Somerset". The neighbouring unitary authority of South Gloucestershire is treated differently in Wikipedia, as if it was a proper county with naming like Thornbury, South Gloucestershire - trouble is Bath and North East Somerset is such a mouthful. In fact the naming of the UA Bath and North East Somerset rather than the simpler North East Somerset is clear indication that Bath is not generally thought of as part of Somerset in administrative/government circles as well as by the local populus. I could also point to Halifax, West Yorkshire and St Helens, Merseyside which are former county boroughs that have not been named in Wikipedia by their old ceremonial counties, probably because the locals don't think of themselves as part of that county. Rwendland (talk) 14:08, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I was born and bred in Bath (moving on in 1974 or so) and it was definitely in Somerset, then! 'Avon' came later, and was much disliked. Sounds like a cosmetics advertisement :-). I'm a Somerset man, and proud of it. Mendip; Cheddar; Cider; Glastonbury Tor; Bath -- all the essence of Somerset. quota (talk) 16:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Quill is glossing over a lengthy and complex discussion by simply asserting that "Somerset doesn't exist". Of course it does - it is both an Historic county and a Ceremonial county: see the article Somerset. I think what he meant was "The local authority district for Bath is not coterminous with the County of Somerset". Indeed, that is so, and that fact was well-acknowledged in the discussion, prior to the vote. The local Authority is an entity known as "Bath and North East Somerset" (B&NES), whose geographic area covers part of that of the County of Somerset. During the vote there was little stomach for changing the title to "Bath, B&NES" (meaningless to most readers) or to "Bath, Bath and North East Somerset" (a mouthful, and unlikely to be used by any but a vanishingly small proportion of Wikipedia readers). "Bath, Somerset", was chosen as the best of the suggestions at the time perhaps because several locals, myself included, very frequently refer to Bath in that way. "Bath (city)" would have been possible, but several voters didn't like that as it would not be a unique disambiguation - several other towns around the world are called Bath, and in the US the word "city" can be used even for quite small towns. Personally, I would go with the suggestion made by Polaron, above - "Bath (UK city)". That's short, accurate, and would be well-understood by the vast majority of readers. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:39, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Somerset not existing was one of my arguments (to clarify: Somerset as a functional county or authority does not exist). A more important argument is that Bath is not in, has not been in for a long time, and is not thought to be in a place called "Somerset". As User:Rwendland points out, Bath has been a county borough since 1889 and has not been administered by Somerset since then. This is why, despite having lived there for well over a decade, I have never heard it being referred to as in Somerset and have not encountered any sense of it being part of Somerset (historical, ceremonial, or otherwise). I agree that both "Bath, B&NES" and "Bath, Bath and North East Somerset" wouldn't be good titles. "Bath (UK city)" would be fine, though the disambiguation term is a little clunky. How about "Bath, United Kingdom" (this is my favourite)? "Bath, United Kingdom" makes the naming consistant with other geographic articles and is disambiguated enough. --Oldak Quill 22:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] citations

i think a lot of things need to be verified. the population for instance. And it says there a many five star hotels, i think there are only 2. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.217.55 (talk) 16:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I would agree that many of the statements in the article need citations. I have provided over 50 so far and added {{fact}} tags where I think more are still needed. I have moved the list of "places of interest" to a new article List of places of interest in Bath, Somerset and combined some of the sections. I have also removed several comments which do not comply with WP:NPOV, although I've spotted some remaining in the architecture section. I am hoping that with some further work this article can regain some of its former glory!— Rod talk 20:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit]  ? What else before going for GA

I have added lots of references & copy edited this article. Thanks to others for edits as well. I think a little more is needed in the history section for the 2nd half of the 20th century and current developments, but apart from that what else do people think is needed before this article is ready to be put up for Wikipedia:Good articles?— Rod talk 15:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest that the lead needs a serious seeing to. :) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
The lead has now had a "seeing to" is there anything else people think need doing - or is this article ready for submission to Wikipedia:Good articles?— Rod talk 18:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Order of Infoboxes

An editor keeps switching the infoboxes so that "Infobox World Heritage Site" appears above "infobox UK place" I do not feel this is appropriate but wanted to try to reach some consensus here. Any thoughts?— Rod talk 20:49, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

UK infobox first. --Cheesy Mike (talk) 21:06, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

World h site first, the same reason as on the Maritime Greenwich Article. Blackwave...... (talk) 11:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The reason quoted in the Greenwich article is that the infobox is boring and doesn't have an image. If that is your only reason then it is very easy to put an image into the UK place infobox - I have done this. My opinion is that Bath is a living, working city first and a world heritage tourist site second. For that reason I believe the UK place infobox takes precedence. --Cheesy Mike (talk) 13:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Given that the purpose of the infobox is to give a standardised summary of the main points about its subject, the question becomes which of the two infoboxes best summarises the article. There's no doubt that's the UK place infobox, and that therefore it should come first. I'd also say that having the two infoboxes immediately following one another looks a bit naff as well. The Greenwich article at least has some separation between them, even though they are in the wrong order. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
You make a really good point about separation. There should be a separate section within the article on UNESCO world heritage status that should also contain the UNESCO infobox. I'll give it some thought. --Cheesy Mike (talk) 15:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Just a note that I too agree UK place should be first. Purely based on how I interpret the article to pertain first and foremost to Bath as a place/settlement. I also believe it would lead to less confusion to unfamilliar users navigating to this page. 16:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jza84 (talk • contribs)
I think that putting the infobox in a separate world heritage section would be a really elegant solution to the problem. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes the two infoboxes together are causing huge problems in my browser. Might it not be suitable in history or culture? -- Jza84 · (talk) 01:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree moving the world heritage infobox further down the article would be beneficial - as the UNESCO Document about Bath is mostly about the architecture, how would people feel about putting it in that section replacing the photo of the Royal Crescent which has now been copied to the infobox?— Rod talk 11:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I personally don't have a strong veiw on where it goes (other than at least below the 1st section). I'm presuming however that some users may want it as high as possible for increased exposure. I guess we're not sure unless they speak up though! -- Jza84 · (talk) 13:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA review: On Hold

I have reviewed this article according to the requirements of the GA criteria and have placed the article on hold until the following issues are addressed. As you address each issue, either strike through the statement/place a check mark next to the issue and state how you addressed it. If you disagree with one of the issues, state your rationale after the issue.

  1. The lead needs to be expanded further to better summarize the article. It should touch on each of the sections in the article and be at least three or four paragraphs due to the article's length. For guidelines, see WP:LEAD
  2. "The archaeological evidence shows that the site of the Roman Baths' main spring was treated as a shrine by the Celts," Remove "the" at the beginning of the sentence.
  3. "Messages to her scratched onto metal, known as curse tablets have been recovered from the Sacred Spring by archaeologists.[7]." Remove the period after the inline citation.
  4. "...and possibly on the instructions of Emperor Claudius[8]," The inline citation should go directly after the punctuation; go through the rest of the article and fix any other occurrences if applicable.
  5. "Regeneration efforts, since 2000, include the Bath Spa, Southgate and the Bath Western Riverside project.[36]" Single and two-sentence paragraphs shouldn't stand alone. Either expand on it or incorporate it into another paragraph. Fix any other occurrences throughout the article if applicable.
  6. Image:Coat of Arms - City of Bath.jpg — If this image is going to be used, it needs a detailed fair use rationale on the image's page that includes the article's title as well. Look to other GAs for examples of fair use rationales.
  7. "The city has the hottest geothermal springs in the UK. [46]" Make sure the inline citation goes directly after the punctuation. Again, make sure any other occurrences are fixed.
  8. "...the 2004 movie of Thackeray's Vanity Fair, The Duchess (2008), The Elusive Pimpernel (1950) and The Titfield Thunderbolt[65]" The films should be italicized and this sentence is missing a period.
  9. Include an intro sentence in the "food" section to have a better transition rather then immediately listing one of the types of food the city has to offer. Something like "Bath is home to a variety of foods that..." Also, is there any notable drinks? Wines or other alcohol?
  10. "Bath chap, the cheek and jawbones of the pig, salted and smoked is named after Bath, its place of origin, and still available from a stall in the market.[74]." This sentence should be rewritten or split into two sentences. Expand on it if you can, and which stall in the market is being referred to?
  11. "Important economic sectors in Bath include Education & Health (30,000 jobs), Retail, Tourism and Leisure (14,000 jobs) and Business & Professional Services (10,000 jobs)." The different economic sectors don't need to be capitalized. The same goes for the employment sectors a few sentences after this one.
  12. "There are many roman archeology sites through out the central area of the city,..." Roman should be capitalized. There is another occurrence in the same paragraph.
  13. "...the inspiration behind which was the Colosseum in Rome.[95] Like the Coliseum,..." Two different spellings are used here for the Roman amphitheater, choose one so they are uniform.

Needs inline citations:

  1. "The average annual sunshine totals around 1600 hours."
  2. "However, Jane Austen never liked the city, and wrote to her sister Cassandra, "It will be two years tomorrow since we left Bath for Clifton, with what happy feelings of escape."" This quote needs an inline citation.
  3. "Jane Austen wrote of Sydney Gardens that "It would be pleasant to be near the Sydney Gardens. We could go into the Labyrinth every day.""
  4. "Local legend has it that he bequeathed the recipe for his low calorie biscuits to his coachman, a Mr Atkins, along with £100 and a hundred sacks of flour."

The article was interesting to read and it was great to see so many free images (good job with the several featured images!). Most of these issues should be very easy to fix and shouldn't take too long. I have left the article on hold for seven days for the issues to be addressed. If they are fixed in this time, I will pass the article. If not, the article will be failed and can be renominated at WP:GAN. If you have any questions or when you are done, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Concerning notable drinks, it might be worth mentioning Bath Ales and Abbey Ales. Geometry guy 16:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Bath Ales added - but not really in Bath
But Abbey Ales is (see here). I'm not sure how notable it is for a town of this size to have two small breweries associated with it, but my feeling is that it is notable enough for a sentence. Geometry guy 20:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Now added
Note: Moved to Abbey Ales (brewery) per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abbey Ales —Travistalk 04:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
The way the various foods are named in the Food section doesn't seem to be consistent: is it Sally Lunn Bun or Sally Lun's bun? Different formatting is used as well: Bath Olivers are in italics, but Bath buns aren't (should that be Bath Bun?). --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I've tried to standardise this based on the capitalisation etc at Bath Delicacies at Bath Tourism site
Thanks to everyone for their edits and advice today - hopefully we have met the concerns expressed by the GA review, but if there are any other issues which need to be dealt with the improve the article please let us know.— Rod talk 19:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm just being picky now, but why is 'comfits' in single quotes? Or indeed in quotes at all? ( Maybe I should take up FA reviewing instead of asking for too much at GA :-) ) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Done - but this article was once an FA.......— Rod talk 20:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
So I'm trying to believe, but I've found it very difficult. BTW. why is 'nib' in single quotes? What is a nib anyway? ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Lets get through this hurdle first. According to Sugar "Coarse-grained sugars, such as sanding sugar (also called "pearl sugar", "decorating sugar", nibbed sugar or sugar nibs) adds "sparkle" and flavor for decorating to baked goods, candies, cookies/biscuits and other desserts." & I have no idea why 'nib' is in single quotes— Rod talk 21:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

A lot of early FAs (this one was April 2005) would not meet even the GA criteria right now. The inline citation requirement have been ramped up considerably since the early days (and I'm not convinced this is an entirely helpful development). As for this article, I think it is now very close to (the current) FA standard, and many congratulations to the editors for writing such a fine article about this fine place. Geometry guy 21:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA passed

Good job to all those on addressing the above issues (and finding a few more!) so quickly. I have passed this article according to the requirements of the GA criteria. There are still a few single sentences standing alone in the "Media" section that should be expanded or merged. Anyway, continue to improve the article, making sure that all new information is properly sourced. As stated above, the article is not too far away from FA status, so I'd recommend getting a couple of outside editors to give it a copyedit and head off to WP:FAC.

Also, to anyone that is reading this review, please consider reviewing an article or two at WP:GAN to help with the large backlog. Instructions can be found here. Each new reviewer that helps to review articles will help to reduce the time that articles wait to be reviewed. Keep up the good work, and I hope that you continue to bring articles up to Good Article status. If anyone disagrees with this review, an alternate opinion can be sought at Good article reassessment. If you have any further questions about this review, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 22:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What else for FA?

Now that this article has achieved GA, what else do people think needs doing to meet the Wikipedia:Featured article criteria?— Rod talk 18:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

  • The two tables in Demography have different text sizes, and there are maybe just a few too many red links for some FA reviewers. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • "... only 15.8% of the inhabitants say they have had a long-term illness, as against 18.2% nationally." Using the word only can imply some kind of a judgement as to whether the difference is statistically significant or not. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I've changed the font size in the demography table & reworded the long term illness section. I've made a start on the red links - but any help appreciated.— Rod talk 09:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • "Since Bath is known for the restorative powers of its waters, it is interesting to note ..." Interesting to who? That kind of language tends to get criticised at FAC, as you know. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I wonder if the schools table in Education and Twinned towns in Tourism are worth the space. Also the Tourism section is oddly tiny. Should the Climate table use nearby Lyneham rather than Yeovilton? Rwendland (talk) 23:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I'd suggest that Twinned towns section could be expanded to say what activities take place under the twinning - and it's perhaps not appropriately under "tourism", as most twin town activities are usually education / culture/ business? PamD (talk) 07:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
According to AA route finder Lyneham is 24.7 miles away & Yeovilton is 39.5 & on a quick scan of the data Yeovilton from Met Office & Lyneham from Met Office its not going to make much difference.— Rod talk 11:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
True, not as big difference as I first thought. Straight line using Google Earth I make it 18 (Lyneham) and 28 miles (Yeovilton). Not worth making work over given neither is really close. Rwendland (talk) 13:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone got any further thoughts on putting this up for FA, or shall I go for it?— Rod talk 17:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

  • As the Demography tables are for B&NES not Bath, and their layout looks plain ugly in the short section, I think they should be deleted. A copy is already in the B&NES article, which is the correct place for this data. Rwendland (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 12:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] How in the hell did this get FA?

There are still significant issues with this article. I have no idea how it passed WP:FAC. It should never have. It will go to WP:FAR if these issues are not addressed:

  • Demographics section is too short! Only two paragraphs! The two tables crowd the whole section and it looks pathetic!
  • Industry section is WAYYY too short! Is that seriously all you can say about the town's industry?
  • What does 'twinned towns' have to do with tourism? Usually sister cities and twin towns are in its own main section, not as a subsection. The 'partnership agreement' has no source.
  • The table in the education section is unproportional to the actual content. There are external links within the table as well (external links should only go in the 'external links' at the end of the article, not within the content area itself). There are two red links in the table as well. I don't understand what the purpose of the 'results' column in the table is for? The links there are to a bunch of BBC articles, but they're not properly formatted as inline citations, and need to be fixed.
  • The 'Many notable people went to school in Bath' sentence is completely uncited, and needs to be verifiable, or deleted.
  • The media section is also way too short. It looks like mention of several radio & television status are probably missing, though I am uncertain there. Either way, it doesn't look comprehensive.

I can't imagine how this article got promoted to FA in its current state. Is Raul asleep or something?!?! Dr. Cash (talk) 19:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments - it passed WP:FAC by going through the appropriate procedures and gaining consensus. I'm sure if you had raised these issues at the time we would have attempted to address them. To respond to a few of your comments:
  • I didn't know there was a specific length required for demographics sections - what further information (which is available and verifiable) would you like to see included? - surely whether someone likes tables as a way of representing data is a matter of opinion - rather than "pathetic".
  • By far the largest industry is tourism although several other industries (with figures for how many they employ) are included - what further information (which is available and verifiable) would you like to see included?
  • Twin towns may be important in encouraging tourism. WP:UKCITIES doesn't mention twin towns, but this could be moved to governance (as these agreements are made by councils) but it is probaly not important enough for its own section.
  • The table in the education section does summarise significant information. The results column points to GCSE & "Value added" scores - I will convert these to references as soon as I can. A couple of red links is not a criteria for failing FAC.
  • I agree about the "notable people went to school" & will address this asap.
  • How long do you think a media section should be? The page is already 70kb long if we add too much more we will get criticised for it being too long.
I'm sure valid and actionable comments (and help with fixing errors) would be welcomed but a more constructive tone would be appreciated.— Rod talk 20:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
(ec) It appears to me that your objections are based largely on your assumption that certain sections are not comprehensive, rather than any knowledge or evidence that they are not – "too short" is a subjective judgement that does not inform about comprehensiveness – along with a dash of wp:idontlikeit. As to Raul's state of somnambulism, that's a question better directed at him. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Years & centuries, numbers & linking

I've noticed that overnight several editors have been changing the way centuries are described and linked & thought it might be useful to get consensus here. The WP:MOS#Dates says "Use numerals for centuries (the 17th century), except at the start of a sentence". I know this conflicts with the next paragraph which says "single-digit whole numbers (from zero to nine) are given as words" but I think the guidance on dates takes precedence? I can't currently find anything definitive in the MOS on whether centuries should be linked (although I'm sure I've read it somewhere before), but it must be consistent within the article. Any help or thoughts appreciated.— Rod talk 10:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The guidance is quite clear in Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Autoformatting_and_linking - Wikipedia has articles on days of the year, years, decades, centuries and millennia. Link to one of these pages only if it is likely to deepen readers' understanding of a topic. --TimTay (talk) 10:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I have a script that will delink centuries. If anyone is interested in using it, simply
  • 1. copy all the source text from User:Lightmouse/monobook.js/script.js to your own monobook (i.e. replace 'Lightmouse' with your name)
  • 2. clear your cache, (if you have Firefox: press Ctrl-Shift-R, if you have IE: press Ctrl-F5).
  • 3. Pick an article with units that need converting and click 'Edit this page' to put it into edit mode.
  • 4. Click the tab at the top right that says 'dates+units'.
  • 5. try it on about 10 articles and let me know how you get on
Any questions just ask me. Lightmouse (talk) 11:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)