Talk:Grand Theft Auto IV/Archive 9

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

← Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10 →

GTA IV Budget and Staff

If the information is public there should be mention of the budget and the staff required to produce this title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.167.38.43 (talk) 19:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I second this, any information on the money spent to produce the game should be included in the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidweiner23 (talk • contribs) 09:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Pirate released 360 Version

A pirated group of people tagging itself 'Icon' released a United Kingdom retail copy of the game at 10:50 hours GMT. Subsequently Youtube videos started to appear confirming the fact: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=90chndWcgGs files appeared on Usenet sites soon after. Microsoft also took the unusual step of contacting every journalist who has a preview copy asking them for their gamertags as well as requesting that they set their consoles to appear 'offline' together with instructions for same so they may monitor illegal usage. Twobells (talk) 12:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

If this does belong in the article, here's a citation: http://www.xbox360fanboy.com/2008/04/23/grand-theft-auto-iv-leaked-online/. I have not the heart to add it myself. For me the grief is still too near. xenocidic (talk) 14:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Where should it go? Downloadable Content under Xbox 360? :) No, seriously? ChimpanzeeUK - User | Talk | Contribs 14:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

No.Wageslave (talk) 03:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't feel like adding it either tbh, I don't want it to impact on Rockstar North.Twobells (talk) 14:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Leaks are unencyclopedic, expected, and this leak is not significant FYI. Btw. it was pre'd approx. 10:50:47 GMT (or was it 09? I hate DST). :) --nlitement ^[talk] 14:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Morally I wouldn't agree with adding it but it is significant. Maybe it should be added after the game's release so that it won't cause so much damage? Wikipedia's not a news site so there's no rush. The only people who would benefit from it being added urgently are the people who want to download it. ChimpanzeeUK - User | Talk | Contribs 14:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Now thats a sound idea.Twobells (talk) 14:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

On a seperate issue two major newsgroup hosts crashed or were seriously overloaded by demand, I'd suggest thats significant enough to add as well after release.Twobells (talk) 14:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's hope everyone agrees then. It's like the world's press when Prince Harry went to Iraq. Let's hope some Australians don't come along and ruin it! :) ChimpanzeeUK - User | Talk | Contribs 15:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Nlitement, Most games/movies are leaked in some way and it's not usually mentioned unless something significant happens (eg. release date changes in response). Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Decision: Add the pirating issue info after official release or ignore unless something significant happens as a result of same?Twobells (talk) 15:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it's silly to not to mention it because of "moral issues", specifically because Wikipedia does not censor. However, I think Bill makes a good point regarding other media being leaked all the time. The Halo 3 article has a leaks section, but there was actually a reaction by Bungie. Unless something notable comes out of this, there's no reason to mention it. -- MacAddct  1984 ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:41,

23 April 2008 (UTC)

I dont see it as that notable. Wageslave (talk) 03:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the general consensus is it's only notable if the publisher/developer comments on it. Otherwise, it's not. Fin ©™ 14:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. If after the release the developers say it affected sales or anything like that then it would be notable. But pretty much every 360/PC game is pirated and is not mentioned on wikipedia. This isn't any different. ChimpanzeeUK - User | Talk | Contribs 14:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a major leak, though ^DAVID _CAT

The actual leak is no different to most leaks unless it's commented on by RockStar, or people are prosecuted like when Star Wars episode 3 was leaked. I'd be more inclined to inserting it into the article if there was more information that just "GTA IV has been leaked". Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

BBC is reporting the leak [1] Cavenba^{me parlez} 13:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Technically yes. But it's BBC Newsbeat, when it's BBC News then it'll be worth mentioning in the article. This report is basically just re-reporting website comments. - X201 (talk) 14:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

It was reported on BBC News, I saw it with my own eyes. It linked to BBC Newsbeat, but the headline was on the right, under "Technology" on the main BBC News website. I think it's rather silly that news of this leak is not in the wikipedia article, especially since the news has hit major sites like BBC news. -Z

GTA: San Andreas was leaked onto the internet too but it wasn't mentioned because there was nothing really notable about the leak. Most stuff ends up on the internet and not much can be said other than it is leaked. There were no reported steps taken to ensure the game wasn't leaked when it was shipped, so there's nothing really that unusual about this leak. There doesn't seem to be any response to it and without that it doesn't really add to the article. If Rockstar or TakeTwo respond by saying "this has hurt our sales", or the police make arrests or something else significant happens, there would be more information to use in the article. Otherwise it's not really that important. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree Bill, whilst I personally doubt very much this will make a difference to sales at all, it does interfere with their marketing of the game. Rockstar (or Take 2?) market the Grand theft auto games in a particular way, notably holding back media, in order to maintain hype (or should I say excitement), and I think the fact that Take 2 is going crazy on youtube is fairly notable - they clearly have a problem with the leak. Having said all this, I don't really care that much and I guess it's of minimal importance, relatively speaking. Just thought it'd be a useful addition to the page, considering the notoriety of GTA releases. -Z —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.193.199.45 (talk) 21:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

If you (or anyone) can find a source discussing how the leak is affecting/interfering with the marketing of GTA IV then it probably would be good to include in the article. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Live streaming of the game here: GTA4 Live Stream —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.47.164.86 (talk) 20:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

360 GTA IV not region free

"We know that some people are planning to import GTA IV due to the game being edited in some parts of the world. However, if you are one of those people planning on doing so we’d advise you not to import the PAL version 360 release of the game as it as been confirmed it is not region free. So, if you happen to have it pre-ordered somewhere we advise run and cancel that right now.

Please note the US version of the game could be different, as a few games released in the US have been region free while the Euro one was locked. However, no details on that version are known as of yet."

http://darkzero.co.uk/game-news/360-gta-iv-not-region-free/

Denzelio (talk) 15:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

DLC on Xbox 360 "pricing" speculation

From the section on Xbox 360 DLC, this appears;

"Details on the pricing of these downloads have not yet been revealed, though it would almost certainly not be released for free, as Take-Two Interactive's former CEO, Paul Eibeler, has said numerous times that these downloads would provide "additional revenue streams" to the company[citation needed]"

Does anyone have a citation? Wageslave (talk) 03:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Celebrity comedians?

I've been reading about rumors of famous comedians like Katt Williams doing performances at the comedy clubs throughout Liberty City. It wouldn't surprise me that this information is floating around seeing as to how the game's been leaked. Is there anyway to confirm it and if I find a valid source, could i post it? -D Deadeyes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.193.181.84 (talk) 14:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

There's mention of the comedy clubs in the gameplay section so you could tag it on the end of that. This [2] will do a a starting source, but the more the better. - X201 (talk) 14:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Just realised, the article is locked to IP users so you won't be able to add it yourself. But post it here and one of the regulars will do the honours for you. - X201 (talk) 14:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I can confirm that Ricky Gervais is on it, specifically on the TV, but I have no evidence as such as I saw it on a live feed (I couldn't resist (Clarkey4boro (talk) 18:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)).

I just found a link with video of Katt Williams on GTAIV. Perhaps this could be considered a valid source. http://www.dead-frog.com/blog/entry/katt_williams_also_playing_liberty_citys_split_sides_in_gta_iv/ -D Deadeyes

IGN review

anyone else think that it should be shown as 10.0 instead of 10? if not, people might think ign think really it's a 9.5 but have to round up.

ign is a publication which gives 9.7 and 9.8, rather than just 8/10 or 9/10. i just think it should be differentiated to reflect that this really is a perfect score, rather than a rounded-off 10/10. Autonova (talk) 18:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. -Z —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.193.199.45 (talk) 19:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Response -- Why? You can't have 10.5 out of 10, you can have 0.5/10 but not 10.5/10 It's just not how their ranking system works, the decimal point may be removed since it's meaningless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.169.5.42 (talk)

I agree with the Anon IP, I don't see why people would think it is rounded off. Besides, IGN gave the review "10", not "10.0". Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

This reminds me of the information plate on the front of Edge's reviews section "1=One, 2=Two, 3=Three" .... "10 = Ten" - X201 (talk) 10:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

People would think it's rounded off because OXM and IGN gave it perfect 10s, yet OXM dont do decimal places, ign do, and there's no way to tell this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Autonova (talk • contribs) 14:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

All other games on Wiki have had it as "10.0/10", besides, it makes it look way more impressive, so go for it. --nlitement ^[talk] 09:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

GAMESPOT REVIEW HAS NOT YET BEEN PUBLISHED. 9.5 WITH UNSPECIFIED CITATION? CLARIFICATION PERHAPS?

Gamespot has already put the review up, why da' hell is this page locked? hurry up you white hill billie's —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.172.19.132 (talk) 04:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Special Edition Box Art

Isn't [3] & [4] the Special Edition Box Art?

I'm pretty sure they are.

yeah they are —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.188.109.178 (talk) 18:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The Special Edition section notes: "Both versions have identical box art." This should be removed and pictures of the real special edition box should be shown if possible.--NotYouHaha! (talk) 06:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't beat me with sticks but...

What do people think about this part of the IGN review? I think it's notable for the article because of the fierce rivalry and the fact that the game was developed on the 360 so it's quite unexpected.

For those wanting to know which version looks better, the edge goes to the PS3. The textures and framerate are comparable, but the PS3 has far less pop-in. The 360 has richer colors, but the PS3 has better anti-aliasing making it look a little cleaner. Because GTA IV can preload onto the PS3 hard drive, the in-game loads are faster. Don't worry Xbox owners, the load times are rarely more than 30 seconds and don't occur very often. The slight visual edge goes to PS3, but the 360 is no slouch. Either version will do you proud.

I was considering just adding something about it in the Reception section but I didn't bother because a) I didn't want to be accused of fanboyism and b) an xbox fanboy would have just reverted it anyway! I'd like to gauge some opinion? ChimpanzeeUK - User | Talk | Contribs 18:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

It probably should be included in some way as it is normal to discuss differences between versions. As the differences seem to be only very minor then it should be written in a way that reflects that, and not spend too much time on the subject. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

As long as it's balanced it should be OK, something along the lines of...

In it's review IGN said that they thought the PlayStation 3 version looked slightly better than the Xbox 360 version which had "richer colours" but the PlayStation's Anti-aliasing made the graphics look "cleaner".

- X201 (talk) 19:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Although, I have been playing the PS3 version today (it was shipped to me very early), and I didn't think there was any antialiasing. It looked very jagged to me on my 720p screen. -Z —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.193.199.45 (talk) 19:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

We're going to beat you not only with sticks, but with bats. Metal bats.Wikipedia ain't no forum, fool. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.188.109.178 (talk) 23:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Not notable be normal GTA standards

"Notable weapons in this game other than melee fighting with fists and knives include pistols, submachine guns, assault rifles, sniper rifles, rocket launchers, and molotov cocktails."

Pretty much all of the above weapons have been in every GTA game to date. I'm going to remove it as it seems redundant to mention it. It's akin to saying the next half-life episode will have combine enemies in it. JackorKnave (talk) 00:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

But they have recieved a bit of an update, if you have watched some of the G4 Tech TV vids that went up.

If you want you can mention the differences.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.229.188.76 (talk) 18:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but to re-iterate: There is absolutely nothing notable about having the exact same weapons, also in answer to you, no offence man, but there no "differences" mentioned in the above quote. JackorKnave (talk) 19:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 19:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

NO POINT for Sound Track page yet

Nothing on that page is sited so it mine as well not be listed yet Butters0422 (talk) 03:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Heh, that's a lot of info you need to remove then. Emil Kastberg (talk) 19:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Reception issues

There's no empire or playstation world reviews cited. anyway, the empire review was taken down from the site, so it definitely shouldn't be up there. 76.232.62.205 (talk) 06:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Done I've commented it our so that it can be easily put back when the review re-appears when the review embargo is lifted tonight. - X201 (talk) 09:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Kotaku review

Kotaku just released their review for the game if anyone wants to post that. http://kotaku.com/384421/grand-theft-auto-iv-review-life-liberty-city-and-the-pursuit-of-happiness They are also releasing a 'comparison review' momentarily. -Del Deadeyes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.193.181.84 (talk)

The Game has now been released

The Game has now been released. Since the article has been locked please may an admin remove the tag banner on the front of the article. Ganstagingerns8061791 (talk) 21:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Legally, it hasn't been released anywhere around the world yet. It's semi-protected to deter drive-by vandalism, so the official release of the game doesn't necessarily mean that the article will be unprotected. /Carson 21:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the OP was referring to the {{future game}} banner. - X201 (talk) 07:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The game has indeed now been released in several locations (Australia and New Zealand are some examples) ShadowFusion (talk) 15:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Differences from previous Grand Theft Auto games

I wondering whether this particular section should be split to add more information to the game?.--SkyWalker (talk) 02:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Definitely. But it needs planning. We should discuss what subcategories to rewrite the list in. Emil Kastberg (talk) 06:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I was just working on a draft of that which I've now performed. I converted the list to "prose" and merged the Differences with the Gameplay section. The subsections, I made were Vehicles, Combat, Communication, Police. Each section still needs an overview of the topic and some copyediting. I think a Missions section (like GTA III's article) describing the game's mission structure and a Environment (or some other name) section which talks about the other activities to do in the city (like the comedy clubs etc.) would be good. - kollision (talk) 09:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The section looks much better now, good work. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Yea good work. I heard they are mini games that is included in GTA 4 such has darts and other stuff. That should be added to. --SkyWalker (talk) 04:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Grand Theft Auto multiplayer

Contrary to the article, GTA 4 is not the first GTA game on a console to feature online multiplayer. The GTA games on the PSP featured online multiplayer. The PC version also had unofficial multiplayer. 80.194.73.200 (talk) 14:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I dont think the PSP or PC are classified as a console. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.230.244.1 (talk) 14:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps not a HOME console, but could be worth a mention as a portable console nontheless? 80.194.73.200 (talk) 14:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

No because the multiplayer on the psp games were ad-hoc only, not online.--151.199.196.179 (talk) 15:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah I see. Wondered why I could never get it working.. 80.194.73.200 (talk) 15:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

GTA 1, London and 2 had multiplayer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.193.199.45 (talk) 01:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Not online multiplayer, and certainly not for the console versions considering, you know, they were Playstation games. As far as the PC ports go (and as I recall), they used an IPX protocol which is network-based, not over the internet itself. 67.142.130.13 (talk) 11:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

IPX is what I would consider "online", particularly given that I've played GTA2 multiplayer with several of my non-local friends before. It's not supported by a server management service, of course, but the ability to play with a remote user over the internet counts as online to me.

If the article stated that it was the first GTA game to include a multiplayer gaming service, I'd be kosher cookin'. --Jtgibson (talk) 15:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

(Missed the remark "on a console", however. "On a console" is correct -- there were no official multiplayer-enabled console GTAs.) --Jtgibson (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 15:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Controversy

Perhaps a reference to this article could be added. [5] 80.194.73.200 (talk) 14:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Article length

Soon, we should consider splitting this article as it's 59 kB (that's pretty big), as per WP:SPLIT. Also, the article is roughly 5,000 words of prose FYI. No rush. Cavenba^{me parlez} 20:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the "Gameplay" section could be trimmed down. It's hugely oversized at the moment. It seems to be going into far too much detail than is necessary for this article. .:Alex :. 20:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Sections like Gameplay and Controversy could even be split into smaller articles. Cavenba^{me parlez} 20:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't seem like it could be split down reasonably. I in no way, directly oppose a splitting, but it seems like nothing is necessarily notable enough to split down, except maybe controversy. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 20:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I know what you mean. Most definitely, "Controversy" should be split, as it's notable enough to have its own article. Cavenba^{me parlez} 21:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Gameplay should not be trimmed. I feel it need another article. There are many new gameplay addition that has been added to GTA 4. Controversy must be split. --SkyWalker (talk) 03:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Reception

IGN states that they last gave a 10 to SOUL CALIBUR, NOT ZELDA:OOT. Read the last page of the article.

A "10" is not a score we give out very often. In fact, the last time we gave a 10 to a console game was Soul Calibur in 1999.

[6]

--96.236.17.13 (talk) 21:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I put the Soul Calibur in the article yesterday, but someone edited it out and put Zelda.

I edited it back. PLEASE NO ONE SAY THAT IT WAS ZELDA, BECAUSE ZELDA WAS IN 98. SOUL CALIBUR WAS 99!

PoisonGodmachine (talk) 21:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

theft and bittorrent leak?

Is the theft by ups employees and leak to bittorrent notable enough to be included in the article? I know the harry potter article has information regarding its leak, not sure what the standard is regarding leaks of material before its release date is. Nar Matteru (talk) 23:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe it would be, heres a link to the news story, plus a bunch of videos are now on Youtube. http://www.news.com.au/technology/story/0,25642,23608698-5014117,00.html --TGothier (talk) 23:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

There is already a discussion above about the pirated versions. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

um....

could i put the fox news scores?? for the game??Al1012 (talk) 23:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I was skeptical that Fox News actually reviewed games, but I Googled it anyway. I was shocked to see that not only does Fox News review games, but it gave this game a near perfect score. However, seeing as The New York Times' score isn't included in the list of scores, I don't see how Fox News' score should be. MemeGeneScene (talk) 02:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

ok well i just saw it and was thinking about it thats all thx.Al1012 (talk) 14:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

PC Version?

Is a PC version in the works? Release date? I feel its relevant to the article since as far as I know every other GTA game has had a PC version from initial release. 203.217.13.50 (talk) 23:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Rockstar has made no mention so far, I've read some hearsay (or readsay since its the internet) posts on forums about the Hot Coffee incident caused Rockstar to swear off PC ports but nothing official.Skeith (talk) 02:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

There is currently no official confirmation regarding PC version. Until there is an information nothing must be added. --SkyWalker (talk) 04:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

It may be worth noting, the following information from Grand Theft Auto III article

Following GTA III, PlayStation 2 GTA games generally followed GTA III release pattern, in which the Microsoft Windows port is released within seven to eight months after the PlayStation 2 versions' release.[46][47][48]

--Chibbie (talk) 17:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Grand Theft Auto IV Coming to PC in October? --WikiCats (talk) 13:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I've seen that before. It looks like complete speculation without anything to back it up. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

If there's money to be made in the PC market (and there almost certainly is) then I have no doubt that a computer version will come out pretty soon, regardless of the hot coffee incident ( aspeople associate that episode with the entire GTA franchise, not just the PC version of San Andreas). In fact, I've heard confirmation of a PC port from people close to the games development, but with no word of a release date. However, since we're almost guaranteed not to hear an official announcement for at least another month, such speculation does not belong on wikipedia. grarap (talk) 16:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)grarap

Removals by Y2kcrazyjoker4

I've re-added the information removed by Y2kcrazyjoker4 in these two edits[7] [8]. I didn't really see those edits as an improvment. Citing Justin Calvert saying the game is "compelling" and "undoubtedly the best Grand Theft Auto yet" doesn't really tell readers WHY that is. I cited Calvert for criticisms of the game because the Reception section is completely favorable. Surely someone somewhere has said something negative about the game? It's also common to list aggregate scores before individual reviews. I think the analyst predications can be trimmed after actual sales information comes in, but you removed the citation pointing to the $550 million prediction. Explain what you want trimmed and we can work on a compromise. --Pixelface (talk) 08:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

In terms of complaints it has been noted that there are a few glitches, lags or some other kind of "hitch". Stabby Joe (talk) 15:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Which version? Or both? I've seen a video of the 360 version having some clipping issues, but not a decent reference for it. Neıl ☎ 15:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

what do u mean by "the 360 version having some clipping issues" Al1012 (talk) 15:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Clipping is when only things that are directly visible are rendered on screen. So things like buildings and trees aren't rendered if they're behind you. This is basically done to save CPU power. I've seen some videos where people have been driving along and a tree suddenly appears as it hasn't been rendered as soon as it was in the field of view. As with Neil, I haven't seen any sources talking about this yet. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

View stats

This article was viewed more than 144K times yesterday. JACO PLANE • 2008-04-29 14:58

that is an odd article... but its cool Al1012 (talk) 15:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)