Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians/Article guidelines/Archive 1

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Contents 1 Infobox 1.1 Color codes - a couple of ideas 1.2 Fields 2 "Musical Artists" and "Composers" 3 Salary, RIAA cert 4 Second infobox proposal 5 Notable albums/songs 6 Which infobox to use 7 "Musical Artist" text - necessary? 8 RFC on Template:Infobox musical artist

Infobox

The original infobox proposal is being removed, please see #Second infobox proposal for the current –proposal/discussion

B.Mearns^*, KSC 15:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

It's been pointed out that the Similar artists field lends itself to POV issues. I really like the idea of having it there, I think it's very useful, but I definitely see the concern. bmearns, KSC_(talk) 17:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Color codes - a couple of ideas

I think color codes are nice but not so easy to remember, either for editors and for readers (when I have edited Romanza (album) I had the corresponding Wikiproject page open in another page of the browser). One idea would be to include a very small legend section in a corner of the infobox itself, giving hints about the meaning of each color in the form of a tooltip. Something along these lines

Legend:

Note: of course this is just a quick hack to illustrate the idea. Many variants are possible and the table should perhaps be slightly smaller. I would prefer squared color boxes (rather than rectangular) and a maybe a squared arrangement if the number of colors allows that. Such a legend could also be in a footnote.

Another idea would be to use icons instead of, or in addition to, colors. A set of well-designed icons can immediately convey complex meanings to the user, without relying on arbitrary and hard to remember conventions. --Gennaro Prota 02:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that memorizing what the different colors mean can be a little forboding and isn't terribly practical. I really like the way your demo key looks, but I'm not sure how practical it is for inclusion in the infobox. For instance, it's got color but no code, as the commerical goes. If you look at the color-scheme definition for WikiProject Albums, you can see how large an informative key is likely to become.

What I'd rather see, personally, is a link to the color coding scheme as laid out on the main project page. Until recently there was actually a link to the Project page on the infobox, but it was removed according to some wikipedia guidelines.

The other thing to keep in mind is that the colors are meant to represent the genre, which is already mentioned in the infobox's text. The idea of the colors was not to be the soul source of that information, but to provide a quick reference for those who are familiar with the color scheme (e.g., those who work alot with WikiProject Music genres). If you need to look up the color in a key anyway, why not just read the infobox? B.Mearns^*, KSC 16:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Being a programmer, I'm a little paranoid about these kinds of things :) Seriously, one of the Big Laws of information processing is that two disconnected pieces of information that should be in sync won't be some day in the future. Incidentally, have you seen the tooltips in the example table above? They are what would eliminate the need for the long descriptions you talk about. In fact, they were actually palliatives: they just make it easier for readers to spot a mismatch between the genre name and the color used in the infobox; but they don't *prevent* the mismatch itself. What I would rather like is some kind of "trick" that would force editors to specify just the genre name (or anyway just one piece of information); the color (or any other dependent "variable") should be derived appropriately. But I'm new to wiki. Is this possible with templates? Also, what about the icons? --Gennaro Prota 18:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm a programmer, too, and if you come from the Abstraction Oriented school like I do, you may learn to hate mediawiki as much as you love it. But that aside, I didn't see the tooltips, and that definitely makes it better, I'm just still not sure if there's really room for a key to be practical. If you look at the the actual color-scheme, you can see that even with emsp sized blocks, it's gonna get pretty big.

But I do like your idea of having them specify the genre and having the color be implicit from that. I have one concern, but I think I can address it. First the concern: there are two different aspect of genre addressed in the infobox. First is a broad generalization of the genre used by the color scheme, and the second is a potentially much more specific genre (e.g., Oi! Punk Rock versus simply Rock) which is specified in the text of the infobox. I don't think there's anyway in the wiki software (or any code, for that matter, the genre-list goes on ad-infinitum) to automatically generalize the given specific genre to one of the colors. Now my solution: we leave the infobox template as is, but create additional templates that the project recommends for usage in the style of Template:Infobox MUSART Rock and Template:Infobox MUSART Blues. These can then delegate (one of my favorite words when I'm coding) to the original template with the correct color, and the article writers won't even have to think about colors, it comes for free. The only other problem is there's currently 30 different entries in the genre color-code, which means 30 different templates that need to be created. But it's still a finite and relatively consumable number; we can always add it as a task for the project.

I don't have any problem with icons per-se, but I'm not sure what your idea is exactly? Where do they go, how do you specify them, what do they represent? I'm just failing a little at how it's really different then specifying the color? B.Mearns^*, KSC 21:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Brian, just a quick reply because it's 3:40 AM here and I definitely need some rest. Surely tomorrow I'll be something more useful than now :) I didn't know the complete list had 30 entries, so I agree with you that having the key in the infobox is impractical. I'll try learning a bit more about the template feature of the wiki software (if only they were C++ templates...!); maybe there's a simpler way than creating 30 different related templates. As to the icons I meant having, for instance, an icon representing an electrical guitar for rock, two tango dancers for tango etc. This way the visual information would not be a color but an image. I'll provide some example tomorrow. --Gennaro Prota 01:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Brian, sorry for abandoning this project but I was really frustrated by the name choice and lost interest. I wanted you to know however that it is indeed possible to set up the template code so that the user just specifies the genre name and the corresponding color is chosen automatically. Once you are done with the infobox and all the colors are chosen you can drop me a note and I'll modify it so to implement the auto-selection stuff. --Gennaro Prota 16:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Where exactly is the master copy of that genre color code kept? It's certainly not at Template:Infobox Music genre; in fact, the system being used for the actual music genre pages seems to be similar, but not quite the same, to this one. –Unint 01:45, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

That color code has vanished. It used to be somewhere under Wikipedia:WikiProject Music genres, but it's been removed. I'm not part of that project, so I'm not sure when or why exactly. If you look at the discussion over the second infobox proposal (below), a new color scheme has been proposed and is being discussed. B.Mearns^*, KSC 16:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Fields

Some thoughts.

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums currently recommends against hidden "year in music" links piped as regular year links. But then, I'm a little suspicious as to how up-to-date the entirety of that project page is kept. Might be worth getting a ruling on this one.
• Quite a lot of fields here, making for a very bulky infobox in appearance. There certainly are lengthy infoboxes out there now, though; probably the best solution is to either increase the width or decrease the text size. (See Template:Galaxy and Template:UK motorway routebox, respectively, just as two examples I picked out at random.)
• Differences to the way Infobox band handles information:
  • Record label fields could probably be consolidated as one. "Primary label" vs. "Other labels" is not always a clear distinction; what about artists who jump around labels so many times that there is no "primary label" to speak of? Or a simpler scenario: if an artist's best-known recordings are on one label but they currently record on another label, which label is primary?
  • No fields for members, or geographical location, at all? As a general-purpose encyclopedia, Wikipedia is probably better-suited to clear and biographical information like this rather than judgment-dependent and music-specific information like "Related artists" and "Notable songs". In fact, there's already been a discussion to that effect, which I wholly agree with.
• I'm not sure what kind of links one would put under "Professional reviews". They probably wouldn't be standardized in any way like album reviews would. Reviews of specific albums, songs, or concerts would work better placed closer to information about those albums, songs, or concerts, and if you mean biographies or reviews of lifetime achievements... Well, isn't that what we're trying to create with the articles themselves?

–Unint 21:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for all the great feedback. I've revised the template a bit as follows:

• Removed "professional reviews" sections. That was originally just copied from the Albums infobox, but you make a good point.
• Consolidated "Primary label" and "Other labels" into single field, "Label(s)".
• Removed "related artists" field. You're the second person to comment on it, and I can see the NPOV point.

Haven't added members of geogaphical fields yet. I'm fine with the geographical field, but I want to check the {{Infobox band}} to see how it's done. I'm a little aprehensive about members because it seems like it'd add too much clutter, but I'll look at it on the other template.

Re. notable songs and albums; all the fields of course are optional. As discussed in the link you included, not all musicians/bands are mainstream enough if to really have a "best known" song, but I think for those who do, this can be a helpful field. For instance, you know the song but don't recognize the artist, now the infobox can help you make the link at a glance. But I'm certainly open to more discussion on this. As far as albums, I actually had something other than popularity in mind, I was thinking more about albums that were notable as far as the band is concerned, for instance gold or platinum albums, major label debuts, or first self-produced albums. Again, if you think this is still too subjective or otherwise inappropriate, I'd love to hear more.

I'd love to make it wider to fit the fields in better, but I can't figure out how to. I'll work on it some more when I can, but please feel free to fix it if you feel like it.

B.Mearns^*, KSC 03:55, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeh, this year in music. I've seen the note on the Albums page, but thought it meant in the body of the article. I think it's perfectly relevant to link to the year in music in the infobox, and I think using the full text ("[year] in music") in the infobox would be too crowded. B.Mearns^*, KSC 03:59, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Piping years in music links is dicouraged by Wikipedia guidelines (see WP:PIPE). Also, I don't really see why this new project isn't using the band infobox, which is already quite wide-spread on Wikipedia. --Fritz S. (Talk) 18:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

"Musical Artists" and "Composers"

Hi,

I think the main issue we should solve is: how does this project relate to WikiProject Composers? Composers are musicians/musical artists, so is it the intent for this to be a super-project of Composers? --Gennaro Prota 23:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the feed back. I'm going to move this discussion to the top-level talk page since it's Project-wide. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians#"Musical Artists" and "Composers" B.Mearns^*, KSC 16:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Salary, RIAA cert

About salary, I dont have a strong opinion, but I think it's a highly unreliable piece of information. I've always had doubts about salaries of singers, actors, football players etc. reported by newspapers and magazines (i.e. I think they earn even more than what is declared :)). How could the information be verifiable?

Good point. I don't have particularly strong feelings about this either, except that it struck as kind of odd, only because it's nothing I personally could imagine caring about. But I'd say if someone can come up with a reliable and verifiable source, I'd support it. B.Mearns^*, KSC 16:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not something that should be in an opening infobox on a group (or other musical act). --FuriousFreddy 16:56, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Why not? How could you decide if joining that group or not?? ;) --Gennaro Prota 17:00, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Because the RIAA only applies to the US, and it's difficult to get accurate record sales information for the rest of the world. There's no use in listing dubious information. --FuriousFreddy 17:03, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

That was actually (intended to be) humorous. Sorry if it didn't come out very well. A few lines above you may see that I agree with you. --Gennaro Prota 19:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh. Sorry. My humor functions aren't working today :( --FuriousFreddy 22:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Second infobox proposal

The proposed infobox definitely needs some formatting to make it less, well, guady. B.Mearns apparently finds the Infobox Band template "ugly", but I think that it is to its benefit that it avoids color. Color can be used, but we need to establish a decent color scheme and color usage scheme. Coloring the borders and the music genre text aren't professional solutions.

I think the infobox would work better if it were something like Template:Superherobox as far as its uses of color. The infobox itself is well-balanced and works well, and it uses color more gently. There is a color strip to define the comic book producer, and one to define the type of character (hero, villian, or both) the character is. I will try and work up a second proposal. --FuriousFreddy 17:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

So you wanted to color-code the first two bars with artist type/genre, as the Superherobox does with publisher/alliance, but you had to throw it out because we can't guarantee that the two colors will match?

I don't think that the two colors necessarily need to aesthetically complement each other. Look at your example on the template page itself right now: with an image that tall, the two bars are far enough apart that they don't really interact the way that the bar and border do in the first infobox proposal, IMO.

(I don't know if the Superherobox people spent a long time tweaking the colors or anything like that; however, as things stand, there are pages where the two bars don't even appear in the same screen when the article is loaded up. Of course, the two bars as proposed here are going to be much closer, but still...)

Bottom line, I say go for it. –Unint 01:36, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

The difference is the superhero infobox only uses a few colors - about five for the comic book publisher and two -a red, a blue, and a grey - for the type of character (hero, villian, or both). I'd need at least ten seperate colors to properly do the genre-coding; this is what I ended up with, trying my best to match the genrebox colors with related shades:

antiquewhite	World (includes folk, polka, etc)
mediumaquamarine (#66cdaa)	Classical (includes march and score composers)
indianred (#cd5c5c)	Rock (includes rock and roll, heavy metal, punk, alternative, etc.)
darksalmon (#e9967a)	Country (includes bluegrass)
lightsteelblue	Jazz/blues (includes swing/big band, fusion, etc.)
goldenrod (#daa520)	R&B (includes soul, funk, etc.)
darkkhaki (#bdb76b)	Hip hop/rap
thistle (#d8bfd8)	Pop music
silver (#c0c0c0)	Electronica/dance (includes trance, house, disco, etc.)
khaki (f0e68c)	Latin/Carribean music (includes salsa, merenge, reggae, ska, reggaeton, calypson, etc.)

--FuriousFreddy 03:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

That is a prettier collection of colours, but I don't really see why it's necessary to colour code everything - the colour scheme is completely arbitrary and means nothing to the casual reader. I have the same problem with the album colours, actually, but can't be bothered to raise the issue again. Seems more sensible just to have one colour, if it needs spicing up. And again, why not just adopt infobox band? Flowerparty■ 22:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I like the new infobox, I think it cleans up a lot of the issues mine had. The original genre color scheme was based on the Music genres wikiproject, but apparently they no longer have a color scheme. I suppose it doesn't really matter too much whether there is or isn't a color scheme, for genre or otherwise. Personally, I'm open to either.

As far as {{Infobox band}}, I think the new proposal for the infobox is a little better, particularly since it's appropriate for both individuals and bands. But if infobox band is already a prevalent fixture, then I suppose it makes sense to stick with that. However, I don't think it really applies well to individual artists, and I don't think {{Infobox biography}} is sufficient for musicians, either, as was suggested a while back.

At any rate, I'm going to yank my original proposal, because I think both {{Infobox band}} and the new proposal are better. I'll just leave a reference to it in the new proposal section in case it becomes relevant. B.Mearns^*, KSC 15:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Notable albums, Notable songs and Related acts all seem very likely to violate NPOV. Also, I think the new infobox needs to be merged with the existing band infobox, as it seems completely unnecessary to have two different templates for the same thing. Maybe someone should start a discussion about this at that template's talk page. --Fritz S. (Talk) 15:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

That's a good point, and actually somebody already has. I believe the creator of the second proposal has posted a section on that talk page about his new proposal.

As far as songs and albums, if you look under the discussion for the original proposal, you can see my original response to that critique. Basically, I agree that there's some potential for POV there, but "notable" albums in particular was intended more for historically significant albums for the band, for instance, self-produced, or major label debuts. But if the consensus is still that it's too prone to POV, then they should be removed. B.Mearns^*, KSC 16:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Yo. Just figured that as a musician I'd add my opinion. This is a decent-looking template. I certainly prefer its colorful look and variety of options to {{infobox band}}, which I have always seen as rather ugly. I mean, infobox band does what it's supposed to do — it organizes the FAQ about any band into a tidy box and adds a nice frame for a picture. However, it's not really useful when compared to what you've presented to us here. I definitely prefer your box. On the issue of color, I say that Wikipedia, to the average (unregistered) user, they see Monobook. They see PNG-rendered LaTeX. They see blue and red links in black text on a white background. They don't see a lot of color, which is why most articles have photos or illustrations and why most articles have boxes that break up the monotony of paragraph after paragraph of prose. We are not writing an encyclopedia when we make these boxes; we are crafting a website, and we want it to look nice. This box will add color to any musician's page. As for the color-coding scheme, I think that you guys are right that the average person will not notice the color pattern. However, the average member of this project will notice, and that seems reason enough to me to have the different colors. Besides, it's better to have many different colors on different pages then to have one single color on every single artist page. - CorbinSimpson 02:41, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe that this information box violates the netural point of view policy in multiple ways. First, there is a field titled "occupation(s)". I think this could easily be removed and simply summarized in the first sentence of the lead section. Next, the "instrument(s)" also appears to be somewhat irrelevant, as it can be documented or chronicled in a section and/or portion of the article as it becomes more in-depth with detail and content. "Notable albums" and "Notable songs" are the most point of view. For example, the first two albums released by Goldfrapp received critical praise, however, only sold moderately, and their third album received mixed reviews, but went on to become their largest-selling LP. The same situation could be taken into effect with songs: it should not be our choice to decide what is "notable" and what is not. Finally, "related acts" is also very POV; an example could be retrieved from Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mariah Carey. I prefer the band infobox, which I believe to be less controversial. —Eternal Equinox | talk 13:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

First of all, "related acts" has been designated as other musical acts that have direct connections to the artist in question, such as frequent collaborations, group membership, or spinoffs. Perhaps this should be clearer.

"Notable albums" and "notable songs" have been in question regarding POV since day one. I think it's probably safe to say we should take those out.

With those out of the way, I suppose it's really just a visual overhaul and addition of biographical fields relevant to individual persons. –Unint 21:47, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Agree with User:Eternal Equinox. Also with regard to the related artists being former band members etc, the intention is not clear at all, and is being confused. (Beyonce/Destiny's Child was given as a good example at Talk:Kelly Clarkson where this issue is also being discussed in specific relation to Clarkson) So far I've noticed related artists being incorrectly added to Mariah Carey, Kelly Clarkson, Kylie Minogue and Madonna. I would rather see it removed completely. I would also remove "notable albums" and "notable songs" as inherently POV. Also the "also known as" is encouraging fancruft and people are using this to include obscure nicknames. Example (again) - Madonna. Rossrs 01:38, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

So that we can avoid any MORE comments about this, are we all agreed that notable album/song is gone? I haven't heard anybody arguing for them in a while.

My original wording for what I believe is currently called "related acts" was "Other projects", I don't know if that's any more clear. I agree that "Related acts" implies a similar meaning as "Similar artists" which was voted off in the original proposal.

As far as "instrument" and "occupation", I don't think the fact that they're in the article is really relevant, the whole point of an infobox is to summarize key information. Of course it's going to be somewhat redundant with the article, but I really don't think that should be a problem.

B.Mearns^*, KSC 17:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Had to break my sabbatical and come back to check on a few things, such as this template. Agree with all the changes made so far; let's just make sure that the users are properly labeling and coloring these boxes. "Associated acts" definitely works better for its intended purpose than "related acts". --FuriousFreddy 05:57, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

So what's the final verdict on this??? been almost 2months since a post. Is there an example of what is to be used somewhere?? --Jaysscholar 20:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Notable albums/songs

According to people on Wikipedia, this is in violation of Wiki's neutrality policy - I feel that putting pop songs under the umbrella of neutrality codes (pop or politics?) is ludicrous but maybe it's better - my 'notable songs and additions to the Kylie Minogue page were deleted because, I was told, it violates the policy.

Maybe we should get rid of this - if people find it necessary to delete what many consider to be an artist's most 'notable song/album' then what's the point at all? PatrickJ83 02:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Three individual people have come here about this in the last 12 hours, with however much debate behind them. I spoke up about this half a month ago. The creator of the first infobox had doubts about it even before that. The idea was even shot down before this infobox was ever created. The consensus is clear.

Since User:FuriousFreddy, the creator of this template, seems to have gone on break, I'm removing the fields Notable_albums and Notable_songs right now. In addition, with that User:Eternal Equinox has said, I'm renaming Related_acts to Associated_acts in hopes that there will be less confusion over its purpose. If there is still confusion, I will... figure out something else to rename it to; if the situation seems utterly hopeless, it will be removed as well.

I was surprised by the number of early adapters, but this is turning out to be an interesting field test. –Unint 04:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

What do you think the difference between 'associated' and 'related' are exactly? I'm confused that there might be confusion. PatrickJ83 23:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Patrick, just to clarify - it does seem kind of ludicrous to put pop songs under a POV umbrella, but the reason it should be avoided is that it offers an opinion. Whatever list you might come up with is not right or wrong necessarily but it would probably be different to a list I might come up with, or other editors might come up with. With Kylie as an example, you listed Let's Get to It, which was mediocre in terms of sales and importance to her career, but did not list Kylie (album) which was her first album and which set all kinds of sales records in the UK when it was released (youngest female to have a number one album, highest selling album of the year, 5th highest selling album of the decade). Likewise in the singles "I Should Be So Lucky" wasn't mentioned. It's really just that it's impossible to come up with a perfect list. If you look at the history, I deleted another version of the list a few days before you re-added it and it was quite different to yours - two editors, two different lists.

Also to User:Unint - I understand what is meant by "related" and "associated" but I think Patrick is quite right in saying it could be confused. If an editor sees that without going back and looking over all these discussions to find a definition, they could easily think that, for example, Mariah Carey and Celine Dion are either "associated" or "related" acts. I don't know what other wording could be used though. Perhaps it needs something hidden in the template itself, that people can see when they're editing it, but that is not visible in the article once the edit is saved. Rossrs 07:13, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Which infobox to use

Currently there's many infobox related to musicians: Template:Infobox musical artist 2, Template:Infobox musical artist and Template:Infobox Band (tell me if there's more). While {{Infobox musical artist}} is not used (I'll nominate it for deletion), could we agree on one infobox for bands between the two others templates in order to use just one type of infobox for all musicians articles? CG 17:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

There is also Template:Guitarist_infobox--Greyclair 02:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The goal is to work towards standarization of 2 (see above), but there are still issues being discussed (and not getting very much discussion, hence the enormous delay). Even with that, there's still the issue of convincing the people who prefer the old Infobox band. –Unint 21:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I nominated Template:Infobox musical artist on WP:TFD. When it gets deleted, could we move the Template:Infobox musical artist 2 to its name without the number? CG 08:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

And I'm trying to restart a discussion in Template talk:Infobox Band#Which template to use. CG 08:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

"Musical Artist" text - necessary?

Can the "musical artist" text be removed from the box? It should be obvious what the page is about from the opening sentence - I mean, you don't see "TV Show", "video game" or "FILM" appearing on those respective templates. Also it doesn't makes sense if you use it on a band page. (Though I'd argue separate Band and Artist infoboxes are better, anyway.) --SevereTireDamage 22:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the "musical artist" is a bit silly. Could we replace it with "solo singer", "band" "orchestra"... as defined by the "Background" field, or specify a new field for it. And I prefer we have one standarised infobox for all musical artists. CG 08:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I was trying to see if I could implement this earlier, but was scared of breaking the template. Do we just add it, or do we somehow try to tie it in with the color selector? Also, this infobox is designed to accomodate both bands and artists.--FuriousFreddy 08:24, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

RFC on Template:Infobox musical artist

I have requested comment on the template. User lividly disagrees with the "current" and "past members" formatting; he apparently wants the allowance of special designation for the "most important lineup" a band had by changing "current memebers" to just "members" (and therefore reverted my update at Nirvana (band), because he likes Template:Infobox Band better). However, changing this would create a serious issue of editors waring over which lineup of an act is the "most important" and which isn't (just imagine what would happen with, say, Menudo, or Destiny's Child, or New Edition, or The Spinners)?

We discussed earlier the problems of misuse of fields that could potentially cause edit wars in the template before, as when we removed the "notable songs" and "notable albums" sections. But, if it is believed that we could do okay with a change, then we can try it. Everyone should weigh in on the talk page with their opinion.--FuriousFreddy 08:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.