Line 109: | Line 109: | ||
:IMO what you shouuld do is create an article on the CGB Fan Awards listing all its' '''winners'''. Then whenever someone '''wins''' (not comes 7th, or 5th, or even 2nd but '''wins'''), put in the article of the winner, ''This comic won the 2001 [[Comics Buyer's Guide Fan Awards]] in the category of "Best New Series"''. If the user wants more info they click the ''[[Comics Buyer's Guide Fan Awards]]'' link, which in turn has all the winners of all the years listed, and an external link to the website you keep sticking everywhere so if they want to see who came 7th in 2001 they can. That's how things are normally done in Wikipedia. Do that instead. [[User:Rst20xx|rst20xx]] 23:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC) |
:IMO what you shouuld do is create an article on the CGB Fan Awards listing all its' '''winners'''. Then whenever someone '''wins''' (not comes 7th, or 5th, or even 2nd but '''wins'''), put in the article of the winner, ''This comic won the 2001 [[Comics Buyer's Guide Fan Awards]] in the category of "Best New Series"''. If the user wants more info they click the ''[[Comics Buyer's Guide Fan Awards]]'' link, which in turn has all the winners of all the years listed, and an external link to the website you keep sticking everywhere so if they want to see who came 7th in 2001 they can. That's how things are normally done in Wikipedia. Do that instead. [[User:Rst20xx|rst20xx]] 23:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC) |
||
:I concur - this is basically what I was trying to say. And if there are "several people" who think Bill's current approach is great, I'd love to see their point of view here too. ←[[User:Hob|Hob]] 00:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC) |
::I concur - this is basically what I was trying to say. And if there are "several people" who think Bill's current approach is great, I'd love to see their point of view here too. ←[[User:Hob|Hob]] 00:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC) |
||
== Squiddy Awards == |
== Squiddy Awards == |
Revision as of 00:21, 7 January 2006
Hello
Welcome!
Hello Badbilltucker, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! We can always do with more appreciators of good quality comics. Leithp (talk) 15:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Colorists
I noticed that you are adding a lot of colorists, which is great. But it would be great if you provided more information that showed their noteriety. With such little information, they may face deletion.--Esprit15d 19:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
It might also be a good idea to tag such articles using the {{artist-stub}} template, so that people know they are there to be filled out. -- MatthewDBA 17:59, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Agree with the above suggestions. Further, please do not create orphan pages (pages that nothing links to). Such pages are almost never found and languish and get moldy for lack of attention. Find appropriate places to link to them. Hu 18:40, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Intending to do so. Right now I am basically entering the data from the lists I have in front of me, which is all I have. By the end of the week, I should have accomplished all the entry and will be able to better cross-index the new creations with other works.
- Sounds good. I suggest you also go back and format each of them well, with three single quote marks around the subject name's first mention inside the article '''like this''' so they become bolded. Where you include an external link to a web site put a header like this: == External links ==. Make internal wiki links to other articles as appropriate. Put two single quote marks around ''published titles'' to make them italicized. The suggestion above to "stub" them is good. Take a look at Wikipedia:Manual of Style for more ideas.
Doing so as we speak, actually. All the way back to the beginning. As I go through more awards, the body of the text will be longer and include any specific references to works for which the person was given the award. After all that is done, then I intend to put in all the other relevant data I can find on each of them. For what little it might be worth to any of you, these are being created because I am going to try to run on the DC message boards a survey on what are the top 100 writers, artists, characters, character teams, strips, and series in the history of the company, and I figured that this would probably be the best place to use as a reference. But, again, I am adding data list by list, and will probably not be done until the end of the week at least. At that time, I intend to review everything for the greatest possible conformity.
links to Awards Database
Hi. I see you've been adding the same link to a whole lot of comics creator pages. The details you added in the text ("He has received a Shazam Award for...", etc.) are great, but the repetitious external linking is not; external links are supposed to be to something specific to the subject of that article. This is just too general and it looks like linkspam, though I don't think you intended it that way. What I suggest is, since the number of comics award names is smaller than the number of people who win them, create articles for whichever notable awards don't already have articles, link to the awards database from those pages, and then just wikilink the award names from the artist articles. Does that make sense? ←Hob 04:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
- I missed this note. I've started doing what you proposed already. Mikkel 07:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Shazam Awards
Saw that you added Shazam Awards to Richard Corben, I've written a quick stub for the award, that you can use if you add awards to other comic artists. I'll add more myself later. Welcome :) Mikkel 07:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Hob: Your comment is noted and its validity acknowledged. I am trying to add all the awards and nominations that someone might have received, and at this point I'm not entirely sure of all the awards anyone might have won. I am using the main page right now because it will be able to link to all the awards which might be mentioned. Later, for those who have only had one kind of award, I expect to make a more direct link.
Non-notable artists?
I see you are creating a lot of stubs regarding comic artists. Are they notable? Being nominated for an obscure award doesn't make it so, they may be nominated as Articles for Deletion is notability is not given in the article. Ifnord 18:20, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Basically, most probably are, depending on how one defines "notable". What I am doing initially is putting in all of the individuals nominated for these awards, and then later will include what specific works they produced for which they are most notable. However, as the list I am working with right now is just the names of awards finalists and winners, it will probably not be until next week that at the earliest that I will be able to "flesh out" the entries. If they are deleted thereafter, I would have no objections.
- Doug Potter, Terry LeBan, Doug Gray, David Boswell,... all have the same entry. That they were nominated. Winners are something alltogether different, but that there were so many nominated tend to dilute the worth. Ifnord 18:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
You clearly have a point. However, generally being considered one of the five finalists is considered an achievement as well. Again, in these particular awards, no specific works are cited for which the nominations were received. However, for those which do name specific works in the nominations, it would be of more value. I am adding the awards from the lists as I find them, and really don't know in each case what the later nominations are, and what if any works are cited. After I finish putting them in, I will probably be better able to determine that with input from the rest of you. Once they've been completed, by definition here, I would have no objections to anyone doing any degree of editing to them.
Suggestions on your award entries.
Good work adding award information. A few suggestions:
1. Make the name of awards a wiki link. Thus Shazam Award, Harvey Award, Squiddy Award. It's a good citation (Since you can usually get to the official site for the award through the Wikipedia page) and useful for people unfamiliar with the award in question.
2. You're submitting a lot of overly complex sentences, in part because it appears you've adding thing piecemeal. You end up with long sentences and repeated use of pronouns far distanced from the subject (admittedly, the subject of the article). It would be nice if you could work to clean them up as you add more data. For example, over eight or so edits you submitted the following for Sergio Aragonés:
- His work has won him several awards, including the 1973, 1974, and 1976 National Cartoonists Society Award for Best Humor Comic Book, the 1986 National Cartoonists Society Award for Best Comic Book, the Shazam Award for Best Inker (Humor Division) in 1972 for his work on Mad, and the Shazam Award for Best Humor Story in 1972 for "The Poster Plague" from House of Mystery #202 (with Steve Skeates). He won the Harvey Special Award for Humor in 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1995, 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2001. He was also nominated for the Rec.Arts.Comics. "Squiddy" Favorite Artist Award for the 1980s and 1990, the R.A.C. "Squiddy" Award for favorite Comics Penciller in 1995, 1996, 1997, and 1998, the R.A.C. "Squiddy" Award for Best Comics Inker in 1999, and the R.A.C. "Squiddy" Award for Comics Cover Artist in 1996 and 1998.
I editted it down to the following. It's briefer, doesn't repeat award names, replaces a few pronouns with the actual name, and doesn't have really long sentences.
- Aragonés's work has won him several awards. Aragonés has been awarded repeatedly by the National Cartoonists Society, with awards in 1973, 1974, and 1976 for Best Humor Comic Book, and in 1986 for Best Comic Book. He has won Shazam Awards for Best Inker (Humor Division) in 1972 for his work on Mad, and for Best Humor Story in 1972 for "The Poster Plague" from House of Mystery #202 (with Steve Skeates). He won the Harvey Award Special Award for Humor in 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1995, 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2001. Aragonés has been nominated for and awarded a number of rec.arts.comics Squiddy Awards, including Favorite Artist in the 1980s and 1990, Comics Penciller in 1995, 1996, 1997, and 1998, Best Comics Inker in 1999, and Comics Cover Artist in 1996 and 1998.
Alan De Smet | Talk 21:42, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
You're right about the data having been entered in large part piecemeal. It is my intention to add as many as I can, and then work to edit them so that they more conform to a reasonable standard. One of the problems I have, and I would welcome any response here, is that the groups which hand out the awards often change the wording of the name of the award from one year to the next, maybe dropping the word "Favorite" or changing it to "Best" or something of that kind. Personally, it seems to me that it would be best to use the exact wording for the award title that the group itself does, and that definitely adds to the apparent redundancy. I am personally not at all aware of the protocols for such things here, however, and would welcome any response.
too many Comic Book Awards Almanac links!
I don't know if you misunderstood my earlier comment, but I feel pretty strongly against your addition of the same external link to dozens of comic book articles, and I'm going to start taking most of those links out now. Such a general link is no better than putting a link to the home page of the Internet Movie Database in every movie article - or putting a link to Microsoft Encarta on every one of our articles that relied on any information from Encarta - or putting a link to Google on every page, because Google is such a helpful resource. Sure, there is some relevant information to be found in there somewhere, but that's just not what the links section is for.
The suggestion by me and others of making the award titles into wiki links, like Squiddy Award, was meant to eliminate the need for those other links. If a reader wants to find a reference for who won all the Squiddy Awards, that page has a relevant link. (And, in that case, it's a link that is specific to that award; the Awards Almanac site can't possibly be a more authoritative reference than the Squiddy's own site!)
Also... could you please clarify whether you have some personal connection with the Almanac site? ←Hob 18:44, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
As I have stated, not all of the awards have yet to be entered in. In seems to me that in the cases when an individual book has been nominated for more than one "family" of award, it would make most sense to have just one link to all of the awards, rather than specific links to the individual page of each award. As there are a very large number of such awards, I am not yet certain as to which titles, creators, etc., are included on the lists of multiple awards. It has always been my intention to revise the final listings upon completion of the awards for those which have only been nominated for one "family" of awards. However, you are free to do so on your own.
And, no, I have no formal connection to the site. Like I said, I intend to revise those entries which have only received nominations for one kind of award later. I just haven't yet put them all down, so I can't know just yet which entries those would be. (Above unsigned comment was by User:Badbilltucker. Please sign comments as explained at the top of this very page.)
Also note: Having seen the staggering number of edits you made in the last week, I strongly recommend that you put your current project on hold (since I presume there's no reason this information all has to be entered into WP right now) until you've read the WP policies more carefully and requested advice from more editors on this linking thing. If others agree with my complaints above, that is a huge number of links that you, or someone, will end up having to take out one by one, and you're adding to that number very rapidly. You're also creating a large amount of work for someone by adding dozens of stub articles that don't have a stub tag, and in most cases don't even have simple information like the author (such as this one]). It's not polite to junk up the encyclopedia with lots of poorly thought-out edits simply because you have the intention to improve them at some point in the future. By rushing ahead like this, you risk giving the impression of being more interested in promoting this one website than in adding useful content to WP. (I apologize for the cranky tone of these notes - but I'm a little put off by the way you've been breezily charging ahead despite not having read some basic WP guidelines.) ←Hob 19:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
A final suggestion: If you want more input on what would be the most useful way to add this kind of information to comics articles, try asking questions on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics. Many editors hang out there and most of them are not as cranky as me. ←Hob 19:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for adding the information to the link you gave. Based on what I have already said, I intend to add all such data, particularly when the individual, title, character, whatever, HAS an article specifically devoted to them. The problem there is determining which of them have such.
You will also note that most recently, I am making specific references to the awards themselves in those instances when there is only one such award. For some down the line, like the Dori Seda Award, I think the site you have objected to may well be the only real source out there.
The problem I see in the future, which is why I am adding only the awards without names now, is what data to add or link to in the more complex awards, which often name the title of the book, the writer, the artists, the editor, and all sorts of other data. It seemed to me that the best approach would be to enter in all those awards for specific individuals first, and then, if the names mentioned in group awards or nominations do not already have a entry, to not create such an entry or link for that entity which was only ever mentioned in a specific group award. And, as you will no doubt know, in many cases, particularly series which are rushed for completion, getting the names of all the authors and artists who worked on it is not always as easy as you indicated, and are not always mentioned even in several of the basic sourcebooks. Those names, and specific links to those names when they already have data, will be added probably by the end of the month.
And I am not put off by the tone, and I actually have read the guidelines, so don't worry about that. It is simply proving to be the case that there are many more of these individual name awards and nominations than I first thought, and it is taking much longer to enter them in than I expected. Also, I am currently still recovering from a broken hip and fibula in a traffic accident last month, so generally the amount of time I have available to do this is probably greater than that of anyone else. The recovery period is still expected to require at least additional weeks. Once the "A"s and "B"s award data get entered in, which should be no more than tomorrow (I hope) I shall be doing the expansions you have requested. User:Badbilltucker
- Sorry to hear about your accident.
- I'm not sure what you mean by "the expansions you have requested". I didn't request any expansions. I did request that if you add tiny articles like "Brat Pack", which say nothing except that it's a comic and was nominated for an award, that you at least mark them as stubs; there is a guideline for stubs, and those tags help other people to find which articles need expanding. And in cases where you actually know the author of the comic, I can't imagine why you wouldn't include that name in the stub article. It's irrelevant whether that author has his/her own article yet (which only takes two seconds to find out in any case).
- Again, I think you've missed the point I was making about the links. If, as in the case of Jim (comics) and all the Squiddy nominees, there's already a link to the specific award - then you don't need the Awards Almanac link in that article. In an article about an author who won the Pulitzer Prize, you'd obviously have a wikilink for Pulitzer Prize; you wouldn't also have a link to every reference site that mentioned Pulitzer winners. Do you understand the difference? I'm going to bring this up on Wikiproject Comics now, to see whether this is just me nitpicking, or something others are really bothered by. ←Hob 20:09, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
If I neglected to add the stub citation in that specific article for the Brat Pack, I apologize profusely. I may have made a mistake in that specific instance, but have been making a point to include at least one stub citation each time. The question about the link on the specific award article negating the need for a specific link on the individual "entry" article is a good one, and I await the response. I will make all required changes myself as soon as I here. Also, actually, the book I have before me, the Slings and Arrows Guide, mentions no specific names in the article on the Brat Pack. As it is also a few years old, it could be outdated, and I don't want to include any data which may well be proven wrong later by more recent sources. As you know, several books have been known to change publishers over time, and I would regret specifically making reference to only one publisher when more than one publisher has been involved. Again, please inform me of the response to receive as soon as you get it, so that I can make any required changes myself. User:badbilltucker 20:24, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
- On Marvel Masterworks you said that The volume "Fantastic Four #51-60" was a top votegetter for the Comics Buyer's Guide Fan Award for Favorite Reprint Graphic Album for 2001.. In fact it came 7th, with 4% of the votes. You also then proceeded to add to the external links a link to a website listing all the past winners. Not relevant at all. Please stop spamming Wikipedia, which IMO is what you are doing whether you mean to or not. rst20xx 18:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Feel free. All I can say is that it is the only site I know of which lists the award votegetters. Also note that these awards had no prior nominations, and that several "others" are generally listed at the bottom of each category who are not specifically defined. I have already spoken with several people about this subject, and they have agreed that inclusion of several awards, including specifically the CBGs, do qualify as relevant. However, as stated, you are free to do as you see.Badbilltucker 18:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- Including inclusion of those that came 7th? That's crazy. And who did you agree this with? Please show me, cos I see a lot of pissed off people here thinking you're spamming Wikipedia, I bet more than those you "agreed it with". On top of that I'd hazard a guess these people you agreed it with agreed the inclusion of the winners was relevant, but not those lower down. And there's no need for linking that website from every article, that's the worst thing you've done and that website has nothing to do with all those articles.
- IMO what you shouuld do is create an article on the CGB Fan Awards listing all its' winners. Then whenever someone wins (not comes 7th, or 5th, or even 2nd but wins), put in the article of the winner, This comic won the 2001 Comics Buyer's Guide Fan Awards in the category of "Best New Series". If the user wants more info they click the Comics Buyer's Guide Fan Awards link, which in turn has all the winners of all the years listed, and an external link to the website you keep sticking everywhere so if they want to see who came 7th in 2001 they can. That's how things are normally done in Wikipedia. Do that instead. rst20xx 23:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- I concur - this is basically what I was trying to say. And if there are "several people" who think Bill's current approach is great, I'd love to see their point of view here too. ←Hob 00:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Squiddy Awards
Hi, I notice you're going around adding awards notices to many articles, which is great. That said, please note that being nominated or winning a squiddy is in no way notable, these aren't in major industry awards, merely minor fan awards. Steve block talk 20:47, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Actually, they are awarded by both creators and fans who are members of the forum, including the likes of Kurt Busiek, Peter David, Mark Evanier, Mark Waid, and others. However, if you indicate that they are in no way notable in any instance, including the best of the decades awards, and you are speaking in as it were an official capacity, I shall go back and eliminate all such references. User:badbilltucker, 20:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
- I've voted in them, and they are in no way notable. They are also a secret ballot, so I'm curious to know the source for your assertion that Kurt Busiek, Peter David, Mark Evanier and Mark Waid had voted in them. AI'm even hard pushed to find a reputable source which lists them. Steve block talk 21:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Not meaing to disagree with you, as I did not take part in any voting, but they are listed as among the favorite posters on the board in the nominations for same, so I have to assume that they are members on that basis. If you are trying to indicate by your last statement that you believe that, officially, these awards never qualify as notable (I am kind of thick myself), please say so directly and I will remove them. I would however be curious as to which awards might qualify as officially notable, so that I could ensure all of them were included. It is not now and never has been my intent to violate the rules of the organization, but I would appreciate some indication as to which (if any) awards meet the criteria of inclusion. Badbilltucker 22:33, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
- USENET is an open forum, not a board, and everyone who has internet access is a member. As to the notability of these awards, I do not consider them notable. However, my voice doesn't really carry any more weight than anybody elses, things get decided by consensus, so if you let me know your list of comic awards, I can try and gain consensus on what is and isn't notable, so that we all work off the same page. That's probably the best idea. What you add though, has to be up to you in that respect until such consensus is reached.
- By the way, I notice you moved Cages from Cages (graphic novel) to Cages (comic series). We use (comics) as the disambiguation phrase as per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (comics), for future reference. Steve block talk 00:18, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Sorry for that error. I will endeavor to correct it. Basically I am in the process of including all the awards from the [Comic Book Awards Almanac] site that either have their own page (as opposed to those under miscellaneous awards)) or are on the miscellaneous page but are otherwise notable (Hugo Awards, World Fantasy Awards, etc.) It only looks like all I'm adding are the Squiddy Awards because there are SO many of them. That basically means the Reuben, Kirby, Eisner, Harvey, Ignatz, Lulu, Alley, Comics Buyer's Guide Fan, Shazam, Squiddy, and Wizard Fan Awards from the US, as well as Adamson, Alph-Art, Eagle, Haxtur, Kodansha, Max & Moritz, National Comics Awards, Pantera (or Panther) Awards, Shogakukan Awards, and Urhunden Award from overseas. Badbilltucker 00:26, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Of that list, the only one I have notability issues with is the squiddies, since it is basically a fan award and has many categories which are of a trivial nature. I would certainly advise against noting nominations for a squiddy, since one vote gains nomination for a squiddy. Like I say though, it's a wiki, so it's up to you what you add and don't add. It'll work it's way out one way or another. Steve block talk 00:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- I have to agree with Stefve here... put the winners if you must, but the nominations are meaningless. And try not to use the word Squiddy so much Dyslexic agnostic 01:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
When the final list is made, which again will hopefully be done by the end of the week, the nominations per se will probably be reduced to mere numbers except in those cases where there are only one or two total. For instance the John Byrne entry will probably read "has been nominated for fan/business favorite writer awards 12 times", etc. or whatever. I hesitate to do that just yet however because the total list is daunting. I expect to be done with the "A"s and "B"s by the end of the day or maybe tomorrow, and will probably be reviewing everything to determine which have enough redundancies to be shortened in that way. Badbilltucker 15:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Okay, Having looked at Blondie (comic strip) I have to say that a "squiddy nomination" is in no way notable and that what you have added there amounts to point of view: The series has been recognized in the industry with a nomination for the Squiddy Award for Favorite Comic Strip or Newspaper Cartoon in 1991. For starters you don't get nominated for a squiddy, it's an open vote, and secondly, it isn't recognition in the industry, it's recognition from the fans, and getting a vote or two in the squiddies isn't a notable recognition. It simply means someone likes the strip, a fact I'm sure you'll agree is easily extrapolated elsewhere. So I'm basically here asking you if you're prepared to come to an agreement on that notability?
- You should also note that one of the articles you created has been listed for deletion, Tales from the Heart, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tales from the Heart. Steve block talk 21:53, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Please note that the comments you have made are addressing statements which I entered PRIOR to coming to the agreement you have commented upon. I have not made any such changes since then. Also, at this point, the deletion of the "Tales from the Heart" page is something which I cannot in conscience necessarily disagree with at this point. The number of pages of printout for the main awards which have been agreed upon is in the range of 75 pages, with three columns per page and in the smallest typeface the computer permits. It is all but impossible for me to determine whether that title is actually relevant to any of these agreed upon awards, particularly when dealing with creator team nominations which do not reference any titles. I am in the process of taking all these awards which have been agreed upon so that all these awards and nominations for each individual entity named can be entered in at once. I anticipate the standard phrasing will be, "Person X received rewards Y and (maybe) Z in year(s) M, and was nominated T times for awards A, B, and C." I hope that answers your questions.Badbilltucker 15:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Cartoonist stubs
Hello! I see that you are adding a series of cartoonists on to WP at the moment. When you add them, could you please add a reason for their inclusion - cartoon characters, strips that they may have created and or contributed to in order to be notable? Also, can you use the Category:Cartoonists category to tie them all together, please? -- (aeropagitica) UK 18:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I have tried to indicate that they are winners of one or more of the awards from the National Cartoonists Society. I also went back and put in the "Category" as you requested into all those which had not yet had it added.Badbilltucker 22:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Batman and CBG fan awards
Hey, Bill. Thanks for adding the stuff on the CBG awards to the Batman page; got one quick nitpick, though. We're trying to move the page away from just a laundry list of Batman-related stuff... you entered an entire paragraph of essentially "This issue was a top votegetter. So was the next one. So were the next three." and so on. Would it be possible for you to summarize that stuff up, rather than writing each individually? Simnel 21:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
I expect to shortly. The reason that they are phrased the way they are now is because I have yet to really start putting in the Eisner, Harvey, and other awards which will be added as well, so I can't know how many will also be referred to in those nominations. I can do as you say immediately, but would be interested if we can wait a few days so that I can go through the various lists and see which were also nominees for other awards. Please inform me of which way you see best to proceed.Badbilltucker 21:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
As long as you're planning on fixing it, take your time -- you might want to write something to that effect in the talk page. Just keep in mind that in the end, it should be something people are actually willing to read. It's great that you're improving that section; before you came along, it was basically a waste. Thanks! Simnel 21:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)