Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Featured log/August 2009

Good topic candidates: view - edit - history

The Elder Scrolls IV

The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion

5 articles

Development

ESRB re-rating

The Elder Scrolls IV: Knights of the Nine

The Elder Scrolls IV: Shivering Isles

Major contributor: Geuiwogbil

Let's see how long can I keep having at least one TC listed. Nergaal (talk) 20:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• Did you ask User:Geuiwogbil before nominating this topic? Theleftorium 21:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

  It seems the two discussed it back in January (see here and here) though Nergaal has not notified Geuiwogbil since, which he should have - rst20xx (talk) 21:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

  I am aware of this. Do I need to change anything? One note: The current topic image File:Oblivion logo.jpg probably isn't valid under WP:NFCC. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 01:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

  OK thanks, no, just checking you're aware - rst20xx (talk) 10:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support! (full disclosure- I got Oblivion to GA, though Geuiwogbil did far more work than me getting it to B class first and A class afterwards) That image is definitely mistagged- it's clearly a crop of the game's logo from somewhere, and therefore not free. --PresN 04:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I thought the same, but I couldn't find any free image related to Elder Scrolls. Nergaal (talk) 04:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Then a free image must be made or found. Just the name of the game is some olde worlde font?YobMod 08:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support - but agree that a new image must be made or found - rst20xx (talk) 10:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

  I have put in a generic image of swords for now. I suggest you make a better one or something - rst20xx (talk) 16:44, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support Meets WP:FT? requirements. A new image must be found however, as the image used is most certainly not user-created. --Admrboltz (talk) 16:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Close with consensus to promote - if you can find a better image, feel free to swap it across on the promoted topic's page - rst20xx (talk) 14:14, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

BBC Sports Personality of the Year

BBC Sports Personality of the Year

9 articles

Main award

Team

Overseas

Coach

Lifetime Achievement

Young

Helen Rollason

Unsung Hero

I've been working on this for a while now, and every award list is now an FL, with the exception of one that is too short. I think this meets the FT criteria. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 10:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - sorry, but I think this is a needless over-split from a more general topic on BBC Sports Personality of the Year. All you'd need to add to convert it from one to the other is the BBC Sports Personality of the Year article. Unrelatedly I also oppose because of the lack of BBC Northern Ireland Sports Personality of the Year, BBC Scotland Sports Personality of the Year and BBC Wales Sports Personality of the Year, which are not (IIRC?) presented as part of the main ceremony but are still part of the family of awards and hence deserve inclusion - rst20xx (talk) 10:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• I agree that the article on the award ceremony should be included, so i oppose for that reason. But the Scottish, Welsh, Irish awards are awarded by the separate regional BBCs i think, so it could be argued that they are entirely separate. The main BBC gives them to all British nationalities, the regional awards have a similar name but are not part of the family. Or are they all awarded by the BBC, and the names just refer to who can win them? If that were the case, why no English award?YobMod 12:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I can see this isn't going to pass, but I don't actually see where it fails the criteria, as there is a well defined scope, and I don't think it is cherry picking, but seeing as there is only one other article I guess it is doable. I guess that there isn't an BBC England Sports Personality of the Year one because there are effectively twelve of them. Northern Ireland and Scotland are not subdivided into further BBC regions, so each local region (be it BBC Scotland or BBC North East) has its own awards. I'd argue "BBC Scottish Sports Personality of the Year" is parallel to "BBC South West Sports Awards" and don't merit inclusion in the topic. Assuming that I only have one article to improve, can I just untransclude this nomination and then put it back when that article is at GA, or does it need to be a fresh nom? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

OK feel free to untransclude. But it might be worth discussing the Scotland/Wales/NI thing a bit more now. Granted they are awarded by the regional bodies but this is still part of the BBC. I would like them included. Though this is more of a minor oppose than the other one so I dunno, maybe I'll let it slide if you get the main article up to speed. Looking at the regions, are those awards equally notable to the 3 country ones? Are they also notable enough to merit articles? Hmmm - rst20xx (talk) 14:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

---

Okay the List of BBC Sports Personality of the Year awards was merged with BBC Sports Personality of the Year to make a overall new BBC Sports Personality of the Year page. The merge was suggested by Oldelpaso when peer reviewing the old BBC Sports Personality of the Year page. Discussion followed, and consensus for a merge formed here. I have performed the merge, and the resulting page was copyedited and underwent a featured review which was "kept" earlier today.[1][2]

As such I have moved this topic from "BBC Sports Personality of the Year awards" to "BBC Sports Personality of the Year". Now things that might affect this nomination. As of Monday night I will be off-wiki for three weeks (maybe more). I'm not expecting a consensus to form on this in that time, but I already had all the FTC templates on the talk page's and figured there was a fair chance this might be successful anyway so I'm planning on just retranscluding this nomination. Personally I don't think this topic should be opposed for not including the 3 country region ones, because as I said they are analogous to the 12 English Region ones (which don't have pages). For example, the Northern Ireland one is run by BBC Radio Foyle.[3] All comments welcome, but I won't be around to respond to later comments. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

• I think I'm going to continue to oppose because I think a topic called "BBC Sports Personality of the Year" should include all articles on the BBC Sports Personality of the Year Awards, which this doesn't, because it's missing the Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland Award articles. Granted, the national awards are presented separately, and by separate branches within the BBC, but they are still BBC Sports Personality of the Year Awards. I don't know whether the English regions also deserve lists, but I think it may be possible to argue that they are less notable than the Scotland/Wales/NI awards because, whilst the English regions are at the same level within the structure of the BBC as Scotland/Wales/NI are (I think...), they are not as notable as entities as Scotland/Wales/NI are. Sorry - rst20xx (talk) 23:54, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

  Just as a response it does definately seem to be treated as a BBC region (as in my example with BBC Foyle for NI above) and not a national award. e.g. this BBC article calls it "BBC Scotland's Sports Personality of the Year", and you seem to agree that they rank the same as a regional Sports Personality award. BBC Wales does keep a list of old winners however in my searching Scotland and NI do not seem to (at least online anyway). I would have thought that the notability would also be similar but agree that having a country name does automatically make it sound more important even if it isn't. Hopefully the community will provide more comments on this. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

  In fact in attempting to expand the Scotland list, I ran across some more problems: in Scotland the Sunday Mail has it's own national awards which include a "Sports Personality of the Year" (but unrelated to the BBC)[4] and these seem to be documented online more than the BBC Scotland award. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

  Actually, here is the best evidence I'll probably get. As mentioned above Wales had its own list, but the most recent awards page (2008) explicitly states "The BBC Wales Sports Personality 2008 award is not connected with the UK BBC Sports Personality of the Year." Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

  Support - I was saying I thought S/W/NI are more important than the regions, because while they are at the same level structurally within the BBC as the regions, they are more important generally and hence probably more notable. Having said that, if you can't even find sources for the Scotland and NI lists, maybe I am wrong in my thinking. It appears the original lists (which are incomplete, unless NI only goes back to 2003) were pieced together by different editors. Given that you can't even source them, I now think the lists are less notable than I used to, so I'm going to strike my oppose - rst20xx (talk) 21:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• Maybe my time watching in England biased me, but i agree with the nom that the regional awards are not needed, and that includes the country awards, as they are a different level of award that happens to have the same name. But their inclusion would make the topic even better, so i weak support. Later: struck weak based on primary source saying they are not connected.YobMod 07:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support Rambo's proof is enough for me. Nice job. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
• Close with consensus to promote - rst20xx (talk) 14:53, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Derfflinger class battlecruisers

Derfflinger class battlecruisers

4 articles

SMS Derfflinger

SMS Lützow

SMS Hindenburg

All four articles have recently passed GA reviews; the three ship and class articles are all pretty comprehensive for this subject. Parsecboy (talk) 10:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support - meets the criteria, but I really wish that there was a better picture... —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 03:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support - agree with Ed above, the photo does leave something to be desired, but that is the only nit I see. -MBK₀₀₄ 04:00, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I know, it's not the greatest photo. There is File:SMS Hindenburg ScapaFlow1919.jpg (which, despite its name is actually Derfflinger), but that's not all that great either. This one would be great, but the license isn't definitively sourced, so I don't think we can use it. Parsecboy (talk) 10:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support - and in looking into this topic, I found this - very impressive plans! Now all you need to do is get SMS Goeben to GA, and that's the German battlecruisers complete ;) rst20xx (talk) 11:50, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Finishing Goeben only gets a FT on the Moltke class since Parsec would need to write an all-encompassing article or list for the battlecruisers before making one large FT nom with multiple sub-topics. -MBK₀₀₄ 15:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
    • I was actually thinking of doing one for the I Scouting Group (see here), which would leave out Goeben since she was never assigned to the unit. Goeben would fit nicely in a FT that includes SMS Breslau, Pursuit of Goeben and Breslau, and an as of yet unwritten Mediterranean Division article that would tie it all together. Parsecboy (talk) 16:22, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support - Nice work. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 21:27, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support - Great job by Parsecboy. - DSachan (talk) 23:06, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support Another great Mil. Hist. area article. Staxringold _talk^contribs 11:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
• Close with consensus to promote - rst20xx (talk) 12:51, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Star Wars: Jedi Knight titles

Star Wars: Jedi Knight titles

6 articles

Star Wars: Dark Forces

Star Wars Jedi Knight: Dark Forces II

Star Wars Jedi Knight: Mysteries of the Sith

Star Wars Jedi Knight II: Jedi Outcast

Star Wars Jedi Knight: Jedi Academy

Major contributors: Bill, UnaLaguna

The 5 games are included (Movie Battles might also make the list). Nergaal (talk) 17:05, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

• Weak oppose - firstly, I think this can only be called "titles", not "series", because it does not include all articles on the series - it's missing Kyle Katarn. But if that is fixed, I weak oppose anyway because I think when there is a scope narrowing to remove just one article (the last article!), that is, to me, cherrypicking. (Also I don't see any evidence you've tried to notify either of the major contributors. Appologies if I'm missing something but if you haven't I think that's incredibly rude) - rst20xx (talk) 23:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

the character, although makes a good appearance in this series, it does not appear to me that it is limited to only this series; therefore I don't really think he is a "natural" part of the topic. Furthermore, I am not 100% sure he is actually that notable to have its own page (and I am not a deletitionist to go for deleting it). I left a notice for the major contributors to the topic; maybe they have a better opinion about this. Nergaal (talk) 01:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

He appeared in some books after appearing in the series. He is the protagonist of the series and was created for it. I don't see why his also appearing in some books detracts from that - rst20xx (talk) 09:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support as titles - without Katarn, who was created for these games, you can't really call it 'series', but titles works fine for me. I don't see it as cherry-picking if it has a rational scope, even if there's another rational scope with one more article. I also don't see Movie Battles as necessary in the "titles" scope; I would however like to see it in a "series" scope. --PresN 03:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support good job. And Katarn and Movie Battles would fit better in a "Series" topic, indeed. igordebraga ≠ 17:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
• Some more feedback please? Nergaal (talk) 02:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support It really does look like a good topic (no pun intended). GamerPro64 (talk) 23:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support Solid work Staxringold _talk^contribs 11:08, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
• Close with consensus to promote - rst20xx (talk) 11:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

True Blue

True Blue

6 articles

• "Live to Tell"
• "Papa Don't Preach"

• "True Blue"
• "Open Your Heart"

• "La Isla Bonita"

Hi all. I believe the following 6 articles should be a Good Topic for Wikipedia. They are comprehensive, sleek organized and are similar in content and structure. All are good articles and are interrelated. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 09:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support - all looks good, can't see any gaps -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support - Excellent work. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 14:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support, well done! –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support, great work! Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support - very nice. I'm particularly impressed with the amount of material in the singles articles - rst20xx (talk) 20:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support Impressive. Theleftorium 21:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support - meets WP:FT? requirements. Very nice icon btw. --Admrboltz (talk) 16:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support impressive amount of work Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
• Close with consensus to promote - congratulations on getting the first topic on a pre-2000s album - rst20xx (talk) 13:46, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Timothy Blackstone

Timothy Blackstone

5 articles

Blackstone Library

Union Stock Yards

Merle Reskin Theatre (formerly Blackstone Theatre)

Blackstone Hotel

I believe this topic is complete. Although the Blackstones funded Blackstone Halls at the Art Institute of Chicago and Lake Forest College, I can find no link between them and Blackstone Hall at the University of Chicago.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Why isn't the fifth article showing?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Fixed, the box only has three columns. Woody (talk) 14:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support - this contains all articles related to Timothy Blackstone on the Wiki, so I support. I don't think you can put "(formerly Blackstone Theatre)" in the topic box though, you could pipe the link to say "Blackstone Theatre" or let users click through and find out the connection for themselves - rst20xx (talk) 17:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

  Also actually I'm not sure Union Stock Yards deserves including any more than Alton Railroad does, his involvement seems to be equally substantial in both, the only difference is one's a GA and the other isn't. Maybe both articles should be excluded for now - rst20xx (talk) 17:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

  In my mind was the distinction that he was the founding president of the USY.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:57, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

  Hmm good point - rst20xx (talk) 22:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support - Excellent work here. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 22:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support —Terrence and Phillip 19:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support, nice work. Theleftorium 21:20, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support - Looks good. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:49, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
• Close with consensus to promote - rst20xx (talk) 14:30, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Chough

Chough

3 articles

Red-billed Chough

Alpine Chough

 

I'm nominating this for Good Topic because it's a coherent set of three articles, the genus Pyrrhocorax and its only two species. Two GAs and an FA so far. if successful here, I'll work up Alpine Chough to FA and go for FT. This is my first attempt at GT, and the first from WP:BIRDS, so please be gentle with me! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support - very nice topic. One issue though, you need to fix the topic name. The title parameter should match the piped lead - so in this case you should either have title=Pyrrhocorax and lead= Pyrrhocorax, or you should have title=Chough and lead= Chough, depending upon which of the two names you'd rather go with. This is the first genus topic and I hope that many more will follow, so very well done on getting in there early! rst20xx (talk) 12:41, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

  OK, thanks for comment and support, topic name changed to Chough - I should have realised. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:30, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

  There is a slight complication because "Chough" is used locally for the common name of the local species in some parts of the world. Would "Chough (genus)" or "Genus: Chough" be clearer? Snowman (talk) 09:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

  Hopefully looking at the topic box as a whole it should be apparent that the whole genus is being referred to in the lead's name. Further, the lead article, Chough, is not disambiguated to Chough (genus) or something so I don't see why it should need to be here. However if it's felt that the topic name should be made clearer then I think calling the topic "Pyrrhocorax" would be better than disambiguating Chough - rst20xx (talk) 13:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

  Are two images permitted in the GAT template? Snowman (talk) 13:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

  No, one only. You could glue multiple images together though, a la File:Radiohead.jpg. Though the current image already has both types of chough in it! rst20xx (talk) 14:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Looks good to me. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:55, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support - Interesting topic. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 21:32, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support —Chris! _ct 00:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support (moral or otherwise as WP:Birds member :)) Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support very neat topic -- EA Swyer ^Talk _{Contributions} 01:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks to all above - I'm amazed at the speed of response here compared to GAN or FAC Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Navbox on articles:

I presume that the new navbox at the bottom of all tree pages should look like the GAT table too. At the moment Chough, Alpine Chough, and Red-billed Chough are on the same box and it looks like they are all species. Snowman (talk) 07:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that's the case. I copied the navbox from an existing GT/FT, so I assume that it's as it should be. The navbox isn't restricted to GT/FT, it can be used to link any related topics at any assessment level, and therefore isn't intended to mimic the FTbox format. It's just that at GT/FT, it's strongly suggested that a navbox is used to link the articles in the topic. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Nevertheless, I think the navbox could be amended to be clearer. I looked at another navbox and the fist one I looked at had a better structure, see Age of Empires. I think that it is potentially misleading that the common names for the genus and species are in the same box and the genus is repeated (with the scientific name) as the heading as well. Folowing the "Age of Empires" style, the heading would be "Chough" wikilinked (or "Genus: Chough") and the box would containe "Species: Red-winged Chough, Alpine Chough". Or perhaps there should be an extra column on the left for the taxa. the navbox could help the reader navigate to the genus and species better. It is not clear which is the genus and which are the species. In some parts of the world "Chough" would be used for the common name of the local species". I think that the current navbox is not fit for purpose. Snowman (talk) 09:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, navbox rewritten to separate genus and species, also Pyrrhocorax added parenthetically to remove any possible ambiguity. please feel free to tweak further if you wish Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Enormous improvements in navbox seen and I think that the new transcluded "chough navbox template" is neat. Snowman (talk) 13:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support I see many more coming. Any plan on the next GTC thus far? I suggest working on more GTCs rather than taking this to FTC. Great job Jimfbleak and all others involved. - DSachan (talk) 17:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you are right. This is new ground for the project, but a few possibilities have been identified on the project page. This had the advantage of being a small genus, so relatively easy to work up. Thanks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support —Terrence and Phillip 23:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

thanks, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support Very interesting articles. Well done! Theleftorium 21:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support, per above. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
• Close with consensus to promote - rst20xx (talk) 14:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The Simpsons (season 5)

The Simpsons (season 5)

23 articles

"Homer's Barbershop Quartet"

"Cape Feare"

"Homer Goes to College"

"Rosebud"

"Treehouse of Horror IV"

"Marge on the Lam"

"Bart's Inner Child"

"Boy-Scoutz n the Hood"

"The Last Temptation of Homer"

"$pringfield (Or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Legalized Gambling)"

"Homer the Vigilante"

"Bart Gets Famous"

"Homer and Apu"

"Lisa vs. Malibu Stacy"

"Deep Space Homer"

"Homer Loves Flanders"

"Bart Gets an Elephant"

"Burns' Heir"

"Sweet Seymour Skinner's Baadasssss Song"

"The Boy Who Knew Too Much"

"Lady Bouvier's Lover"

"Secrets of a Successful Marriage"

Co-nominators: From Season 5 Topic Drive: Theleftorium, Scorpion0422, Maitch, Gran2, Cirt, Qst, Gary King, Ctjf83, ImperatorExercitus.

"A woman is a lot like a beer. They smell good, they look good, you'd step over your own mother just to get one! But you can't stop at one... you wanna drink another woman!" Anyway, this season GTC should meet the criteria. One small step for Wikipedia, one giant leap for Homerpedia. Theleftorium 11:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support well done! -- EA Swyer ^Talk _{Contributions} 22:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep 'em comming Nergaal (talk) 00:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support - Excellent work. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 17:07, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support - after 2 and 3 are done, what's the plan? 10? rst20xx (talk) 19:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Nah, seasons 10–20 suck. Theleftorium 20:04, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

If so, what's your next step? —Terrence and Phillip 16:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Probably character articles. And the seasons topic. Theleftorium 17:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

What about a ToH topic? btw: season 20 is ok. Nergaal (talk) 19:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support igordebraga ≠ 04:10, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support —Terrence and Phillip 16:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support Rreagan007 (talk) 17:55, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support: You know, if you try and get every single season a featured/good topic, you'd have yourselves the most amazing featured topic ever with the FL List of episodes. :P The Flash ^{talk} 17:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support: Holy crap that's a lot of GAs. Good job! Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

If you think this topic has a lot of GAs, WP:DOH actually has a total of 200 GAs (and counting...) —Terrence and Phillip 19:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• Close with consensus to promote - these ones always take a while to do, see you in an hour... rst20xx (talk) 20:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)