Talk:Avatar (2009 film)/Archive 3

Release dates
What's the best way to write out the Release dates in the infobox. Right now it looks too sloppy. The way I understand WP:FILMRELEASE is that if the film is a US film then only the US release date should be used, however, since it was released in other countries before the release date then it's ok to add them. Is that correct? But it is really necessary to have all the English non-speaking counties listed? -- Mike   Allen   16:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Why even have this discussion? This is a USA film. The release date in the USA is December 18, every other film on Wikipedia goes by a USA release date (regardless of if it is USA or not). Every other film in the World is released 5 days earlier than planned. But, we go by the USA release date. ChaosMaster16 (talk) 19:40, 19 December 2009 (UTC)ChaosMaster16
 * Wikipedia doesn't go by the US release date. It makes it clear that the notable dates are the worldwide premiere date, and any further release dates of the production countries.  I don't know where you've got the idea only teh US release date matters. Betty Logan (talk) 19:43, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The release dates in the infobox should be restricted to the films's first public screening date, and any further release dates of the countries who produced the film. Therefore the infobox should be structured as December 16 (world premiere), December 17th (UK), December 18th (US). See WP:FilmRelease.  No other release dates should be included unless more international companies are added to the production company credits. The countries should be removed form teh December 16th date and released with premiere because the locations are irrelevant, it's just a notable date as the world premiere. Betty Logan (talk) 19:43, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:FILMRELEASE says to have one release date for the earliest release and one release for each country in the "Country" section, i.e. what country the film "belongs" to. So the London premiere on the 10 and the US release should belong there. I don't see why the UK release would need to be there. BOVINEBOY 2008 ) 19:44, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, it seems to be a co-production (must of over looked that). UK release should be there, too. BOVINEBOY 2008 ) 19:46, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Which version is better for Reception section, per Manual of Style?
I prefer this way. But ChaosMaster16 prefers this way. Our reasons for why we prefer either way are in the links. ChaosMaster16 cites Manual of Style. I ask does it really state that ChaosMaster16's way is the way we should go on this matter? I am not seeing how it is neater to separate the Marketing section from the Release section, and to combine the Release section with the Reception section. I am not seeing how the Awards and nominations section truly belongs in the Release section, unless the Release section is supposed to signify the film's entire theatrical run and cover its post-theatrical run as well. Flyer22 (talk) 21:27, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The way I see it is: Production; Marketing; Release. Production includes the development, exc.; the Marketing includes how the film was advertised; and the Release section includes its theatrical run, followed by its BO performence, then the critical reception, followed by the home media; we Could make a seperate section for Awards and nominations, but Accross wikipedia, i generally see it under the release section.ChaosMaster16 (talk) 21:34, 19 December 2009 (UTC)ChaosMaster16


 * I usually see the Awards and nominations section under the Reception section, and would rather it not be a stand-alone section; it is a part of the reception, after all. I have seen the style you prefer for Reception sections before (such as with the Titanic (1997 film) article); it is just that I prefer the other style and see it the most often (such as with Transformers (film), The Dark Knight (film), or with Aliens (film) and Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (film), etc.; though the Aliens (film) article does not have a Marketing section). But it does not matter too much regarding either Release/Reception section format we use. The Iron Man (film) combines it all under the title of Release, and the Changeling (film) article is completely doing its own thing. I just wanted to see what other editors around this article thought about this, and which format they prefer. We could even go the same route as the Halloween (2007 film) article; it puts the Reception section under the Release section but also keeps it separate in a way by the formatting of its subsection heading. Flyer22 (talk) 22:22, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The Film guidelines WikiProject_Films/Style_guidelines state Details may be contained in a "Release" section, a "Marketing" subsection within it, or a stand-alone "Marketing" section, depending on the amount of coverage available. Clearly the guidelines advocate both layouts, so a bit of commonsense needs to prevail.  As a rule of thumb, if we are just talking about a single paragraph then I would say it would be better to include it in the "Release" section.  If we are talking about more than one paragraph make "Marketing" a sub-section of the "Release" section.  If the Marketing section is as large or even bigger then the rest of the "Release" section then make it an enirely different section. Betty Logan (talk) 21:38, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, a Marketing subsection of the Release section is what I prefer in this case (as the first link shows). Flyer22 (talk) 22:22, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I like Halloween (2007 film)'s format. But, yes, we should get other opinions.ChaosMaster16 (talk) 22:31, 19 December 2009 (UTC)ChaosMaster16
 * I am okay with going ahead and using that format. And since the Marketing section of any film article, including this one, usually starts off noting stuff that took place before the film's release, I am thinking that I may like part of your preference better; it does seem neater that the Marketing section's information come before the Release section's information, since the marketing started before the film's release. If the Release section were like The Dark Knight (film) article's, with the marketing information first and then the theatrical run information, it would be in order. But we do not yet have enough information about Avatar's theatrical run to create a subsection about that, though. In either "Release" version, however, the marketing information would be about stuff that happened before the film's release (even if it does include stuff after its release). And that is okay, since "Release," in this case, also covers what went into preparation before the film's release.


 * On a side note, the marketing of this film is somewhat related to the merchandising for it. For example, both are partly about the video game. Perhaps we should combine the Marketing and Merchandising sections? Flyer22 (talk) 23:01, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Incorporating Merchandising into Marketing would at least make the Marketing section more substantial and therefore more valid as a completely separate section. Betty Logan (talk) 23:05, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. Anyone else? Flyer22 (talk) 23:08, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Combined, anyone dislike it?ChaosMaster16 (talk) 23:17, 19 December 2009 (UTC)ChaosMaster16
 * Seems fine to me. It's best to just leave the title as Marketing, instead of titling it to Marketing and merchandising, right? Flyer22 (talk) 00:24, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Yea, I think it would be too confusing otherwise.ChaosMaster16 (talk) 01:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

First budget discussion
In this section, we discuss the mystery surrounding the true size of the film's budget, and what figures to include in the article.

The film is estimated to have cost over $300 million to produce, and another estimated $200 million for the distribution and other costs, thus totaling to about half a billion dollars.[10] Budget 	$237,000,000[2]

One of the two statements above is wrong. 92.36.141.163 (talk) 21:24, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Can someone watch this please. A persistent editor keeps changing the budget to $500m. The reference makes it clear that most estimates of the budget are about $230m, and that this $500m figure included $150m of marketing costs, $25m of technological development costs by Panasonic and tax rebates from New Zealand. These are all apart from the production budget and are not included in the budgets of other films. I gave the reasons for this when I put it back but the anonymous editor has simply reverted the edit. It's important for the stats to be accurate as possible and consistent with estimates on other articles. Thanks. Betty Logan (talk) 13:59, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The director mentioned that large number to grab headlines and get some free publicity. He knows how to play the media quite well.  The article should list that fact.   is the first news result that came up when I searched Google news for that.  Many other sources available.   D r e a m Focus  18:02, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia's own "most expensive films" list contradicts this article's claim that Avatar is the most expensive film to date. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.245.194.60 (talk) 06:15, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Just because the articles present contradictory information doesn't mean the articles contradict each other. The 'most expensive films list' uses IMDb estimates since it's the most comprehensive source for budgets, and if you are going to chart films then they have to have the same source otherwise the chart becomes inconsistent.    There is a source on the Avatar article that is claiming Avatar is the most expensive film to date but all that means is that particular source contradicts the IMDB - just like there are contradictory claims for the budget saying it cost $230m, $237m or even $300m.  The 'most expensive' claim is included on the Avatar article because it's a published claim - it may be inaccurate but it is still a verifiable claim.


 * I personally think their claim is wrong but it could still turn out to be true though. They put Avatar's cost at $230m while Spiderman 3 is usually estimated to cost $258m and is officially recognised as the most expensive film ever made.  That isn't much of a difference, and allowing for each budget to be 10% out that could mean Avatar costs about $250m and Spiderman 3 about $230m.  Some sources estimate Pirates of the Caribbean 3 to cost $300m, but this is only an educated guess because officially POTC 3 never had its own budget since it was a joint production with POTC 2. Betty Logan (talk) 06:54, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I read a list on the internet somewhere, showing what all the films cost and grossed if adjusted for inflation. Titanic was behind several older films as far as highest earning.  If we decide to add into any film article that it was the most expensive film ever made, we need to check an inflation comparison list before hand.  Otherwise, no need to mention that.  Or say "not taking in account inflation", before making an otherwise misleading claim.   D r e a m Focus  15:40, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Cleopatra is the highest costing adjusting for inflation, but that's irrelevant because adjusting for inflation just gives a different persepctive, it doesn't alter the actual facts. A verifiable source has published the claim so Wikipedia has just recorded that, because it's a notable claim about the film.  It doesn't have to be true to be included, just verifiable which it is.  That means the Avatar article can include a source saying it is the most expensive, Spiderman 3 can do the same and the Cleopatra article can say it's the most expensive adjusted for inflation just so long as they all have verifiable sources to back up the claims.  Betty Logan (talk) 15:58, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

"At $230 million Avatar is being touted as the most expensive film to date" - Insufficient way to skirt the issue. Whether it was merely "touted" or not, there have been more expensive movies than $230 million! Why include such obviously false disposable rumor in an encyclopedia article? Somebody please change that sentence to a FACT.

The following article says that the cost of Avatar is $300 million, making it the most expensive film to date: http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/view/109670/James-Cameron-s-Avatar-makes-Hollywood-film-history/

74.174.201.204 (talk) 06:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)WaitingtoSeeAvatar


 * As per comments of the above user, it is downright lunacy to have any mention of Avatar being the "most expensive film at 230 million". The arguments in support of this being included are simply using loopholes present in wikipedia's design. The article is incorrect, not merely contradictory. To clarify this point - if the article had said "Avatar is being touted as the most expensive film at $50 million dollars" the logical divide in this discussion would be exactly the same. Three other films have credible sources in support of them costing more than 230 million. To the 20,000 - 30,000 people viewing the page every day, sustaining this proclamation degrades wikipedia's credibility. The other article provided above also calls Avatar the most expensive film to date, but with a figure of 300 million pounds sterling, which is again a fallacious claim. Obviously, the best solution for the moment is to simply remove the sentence all together. Gamaur (talk) 23:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * To clarify I was not arguing for its inclusion as I think it is incorrect and have no personal objection to it being removed from the article. I was pointing out that Wikipedia's policy follows verifiability, and if the source is a reliable source then it fulfills the criteria for inclusion - these aren't loopholes, this is how Wikiepdia works and inevitably will lead to the inclusion of erroneous information.  If someone decides to reinstate it then Wikipedia policy will actually support their decision, and if it weren't for that I would have removed it myself. Betty Logan (talk) 00:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The loophole I'm referring to is that there's no requirement that we verify the source's source. In this case it's clearly incorrect based on the evidence of more expensive films. Surely correct information is a paramount criteria for fulfilling wikipedia's standards of reliability.
 * The only criteria is that the source is reliable. I don't know if this particular source fulfills that criteria, but if say the NY Times had said it was the most expensive film of all time at $230m then as a reliable source that would be eligible for inclusion. The main criticism of Wikipedia is that it favours verifiability over factual accuracy, and this is the type of scenario that policy leads to:  if a relible source gets it wrong Wikipedia is obliged to include the mistake if other editors insist on it. Betty Logan (talk) 12:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Not really. We are not supposed to apply the rules legalistically where to do so would be detrimental to the encyclopedia. That's why there's a fundamental rule of Ignore All Rules. It doesn't mean that you don't normally have to follow the rules; it means that you don't apply them mechanically where to do so will be counterproductive to the project's quality. A certain degree of common sense and discretion has to prevail. Metamagician3000 (talk) 11:24, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong rumours are beginning to circulate that the final production budget will put it well above the current figure, and Cameron's own contributions may not be included either. I think at this point it's still appropriate to make some mention of the size of the budget, such as it being one of the most expensive films. There are plenty of sources out there that mention it in this way. Gamaur (talk) 12:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Second budget discussion
The claims of a 500 Million $ Budget are completely overblown. (Semi)-official figures talk about 237 Million with 150 Million for promotion: http://www.thewrap.com/article/true-cost-and-consequences-avatar-11206 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leporella (talk • contribs) 00:03, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Umm, thank you? This isn't a forum....ChaosMaster16 (talk) 00:20, 20 December 2009 (UTC)ChaosMaster16


 * The infobox records the $237m value. It's convention to use the official value in the infobox, and discuss any further estimates with sources in the production section.  The $500m value comes from the Cieply New York Times article where he bundled marketing and the deferred salaries for a total of $500m (and now lots of other articles are saying the budget is $500m), but even that article says the budget was about $230m.  There are other estimates that put the budget at about $300m, but they should be left to the production section where the context can be made clear.  Betty Logan (talk) 01:11, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * This must be a joke. Some guy makes up some numbers that producer subsequently denies while encyclopedia presents it in the intro as if it was official figure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.76.77.148 (talk) 01:32, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The article states ESTIMATED. Estimates could be extremely close or extremely far off. Here, it seems to be far off, but it would be better to leave this information because there haven't been OFFICIAL announcements about whether this is far off or not. I know there are far more articles reporting the half-a-billion budget then there are the "actual" budget. Right now, we should leave it until we get further reports about the "actual" budget.ChaosMaster16 (talk) 01:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)ChaosMaster16
 * Well to be fair there has been an official announcement. Fox stated the budget is $237m.  If you are going to include estimates in the lede you should at the very least include the officially released figure too. Betty Logan (talk) 02:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You have official statements in the link above and they should take precedence over, as you admit, vague (and "ridiculous" - per Fox chairman) estimates. Also, is there any indication that authors of those other articles carried independent investigation instead of just copying from the original source, as is typical for a press to do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.76.77.148 (talk) 06:06, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Actors as CGI characters
It says "Zoe Saldaña as Neytiri, a princess of the Na'vi tribe ... blabla ... The character, like all the Na'vi, is entirely computer generated." This needs clarification: is Saldana just doing the voice, or did they motion capture her? Cop 663 (talk) 00:02, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Check out the video at http://www.wired.com/underwire/2009/12/avatar-review/, the motion-capture is detailed. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 09:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

24 frames per second
Why is "24 frames per second" significant to Avatar 3D? If it's not, I vote to remove that statement. Meonkeys (talk) 21:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Good question, because all theatrical screenings are in 24 fps... no matter if they are screened digitally or analouge... 94.79.134.15 (talk) 00:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

If the framerate is different from IMAX, then it may be worth reporting. Perhaps there is another article about theater projection systems that could be linked to? (fotoguzzi) 69.64.235.42 (talk) 06:05, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * "24 frames per second" is significant because of James Cameron's contention that the 3D technology developed for production of this film requires a higher frame rate than standard film because of the abundance of information inherent in the digital image. The more frames you run per second during filming, the more information the camera can store - per second - and thus give the viewing audience a much more crisp picture.  The viewing experience of the film would have been greatly enhanced by this higher frame rate.  I'm guessing that budget and distribution concerns contributed to Fox's retreat from releasing the film in all formats at a higher frame rate (if you shoot 60 frames per second versus 24fps, you're more than doubling the amount of film used in the entire running time of the feature - now multiply that by the number of screens showing the film upon release).  This is a gearhead issue, for sure, but given that much of this article is devoted to the overall "groundbreaking" that Cameron has contributed to cinema with this project, a groundbreaking difference in frame rate would also be appropriate to inculde.Kp.murphy (talk) 18:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Mainstream critics in association with Metacritic
DerechoReguerraz removed the word "mainstream" in application to Metacritic with the explanation that it is weasel wording and that "Metacritic includes reviews from The Onion and Time Out New York and many others that are normally not considered mainstream." I state that my putting in "mainstream" for Metacritic was due to the usual formatting of Wikipedia film articles, such as Transformers (film) and Changeling (film) (which are both featured articles). I am not seeing why "mainstream" should not be put in; we do not state that all the critics are mainstream. But if the majority are, "mainstream" seems appropriate to me. If we are going to remove "mainstream" from one, it should also go for others.

Any other comments about this? I will contact DerechoReguerraz about commenting. Flyer22 (talk) 00:17, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Because the definition of the term "mainstream" in this context is vague. I think its just better to say "based on film critics" rather than "mainstream film critics."  This is different than say Rotten Tomatoes, which has a page that specifically titled "Top Critics".  Metacritic did not specify their reviews all came from mainstream critics on their website, so adding a designation is unnecessary in my opinion.--DerechoReguerraz (talk) 00:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I think Derecho has a point. What criteria does Metacritic use for selecting reviews?  If Metacritic doesn't claim to use "mainstream" reviews then I don't think there is a case for describing the reviews as mainstream. Betty Logan (talk) 01:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Rotten Tomatoes is full of mainstream critics, even if you do not visit its "Top critics" section. There has to be a reason that almost every good or great Wikipedia film article states "mainstream" in reference to Metacritic. Is it just that all these articles copied each other in that format? Even if so, my main point is that this article should not be banned from doing the same. I feel that DerechoReguerraz should take this to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films if he wants "mainstream" banned from being associated with Metacritic in Wikipedia articles. Otherwise, I am inclined to follow the norm for these film articles. This article should not be the only one not using "mainstream" in reference to Metacritic, and one editor alone cannot decide something that should be discussed with the wider Wikipedia community. Until this is "banned," I will use this format. If you two want, I am okay with taking this to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films to see how this "mainstream" part became the norm, and what they think about it. Flyer22 (talk) 19:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not a big deal for me personally, I was just supporting someone else's judgement call, and I think referring to something as "mainstream" purely on the basis other articles probably violates verifiability if the site itself doesn't claim to use mainstream reviews, or if there is no third party reference for the claim. I suspect it is a self-perpetuating format in that similar sections copy the format of each other, but that's a backdoor way of using of Wikipedia articles to 'reference' a factual claim, which is prohibited.  Metacritic claims to use 'respected' reviewers and there can considerable divergence between mainstream and respected reviews.  For instance, reviews in cult magazines might be respected but aren't mainstream, and someone like Paul Ross who reviews for the British "The Sun" is mainstream but hardly respected.  It's simply not clear what the criteria is.  Basically it comes down to the issue that it's a claim, and if a claim is challenged then it should be referenced with a verifible source.  If you want to stick it in then stick it in, but I think the logic for doing so is wrong. Betty Logan (talk) 19:33, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I will take this to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films. I am going to copy and paste this discussion there. I hope that you two do not mind; it's just that I feel that more people will be inclined to discuss this if the original discussion is there. You two weighing in there to help figure this out and gain consensus would be much appreciated. Flyer22 (talk) 19:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I am asking that all editors, or at least most, of this project weigh in on this. Flyer22 (talk) 20:01, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm inclined to agree with the others. Mainstream is not a necessary word, and it is very subjective. Most films do not, in fact, refer to Metacritic nor RT as "mainstream" as not all of their critics are necessarily "mainsteam" depending on your meaning of it. Further, it could be seen as being non-neutral wording, as it could be perceived as giving them a higher qualification than any other reviews. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 20:13, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * While I am generally okay with using the word "mainstream", I think we can exclude it here because reliable sources, per WP:RS, are supposed to include "all majority and significant-minority views". Thus, using "mainstream" may be redundant and can be left out. Erik (talk) 20:17, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * As I stated on my talk page, I posted this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films because this is a topic that does affect a large number of articles. I was not asking for consensus for this film article alone, as I made clear in my comments. I also made it clear that this discussion should continue there at that WikiProject.


 * I wanted to know if we should go ahead and exclude "mainstream" from all the film articles that do so in reference to Metacritic, not just this one. But I will go ahead and remove it from this one. I am more for consistency on this matter, though. I know that not all film articles use "mainstream" in reference to Metacritic, but most of the good or great ones I have seen do (or at least did, in some cases). Flyer22 (talk) 20:33, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * First, it is best to avoid copying discussions. It is preferable to cross-post notifications that point to the original discussion.  Judging from this discussion so far, we do not need to re-examine the status quo of all film articles using the word "mainstream" in regard to Metacritic when the challenging editor has only edited two film articles.  If there is a desire to have a discussion to reach general consensus about how to word Metacritic's reports, we can do that at WT:FILM, but it should be a discussion started anew, linking to the old discussion, and embarking into a call for general consensus. Erik (talk) 20:39, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You have made valid points, Erik, as did others. As I replied on my talk page, I understand what you mean. Thank you for weighing in. Flyer22 (talk) 20:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * "Mainstream" according to Webster's 3rd implies "prevailing". When that applies to winds or ocean currents, in that sense, it has statistical, encyclopedic meaning. Otherwise, as here, it's simply subjective handwaving about "whose opinion is widely distributed and popular". I.e., it has no concrete or enduring encyclopedic meaning. Piano non troppo (talk) 06:52, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Good points. Though I don't usually consider "mainstream" subjective. Either the person's opinion is widely distributed and popular...or it is not. And in some cases, "mainstream" has encyclopedic value. For example, when it is a topic that usually does not reach mainstream, then gains mainstream success, it is very relevant to mention that (backed up by a reliable source/sources, of course). Flyer22 (talk) 20:23, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Metacritic includes only critics widely recognized as being mainstream, i.e., from major publications, whereas Rotten Tomatoes seems to include anyone with an opinion and access to a computer. However, I don't think the use of the word "mainstream" is necessary here. 67.78.143.227 (talk) 14:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * LOL, IP, that is not necessarily true about Rotten Tomatoes. But I already expressed my thoughts about that site in another section above. Flyer22 (talk) 20:23, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well RT does include a lot of blogs. Where do they find these sites?  Personally, I never allow a "critics" opinion to persuade me to see or not see a film.  I think it's a gimmick and I make my own opinions.  Personally. --  Mike   Allen   04:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Rotten Tomatoes does not find sites. The critics go there; only trusted opinions are allowed there. After all, that is the reason that not just any of us can go register with that site right now and rate films or offer our "expert" opinions on them in an official manner.


 * Either way, Rotten Tomatoes is well-respected and has enormous sway with viewers. If a film has a 20% score on there, for example, most people who know about the score cannot help feeling that the film is horrible. While not everyone is persuaded by critics' opinions, enough of them are that it matters/counts. Flyer22 (talk) 19:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry if you felt that I was saying that Wikipedia should not allow RT. That's not what I meant. I have no problem with it listed on here, but I just said that I personally don't go by those scores. I also do not let my personal opinions get in the way of editing Wikipedia.  There's a lot of things I disagree with IRL, but I go by the rules that have been established by the community of Wikipedia to try and keep this a no spin zone. :)  --  Mike   Allen   22:54, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No need to apologize, Mike. I know what you meant. I just wanted to reply to you on this matter. Flyer22 (talk) 23:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC)