Talk:Synesthesia/Archive 2

Archive Talk Page?
Hi. The talk page is now 52 kb long, and we are consistently getting a long-page warning.Browser_page_size_limits More importantly, however, is the fact that the page is becoming hard to navigate and many of the discussions on the talk page seem to be obsolete (for example, the reading as syn topic). To facilitate discussion of future changes, updates, additions, etc, etc, I am proposing that we archive anything on this talk page that hasn't been active for, say, one month. Wikipedia suggests two ways to archive, and there are pluses and minuses to both. How_to_archive_a_talk_page What do people think, both about whether or not to archive, and if so how? I'll leave this for comments for one week, and then if there seems to be consensus, I'll archive this page. Edhubbard 21:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Ed -- Yes; I feel things have built up enough, and have also changed (drastically) enough to justify archiving most of the older messages – or even whole topic areas. As you noted, much is now obsolete.  As to how to do this, I really don’t know at the moment.  I do like your concept of removing anything which has been inactive for over a month.  Although, to be fair, that means that (that is, it thus quite behooves us that) people (you, myself, and others) should not only check out but also evaluate whether things are worthy of response, and, if so, respond, at a rate far more frequently than monthly.  --Sean A. Day 00:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply, Sean. I think that, at this point, I am leaning towards a cut-and-paste by topic with light refactoring.  Since some of the topics seem to still be active, while others (Am I a synesthete? and Reading as Synesthesia) seem to be dead, I think that we will lose little by archriving those longer conversations.  Active conversations will not be touched.  I haven't had much other feedback, so I will probably turn towards this early next week.  If anyone has objections or other suggestions, please feel free to post them here.  Edhubbard 11:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Associated Cognitive Traits
Dawnfire added "However, it might be more accurate to describe the last two problems as being merely the tendency to reverse numbers and letters (a trait commonly found among non-righthanders). This may cause some difficulty with things such as spelling or place value but need to translate into any general impairment in mathematics or literacy.  In fact, synaethesia is rarely associated with actual dyslexia/dyscalculia.

The claim, often found in articles on the condition, that synaethesia occurs at the expense of mathematical ability, is thus inaccurate or at least seriously overstates the case. In general, people with synaethesia are probably just as likely to be mathematically skilled as anyone else and can not be said to suffer from 'learning difficulties'. On the other had the equally common claim that synaesthetes possess exceptional intelligence also seems to have little or no foundation."

I have removed these sections because there is simply no published data one way or the other on these questions. If someone can find appropriate references, please feel free to add this material back in. See NOR. Similarly, there are a number of places where this passage seems to offer interpretations rather than data, which may run afoul of the NPOV. There is no foundation, one way or the other, for the claims here, at least in the published scientific literature. If someone knows of something that is published, or that will be published, please feel free to change the post back with appropriate citations I am also posting this to Dawnfire's talk page. Edhubbard 05:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

New Section: Possible Neural Bases
I have added a draft of a section concerning the possible neural bases of synesthesia. Richard Cytowic will also edit this section. It is not yet complete, but it is a good start, and I believe that it is not unduly biased towards one theory or the other (for a much more complete, and techy explanation of these issues, see my 2005 Neuron review paper here | Review).

I have also cited my refereences as I have gone along (usng "author-date" format) but I do not have time to update the references section today. If someone else would like to add the references, please feel free. Edhubbard 19:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

List of Famous Synesthetes
The Franz Liszt quote isn't in any standard Liszt sources, is it? It doesn't ring true. Alexander Scriabin would have been a more credible souce for this quote. I feel it's apocryphal User:Wetman

Well, no matter if it 'ring's true' or not, it appears pretty well-documented that Liszt saw sound... Khranus

Shouldn't "who's" be "whose"?

Some of those names might be a bit dubious-sounding; it would be nice if somehow some proof of their synesthesia could be put beside their names or somewhere in their articles (or even better, in this article).

Agreed -- I cant find reference to certain people being part of this list. Needs referencing, or it will have to go --DragonFly31 08:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Sean Day has a very careful list of synesthetes, pseudo-synesthetes, and non-synestete artists, musicians, etc on his website. Note that Sean is the President of the American Synesthesia Association, himself a synesthete, and the moderator of the "Synesthesia List", an e-mail group of synesthetes around the world. This does not guarantee that he has everything right, but at least it's all backed up fairly carefully. Edhubbard 19:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I have added a caveat to the "Famous Synesthetes" section, including a link to Sean's website. He has volunteered to help with the entry, and I will ask if he is willing to work on the "Famous Synesthetes" section. Edhubbard 19:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello, whilst researching about pharrell i discovered this video in which he says "it just always stuck out in my mind. and i could always see it. i don't know if that makes sense, but i could always visualise what i was hearing" "yea it was always like weird colors". is that clear enough to claim him as a synesthete? i know its hardly a diagnosis but i would have thought it was fairly clear.. Also, whilst seeing if there was any mention of pharrell having Synaesthesia on the internet, i inadvertantly found that Rollo Armstrong of UK group Faithless is a synaesthete ~ Bungalowbill 04:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I think both quotes are pretty suggestive. Pharrell is, in some ways, more intriguiing because he simply reports synesthesia (or something like it). The fact that Armstrong knows the name for synesthesia and so on makes me a little more cautious.  You see, in the early 20th c. some composers and artists started reporting synesthesia because it was "in". So, the fact that Armstrong knows the name raises the *possibility* that he is taking this on because of the current interest in the phenomenon.  Further research would be required for both, but I will add them to Sean's list of "Under Review" synesthetes. It's also nice to have some more contemporary artists in the under review section. Edhubbard 11:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello 67.185.230.159, While I agree that the Pharrell quote is suggestive, we are currently looking for additional corrorabting evidence. Assuming we find another independent quote (which I expect we will) we will then move him from the "under review" section of Famous_synesthetes page to the main portion of that page, along with supporting quotes, and also add him to the main synesthesia page.  If you have additional sources, quotes, references, etc, please feel free to add them (indeed, please add them).  We're not opposed to adding anyone, but want to have a couple of quotes to verify that their experiences are not metahporical, etc, etc (see definition).  Edhubbard 12:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * i find it a little cynical that you believe there is significantly less credit to the claim of someone because they know what Synaesthesia is. I think if i saw colours when noises occured, or similar, i'd want to know what it was. It might have been en vogue in the early 20th C (perhaps many 'fakers' didn't even believe it actually existed?), but i can't see anyone would get anymore interest today (other than perhaps in abstract/art-house circles) for being a synaethete. and Rollo Armstrong is a fairly introverted member of faithless- he's not shouting it from the rooftops- you wouldn't have any idea he had it unless u researched it, which would in turn require u to alread be a fan. and as for current interest, well i'm not sure how 'current' you mean but its been on the internet since atleast 3rd august 01 . Short of a doctor's diagnosis- which couldn't be divulged anyway due to confidentiality, or your own testing- which isn't allowed in Wikipedia, someone's word that they have synaesthesia is the best possible.

on anther point- i think it would be good to add birth and death dates to the 'famous synaesthetes' section, as as u pointed out, many of them aren't exactly current. and isn't it 'spelt' in the first line? Bungalowbill 03:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

More specific please
When a synaesthetic person "sees" color when hearing, touching, or smelling something, that's understandable. What I think the article could touch up on is, does this "seeing" replace what the person is currently looking at? Or does it, to the person, alter the colors of what he's looking at? Or does all of the "mapped" sensations occur strongly in the mind's imagination? --69.234.185.170 05:36, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

no. it does not. i see light when ihear sound. it does not interfere. imagine a duck. you see the duck, but you also see your computer screen in front of you. you see both at the same tume, but they dont interfere.


 * Synesthetes, as far as I know, don't have "tunnel vision" or "one-track minds" unless there's another perceptive disorder offhand. Thorns Among Our Leaves 16:43, 21 July 2005 (UTC) (A synesthete)


 * According to Ramachandran I believe (and accordant with my own experience) color-grapheme synaesthetes, for example, can still tell what color a letter is written in. For example, I physically see all this text as black, but I conceive of each individual letter, in my mind, involuntarily as a specific color. Torgo 22:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

According to our research, there seems to be a fair bit of variability in exactly how strongly a synesthete experiences their colors. Grapheme-color synesthetes rarely, if ever, report that thier colors interfere with seeing objects in the real world. In laboratory situations, it can be shown that the colors do slightly interfere, for example making a number that evokes red (a "red" number) harder to spot on a red background (see Smilek et al., 2001). However, other forms of synesthesia, like pain -> color or music -> color can sometimes interfere, if the pain or music is especially intense. Note that this is not true for all synesthetes. As far back as Theodore Flournoy in 1893, it had been noted that the intensity of the colors varies substantially across synesthetes. For more details, see Hubbard and Ramachandran, 2005 and the references contained therein (available on my website). User:edhubbard

I don't experience radical Synesthesia but I just wanted to describe how it feels for me to see it. For the grapheme->color I see the printed word normally but am also aware that it is a certain color. When I think of words with my eyes closed I dont see the colors as strongly, but when I think of the numbers or letters I see them colored. It is only a rare incidident when colors change slightly for a letter. The letter 'x' for me is seen as a deep maroon or purple depending. What's interesting is that I dont see this when I read Japanese characters (a language of which I am a recent student). Separately but more strongly, I experience a Number Form synesthesia. For me this occurs with numbers but more prominently when I think of dates. Thinking of history is a swirling rollercoaster for me. I can best describe it as seeing the events as if I passed them by on a train along a curving track. When I think of the dates but not events I see it from an aerial view. I see the dates in color as well against a black background. Anyway, hopes that helps! -drew

Clinical description
The clinical description section needs some clean-up from someone with expertise on this subject. It currently includes such gibberish sentences as: "But only who is perceiving his Synaesthesia awarely can recognize the inner colors." --LostLeviathan 06:37, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I was just rereading this section, and it occurred to me that a charitable interpretation of this first comment "percieving his synesthesia awarely" might relate to accepted scientific consensus that synesthetes must pay attention to the stimulus in order to evoke the colors. I don't know how much time we want to spend offering charitable interpretations of everything, but this one just struck me. Edhubbard 10:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

There is a lot of subjective language in the descriptions. It sounds like pompous boasting.
 * "A synesthete is born with the ability to perceive numerous concepts on alternative levels." - Levels of what? What does this mean?
 * Agreed. This is not supported by scientific research. edhubbard


 * "Synesthesia itself is not a disorder" - This is an opinion
 * Although this is an opinion, it is one that is shared by the majority of researchers who work on this subject, myself included (see my page for more details). Generally, when we refer to something as a disorder, we require that it interfere with normal daily functioning. However, synesthesia rarely interferes with normal daily functioning, and although results are still preliminary, some studies have shown that synesthesia may help with memory (see e.g., Luria, 1968; Cytowic, 2002; Smilek et al., 2002; Yaro and Ward, in press).edhubbard
 * this is not an oppinion, as it never causes a problem. the difinition of a disorder states that it must have negative effects.


 * "Normal amounts of stimulation are excessive because their sensory input is advanced." - Implies they are superior
 * Agreed. This is not supported by scientific research. edhubbard
 * the sensory input is superior, because the input has two modes of expression.


 * "Despite displaying more advanced cognitive skills than the general population" - No proof of this
 * See above on memory. Other than the research into memory, nearly no research has been conducted on other cognitive abilities. Anecdotally, Cytowic, 2002 has found that synesthetes may be more prone to left-right confusion and to difficulties in math.  No large-scale studies have been done to confirm this. edhubbard


 * "because their brains function on a fundamentally different plane" - What does this mean? Sounds like New Agey talk
 * Agreed. This is not supported by scientific research. edhubbard


 * "Synesthetes excel in advanced trains of thought such as philosophy and writing, as well as in music." - So do many nonsynesthetes. Proof they are more so on average?  Proof that they are synesthetes? -- Anon


 * Agreed. This is not supported by scientific research. Proof that someone is a synesthete is fairly easy to come by, and hard to "fake". The simplest test involves test-retest reliability over long periods of time, and synesthetes consistently score higher on such tests than non-synesthetes (either with color names, color chips or even a color picker providing 16.7 million color choices).  More specialized tests include using modified versions of the Stroop effect.  In the standard Stroop paradigm, it is harder to name the ink color of the word "red" when it is printed in blue than if the word "blue" was presented in blue.  This demonstrates that reading is "automatic".  Similarly, if we present a grapheme-color synesthete with a four that they see as red, but present it in blue ink, they are slower to identify the ink color.  Note that this is not because they cannot see the blue ink, but rather that the same sort of "response conflict" that is responsible for the standard Stroop effect is also occuring between the color of the ink and the automatically induced color of the grapheme. edhubbard

booba/kiki
Where is the promised answer? I say booba is a bloob with boobs. And no 'sthesia in this. Poor example, because another accosiation (i.e., "boobs") may dominate. mikka (t) 06:38, 12 October 2005 (UTC)


 * That answer is on Image:BoobaKiki.png. (And I sort of wonder about having it that way, since it's basically like trying to prove the idea to the reader.)
 * In a response to a letter to scientific american (sept 03) (a reader said bouba is shaped like a B and kiki like a K), Ramachandran and Hubbard mentioned two other things like this: 'shh' and 'rrr' are associated with a blurred line and a sawtooth edge, respectively, and 'sss' and 'ssh' with a slightly blurred and a very blurred line. But I guess those aren't terribly popular (the only real google hits they get are that actual letter). Frencheigh 08:16, 12 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Some similar questions have been asked on the image talk page, but AFIK the same test has been tried in a number of non-English speaking countries with the same result. You can find more by following the links to the references on the image page. -- Solipsist 09:03, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

The booba/kiki example was first explored by the Gestalt psychologist Wolfgang Kohler. With individuals on the island of Tenerife, Kohler showed a similar preference between shapes called "takete" and "maluma". Recent work by Daphne Maurer and colleagues has shown that even children as young as 2.5 (too young to read) show this effect. Similarly, Chris Westerfield has demonstrated a "congruity effect"-subjects are faster to say whether a string of letters is a word or not-if a "sharp" word is surrounded by a sharp frame, even when the shape is irrelevant to the task. edhubbard


 * Sounds like Booba/Kiki should have it's own page.. -- Kimiko 00:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I think that's a good idea. As it stands, there are a few of us (me, user:Daysa, User:Phidauex)that have been working on the entry pretty actively over the past couple of weeks and it has grown quite a lot. The bouba/kiki having its own page might be good, and then we can link to it.  Also, then the sound symbolism page could be linked back to the bouba/kiki page.  If you want to take it on, that would be great.  For the moment, I am focusing on the subtypes of synesthesia, but could come back to this later. Edhubbard 01:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Spelling
Do we use English or American spelling on wikipedia? Because "color" and "colour" are both used at different times in this acticle. Since I don't know which, I'm not changing it. -- User:67.70.207.15 10:59, 14 October 2005
 * Thanks for asking, it can be a contentious issue. The answer is that we use both (and even other varieties of English), but each article should be consistent in its choice of spelling. The guidelines are in the Manual of Style at WP:MOS.
 * This would be an international article with no natural preference and I doubt it would be desireable to rewrite it in order to avoid the word 'colour/color'. As such it falls to the choice of English used by the first author; in this case, the original version appears to use British English. -- Solipsist 10:54, 14 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I have taken the liberty of rewriting the initial sections in American English, as that is what I preferentially use, and since the current version is *quite* far removed from anything like the original version, I feel that there is no need to remain tied to his or her original choice. edhubbard

Along similar lines: I find it somewhat confusing that "Synesthesia" redirects to "Synaesthesia" when the entry itself uses the no-a spelling. Westacular 18:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. When I first started working on this project the article was in a mishmash of British and English spellings (colour synaesthesia and color synesthesia).  We recently have completed the conversion to American English, and all or most of the pages that link to this one use the American spelling.  However, it seems like migrating a page might be a bit of a headache, so I have left it for the time being while we focus on content.  Eventually, I think we'll have to bite the bullet and deal with this (see also Spelling below) Edhubbard 18:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Tecnhobabble
I feel that the newer version is waaaaay too technical as the other version was way too informal. I think it should be combined with the first one so there's more of a description of how the world is viewed and not so much with the technobabble, y'know? I had a friend of mine read it (mind you, this friend is very intelligent) and it got the "What the hell does that mean?" reaction. --Misoconfused 23:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Dear Misoconfused,

I agree that there needs to be more of the "clinical description", or disussion of what it is like (phenomenology, if you will) of synesthesia. I agree that we need to add more to that section, preferably after definition, but before the "technobabble". However, as you will see in the above discussions, the majority of the "clinical description" was in fact, wrong, irrelevant, or not supported by scientific evidence. I have removed the majority of the factually inaccurate or unsubstantiated claims, but a good, substiantated description of what is is like should definitely be added. That is, I thought it was better to have no information than misinformation.

I have been researching synesthesia for the past seven years, but I myself am not a synesthete, so I have so far stuck to my areas of expertise, which is the psychology and neuroscience of synesthesia. Also, bear in mind that wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopedia, which means that people will use it as a reference, and expect it to be complete and definitive. Thus, from the standpoint of an encyclopedia entry, both the experience and the "technobabble" are necessary (and I did not take what was put here as being definitive or completed, see some of my other comments on the talk page).

I realize that neuroscience is difficult. Normally, I have a whole ten week quarter to teach undergraduate students all of the concepts that go into the post contained here. However, given the space limitations, I cannot explain all of the necessary background at one fell swoop. I have attempted to overcome this somewhat by linking extensively to other pages dealing with many of the necessary background concepts. That said, if you could re-read the article slowly (that is, follow some of the links) and then let me know exactly what you are having trouble understanding, I will try to add short passages (a sentence or two) to clarify some of those details. Writing an encyclopedia entry like this is a balance between too much and too little detail, within the space limitations.

Edhubbard 09:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I just fear that others may not understand it. My minor is in Neuroscience so it's not that I don't understand it.  And while I do agree that the previous information was lacking in correctness, if you will, the newer version needs to relate what it is actually like or have a section of examples that relate to what the "experience" is like and more discussion of the variants.  --Misoconfused 15:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with you about the need for examples of the experience, but one section at a time. Sean Day, as you may have noticed, is also working on the "Famous Syneshetes" section, and as soon as I get a little more time (hopefully this weekend), I will start working on the examples.  However, my comment about highlighting anything that you (or your friend) found confusing still remains, as not all of the readers will have a PhD, or even a minor, in neuroscience related fields.  So, if you find something particularly hard going, please don't hesitate to ask for more details. Edhubbard 23:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that new section needs to be shortened since it is focusing more on individuals with synaesthesia rather than the condition itself. I think a smaller, condensed section with several quotes would work just fine, because I don't think that someone looking for useful information would be interested in celebrities. Either way, I think it needs to be cleaned up a little bit and organized. And, yes, what happened to the actual descriptions of Synaesthesia? I think the rainbow Wikipedia image helped get the point across quite a bit. Another thing that could be added is the pop-out test with the 5's and 2's. --Saeghwin 21:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Just to confirm, I assume that you are referring to the Famous Synesthetes section here, when you are talking about quotes? Sean and I have discussed this, and one option might be a smaller entry for people interested in synesthesia generally, with a link to a longer page for someone interested in the individual synesthetes (with perhaps cross-references back from their pages, too?). You are right about the older descriptions and the rainbow Wikipedia image. I had almost forgotten about that, since it was lost several edits ago.  Somebody had edited that out, and it was replaced with a lot of claims that either don't stand up to, or haven't been subjected to, scientific scrutiny.  Perhaps we can dig that old version out of the archives? As for the 5s and 2s, I am currently working on getting copyright permission from the Journal of Consciousness Studies for both that figure and for the brain image with the grapheme area and V4. As the creator of those images, I feel pretty certain that I will get permission, but I am going about it through the standard (slow) channels.  Edhubbard 16:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The list of famous synesthetes has now been simplified, and a link to a new page, with more details is available. One entry, Stephanie Morgenstern, might currently run afoul of the verifiability criterion, as it is based on unpublished correspondance with an individual researcher. We are working to rectify this.


 * Yes, that was the section I was referring to. Good idea with the separate page, I think it looks a lot cleaner now that it's shortened. I would help out, but I'm definitely not qualified (and not even a synesthete). Saeghwin 20:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Synaestheticwiki image
New header, cleaned up indents: Since the discussion on the image has become reasonably long on its own, I've seperated it out from "Tehcnobabble" (Saeghwin that means I also split your post there). I feel like this makes it a little clearer the discussion topic and removes some indent levels Edhubbard 06:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Edit: I have made a new rendering of the Wikipedia graphic. Feel free to change it back if it is unwanted. Saeghwin 17:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the new graphic. I think it looks better, but different synesthetes will experience different colors, so what seems better to one will probably seem worse to another. If you are still interested in playing around with the image, one thing that might make it more like what synesthetes report is if you could have the letters, and then the colors sort of offset, as if they were in a different depth plane, or something of the sort.  Grapheme-color synesthetes rarely report that they have difficulty seeing the real color of a letter or number, but rather that the synesthetic color is like "an overlay".  If not, please don't feel compelled, but it might make it more like what is reported by synesthetes.  Edhubbard 14:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I tried to do what you said, but just let me know what you think--I haven't changed the actual entry yet or anything. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Synaestheticwiki2.png --Saeghwin 20:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, that's beautiful. Let's get Sean Day's opinion, too, since he is a synesthete, unlike me :-)  Edhubbard 21:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I think this is a very good picture, and I ‘m quite glad we have it for the article. As you are aware, it is extremely difficult to depict what synesthetes actually perceive.  This picture does an excellent job within the constraints of a static computer picture – that is, I think the only way one could do better is with some type of movie, which would probably be somewhat impractical here.  I also like that the picture conforms to some of the things we know about grapheme -> color synesthesia, such as that the colors for each letter are consistent throughout .  I also note that the color for ‘1’ matches (or comes close to) the color for ‘I’; it is also rather common that the colors for these two would match (as would the colors for ‘0’ (zero) and ‘O’ (the letter), if we were to have a letter ‘O’ in the picture).  If I wanted to be hypercritical, I would say that the colors for the numbers ought to be brighter/stronger than the colors for the letters, which should be a bit greyer.  However, I don’t suggest that we grey the colors for the letters in this picture, as the way they are is not necessarily “inaccurate” and is a bit more appealing – and noticeable – than fainter, greyer tints. Sean A. Day 16:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I went ahead and replaced my previous re-rendering with the new image, after reducing the file size a bit for loading times. The previous one is still available at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Synaestheticwiki.png


 * It looks great. Thanks!  Edhubbard 21:28, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I was talking to Zanimum, and he thinks it may be better if the image says "Synaesthesia", etc. rather than "Wikipedia." So I have made--yet another--image reflecting these thoughts. I'll leave it up to you guys; so whatever you think. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Synaestheticwiki3.png


 * Thanks for your work on the images. Personally, I don't have a strong feeling one way or the other. I think both images look great, and both convey the important aspects of the experience. For, now I say let's leave it with synaestheticwiki2.png, and if others have a strong opinion, we can always change it (current vote, 1 synwiki3, 1 absention) Edhubbard 06:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Reorg: Moved kiki/bouba
I have decided that it makes more sense to discuss the kiki/bouba effect only after synesthesia has been introduced, so I have moved it towards the bottom of the entry. I have also made more explicit the link between synesthesia, the kiki/bouba effect and other areas of study, such as the study or cross-modal perception, and multisensory integration. This section, and the associated cognitive traits section, still could use some expanding. Richard? Edhubbard 10:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Spelling! We need consistency...
I know that Synesthesia can be spelled with an 'a' as well (Synaesthesia), and this is the article title. However, I seem to see Synesthesia, no 'a', more commonly. The article itself uses a mixture. We should come to a consensus on which spelling we should use in the article. I don't care much about the actual article title, since there are redirects, but I am concerned about consistency in the article. It seems 'authoritative' sources are indecisive as well... Ramachandran uses Synaesthesia, and Cytowic uses Synesthesia...

Again, my question regards just this article space, I'm not suggesting a move or anything. Phidauex 20:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Support for synaesthesia and synaesthete:


 * 1) As the origional significant contribution was in British English, it should stay that way. Just because the article has been changed since then does not mean that the first significant contribution should be ignored per the manual of style. And I believe it would be better to change the spelling in the current article than to move the page. We can't title it one selling and then always use the other, and we must always use one. say1988 20:49, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Support for synesthesia and synesthete:
 * 1) Phidauex 20:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) The spelling with an 'a' is the British spelling, and is generally preferred in historical sources, and some journals, like the Proceedings of the Royal Society, or the Reith lectures, which require British spelling across the board.  The spelling without the 'a' is the American spelling, and is preferred in many neuroscience journals and the like, which prefer American English spelling.  Our articles have used whichever was preferred for the journal in question.  As for the article, I had intended that it be in American English spelling (color, not colour, etc), but there are still some older sections with the British English spelling.  The original version of the article was in British English, but as I have added more and more, it has been slowly changed over to American English. My vote then is for American English.  Edhubbard 20:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, I see there's a discussion of 'ae' vs. 'e' here. Well, there were only four instances of 'ae', so I changed those. The title of the article is still with 'ae' though.. -- Kimiko 00:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Some random information

A quick survey of the page's current references show the following usages: Synaesthesia: 21 papers Synesthesia: 12 papers

Google searching (which isn't a very good way to determine usage popularity, I admit, but it was bound to be asked) shows the following: Synaesthesia: 769,000 results Synesthesia: 599,000 results

As much as the a looks 'wrong' to me, I may be forced to change my vote... Phidauex 18:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * If we do change synesthesia to synaesthesia, do we then also change color to colour and specialized to specialised? If we're going to go with the British spelling, then we'd need to do it across the entire page. Everything.  If we're going to do it, then the best might be to copy to MS word and change to British English, and then re-paste.  I can do that if that's what people want, but let's be sure about this.  It's not an isolated word choice here. Edhubbard 18:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I must say that I have to agree with Ed Hubbard's opinion on this. Furthermore, I feel that, to put it simply(?), those reading these related Wikipedia articles are literate (or, at least, it behooves them to become literate) enough to deal with either style of spelling.  While I do understand the point(s) of the debate between spelling styles, I feel that the question of which style we adopt is rather trivial.  As has been pointed out, the essential point is that, whichever style is adopted, we be quite consistent.  Yet, once again, I will add that a literate person should be able to deal with at least either of these two globally accepted variances (i.e., I think writing the piece – or having major sections – in either Scots or Taipei Chinglish, while both exciting prospects, would probably not go over well, as these would probably prove far more problematic, since less globally familiar).--Sean A. Day 21:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Following on Phidaeux's logic I did a similar google search for color and colour. For color, there are 980,000,000 hits, while for colour there are 166,000,000. I'm not sure if this makes or undermines his point (it would make it in that, even though British spelling is less common for common words, synaesthesia is preferred, but it would undermine the idea by showing that British spelling is not universally preferred), but if we are to compare, I guess we should look at which is the more common for all of the words under consideration here.  Note, too, that these numbers are 3 orders of magnitude larger.  Edhubbard 21:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, another thought. Now that we have mulitple forks, we would have to go and change those, including moving the pages, since they were all created with the American English spelling.  The only one that we wouldn't have to change/move would be the American Synesthesia Association, since it is clear that the American spelling would be preferred for the ASA.  I agree with Sean that in the end, it's not a major decision, but the existence of forks does introduce logicistical/pragmatic considerations over just how many citations use one or the other spelling. Edhubbard 21:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Linguistics is such a nightmare... If you want to get an idea of what happens out there, check out the discussion on the Color article. About once a week someone mass-edits it to 'colour', and then it gets reverted, and then there is an angry discussion. It's endless. We don't want to get ourselves into that... I agree with both of you, that intelligent humans are generally used to the idea of spelling differences, and that it won't trip them up. We just need a consistent spelling within the article, and enough of a 'consensus' so that when someone comes and mass edits it to a different spelling, that we are justified in reverting.


 * Google results are interesting, but we'd be treading on dangerous ground if we started using them to determine all spelling choices. The article is written in 'american' english at the moment, with the exception of 'synaesthesia', so that seems to be the dominant paradigm in this article.


 * I'm going to propose that we move the article to Synesthesia, and use that as the spelling in the context of the article, since that is what all the people doing major work are using (the article has been almost completely rewritten since it was named Synaesthesia). I'll give another day or two for thoughts, and unless we have a good reason not to, I'll make the move. I don't want to get stuck on this little issue for too long. Phidauex 21:37, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I second the idea of moving, and then simply reversing the direction of the redirect link (it now goes from American to British spelling), but mostly for pragmatic reasons. I hadn't really thought of this as a point of nationalistic pride, but I see it more that you mention it.  In the professional community, it is often the journal or book publisher that decides (or, like in the case of Rama's book The Emerging Mind/A Brief Tour of Human Consciousness they make different versions with the "correct" local spelling).  On the subject of the current references to synaesthesia, if we've done our editing right, those should only be in cases where it is historically accurate, like in book and article titles (which should not be changed; at least that's the convention for published citations in the field), or in links.  I am happy to give it a once over, to make sure that we're consistent (ditto any colours).  How about we leave it open for discussion for one week?  Edhubbard 21:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I’m okay with the decision to move things to “Synesthesia”, if this can be done simply, without major logistic problems.
 * An aside, though, regarding the spelling with an “a”: While I (of course) realize that this is the British spelling, I generally more often predominantly saw it instead as the “classic” spelling. Not as in the British spelling came before the American spelling (although it did), but, rather, “classic” as in it conforms to the original Greek roots of “syn-“ and “aísthesis” (from whence “aesthesis”).  Thus, while raised on and predominantly (albeit not exclusively) a user of U.S. English, I always had a penchant for the classic spelling with an “a”.
 * In any case, the current “Synaesthesia” is already automatically connected to “Synesthesia” (i.e., either spelling gets you there). So (in my naïveté) I don’t quite understand why we need bother moving from one to the other.  I mean, the very first sentence of the article hits upon spelling difference and derivation!

Resetting indent: I agree that it isn't a huge deal (and that the synaesthesia spelling is the classical spelling; I mentioned that above, but have started to simplify recently into Br./Am. Eng), but it's these types of little things that might make a difference if we want to get this article to "Good Article" (GA) or even "Featured Article" (FA) status. I think Westacular put it quite well above in the previous spelling discussion when he said "Along similar lines: I find it somewhat confusing that "Synesthesia" redirects to "Synaesthesia" when the entry itself uses the no-a spelling. Westacular 18:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)". These are the types of little things that will distinguish an artile that provides all of the information to a large, interested audience, from one that wikipedia considers a showcase. Edhubbard 22:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh yes; I quite agree. That is why I voted the way I did.  I'm just being ....   --Sean A. Day 02:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * So we simply ignore established rules for dealing with different forms of English?say1988 20:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Sometimes, yes! The concept of Ignore All Rules is a subtle one. In this case, the diffs show that, at the time the current crop of editors began work on the article, this article was in sad shape. It had an unreferenced tag, and expert opinion tag, and a cleanup tag. It was poorly written, and factually inaccurate. I'd happily interpret the 'first significant contribution' as being the work done since this point. What I don't want is to have an article with inconsistent spelling, and since the people who did the work since that point have used 'american' english, and the non-classical spelling of synesthesia, and that all the sub-articles about synesthesia use the 'no a' spelling, that MOS would suggest we use that as our guide. I appreciate the need for following the MOS, but sometimes you need to bend the rules a bit to create a more consistent, and better, article. Phidauex 23:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Votes in favor of move:
 * 1) Phidauex 21:37, 19 August 2006 (UTC) (copied from above by user:Edhubbard)
 * 2) Edhubbard 21:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) --Sean A. Day 22:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Votes in favour of keeping:
 * 1) say1988 20:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

As the vote was 3:1 (not exactly overwhelming responses), I have gone ahead and moved the page, and started to make the necessary clean-up edits so that the whole entry and associated links do what they're supposed to. Edhubbard 17:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * i've shown up a couple days too late to contribute, i see, but i figure i'll give my thoughts nonetheless, and to be blunt, my thought is who cares? given that searching for either one will get you here and the article states right at the beginning that they're variant spellings, i don't see how it remotely matters whether we use one or the other or both (so long as links and things don't get messed up, which is a seperate kettle of fish). --dan 00:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Kind of funny... I've always been in favour of "synaesthesia" spelled with the a, and my synaesthesia has helped me in that. You see, I think the word is a mouthful to say, and since the extra "a" gives the whole word pretty much a red colour, it seems more appropriate to me because I'm one of those "weird" types.  Of course, I'm writing my Extended Essay (for IB) on synaesthesia, and since I couldn't bear writing green "synesthesia" all over the place, I'm writing the whole paper in British English.  But that's fine with me - I might as well, considering just about everything in IB is British spelling anyhow.  Oh well.  Random me fact.  :)  --Justi521 07:18, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Commenting on Personification Synaesthesia

 * I was reading the short excerpt on this topic a couple weeks ago when I realized that I actually used to do the same thing. But now the section has been expanded, and I've realized this is _exactly_ how I thought of numbers (and letters) when I was younger. I don't "actively" think of them like this anymore, but I still remember it pretty well. I remember each one would act in relation to the ones around them. For instance, "A" was kind of the leader of everything, tall and powerful, etc. But he always sat around and did absolutely nothing, so he didn't really matter in the end. "B" was just a friend of "A", maybe the kind of person who rides on another's coat tail, if you will. "C" is the type who tries as hard as he can to get in on the action; kind of persuades others to let him in, so he makes it next to "A" and "B". He brings along, against the wills of AB, letter "D", a pretty cool, large, masculine type. I think "E" may have been his younger brother. "F" and "G" are by far the most interesting though. "G" goes around everywhere usually picking fights or making fun of people, especially E and H (I guess "G" might be drunk really). "F" is his taller sibling or friend who follows behind him and cleans up, apologises to everyone, pays for any damage done, etc. That kind of personality. "I" (usually thought of as "i") is "H"'s younger brother or smaller friend. "J" and "K" are kind of competing to see who's the best (may be to the fact that I couldn't remember which came first), they try to get people to like them, however they can be snobby. They meet "L" and show her where she is supposed to be (ie "Just go stand over there and wait for M, okay?"). "M" is a very stuck-up guy who thinks he is more important than he really is. He sort of tells "N" what to do, but they work together, so "N" is constantly trying to take his place in the hierarchy (due to similarity). They both kind of pick on "O", but he isn't smart enought to realize it. "P" is at peace with the world, (s)he doesn't mind everything going on, in this way (s)he acts as a divider between the beginning and end of the alphabet (spatial I guess). Now "Q", ha. This is the very picky type who tries to act very mannered and intelligent. "Q" might wear a French accent--sometimes the little line is curled, making it look like a moustache. Everyone just tends to ignore "Q" though. That's all I can remember really, sorry for the rambling, I just suddenly remembered all of this. I only thought of letters and numbers this way when I was very young (like 4-7). Saeghwin 15:17, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Welcome to the community! I am glad that our entry here has reminded you of this aspect of your own experiences. One of my committee members at UCSD when I was working on my thesis said something quite similar.  He said that when he was younger, all the numbers had colors, but now only 5 was colored (purple) but that, if he thought about it, he could remember the colors that the numbers had.  On Sean Day's synesthesia list, there have been many discussions about synesthesia getting stronger or weaker over time.  What this means, in terms of neural theories of synesthesia is completely unclear.  BTW, I just looked at Zanimum's comment about the image, and I think that, if we are going to try for FA (or even GA) status, we probably should change it to synesthesia, like he suggested.  When you have a few minutes, would you mind making (yet another!) change? Cheers, Edhubbard 15:41, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Heh, no problem.


 * Thanks! It looks great as usual. One more change (sorry).  As the current vote is 3 to 1 for "synesthesia" (American spelling) over "synaesthesia" (British spelling) could you make one without the a? We could call it "synestheticwiki" to distinguish it, and have both until the outcome of the vote is clear... Of course, you could vote for synaesthesia, and then   it would be 3:2 :-) Edhubbard 21:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Hah, then I vote for "synaesthesia." (I'm feeling lazy right now, but I'll probably make one without the "a" tomorrow though.) Saeghwin 01:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, sorry about that. I've been busier than I thought lately, but I got around to making that change finally. Saeghwin 21:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

A modest request
When making a lot of little edits to a page, it is helpful to use the 'preview' button instead of saving each edit individually. That way one can group several changes into one edit, with one edit summary. It makes it a little easier to read the History page when 10 spelling fixes have been put into one edit, instead of 10 individual edits. Its not a big deal, but its a helpful stylistic thing to do, especially when several people are actively improving one article. Thanks. Phidauex 18:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

category
I have created Category:Synaesthesia for this impressive collection of articles. I realize there is a debate about the spelling, but the category can be renamed easily enough if necessary. Yours with a mundane perceptual system, Outriggr 05:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Outriggr, thanks for the category tags... I've just moved the page, and changed all of the category tags accordingly. However, this now leaves a dangling blank category tag... How do we remove that from wikipedia, so that it doesn't clog up space?  I'll copy this to your talk page, too.  Edhubbard 17:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Ed - I've added a category redirect to the former category - so any articles placed under it are apparently moved, automatically, by a bot to the correct category. Outriggr 23:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Impressive
I just wanted to come on here and say that I think that this has become an excellent article. The last time I looked at this page was a couple of months ago, and I wanted to change it around, but I didn't find the time. Now there's a lot of great info on here, which is great for me, as a synaesthetic wikipedian myself, to see. Hpanic7342 13:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Lexical → gustatory
this sentence - "They have also shown that semantic influences often are critical to explaining the pairings between certain sounds and the evoked tastes, such as judge tasting of sausage" - is making no sense to me. what semantic influence explains judge tasting of sausage? is it that they both end in the same sound? does the word sausage taste like sausage? do all words endings in that sound taste like sausage? i assume the citations used earlier in the paragraph are where this is coming from as well, but none of those are linked online and i don't feel like a trip to the library over this. anyone know? --dan 23:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Dan, Let me see if I can explain it better, and then I will move the improved explanation into the main page. First, there's clearly an error there on my part.  *That* sentence should read "They have also shown that phonological influences often are critical to explaining the pairings between certain sounds and the evoked tastes, such as judge tasting of sausage."  To respond to the second part, not all words that contain the /dg/ sound (I don't have the IPA alphabet handy) will taste of sausage, but using statistical tests, it is possible to show that a much larger portion than would be predicted by chance alone taste of sausage if they contain the /dg/ sound.  Similarly (although one that is less familiar to an American audience) the phonemes /m/ /I/ and /s/ all elict the flavor of mince.  In addition, however, there are semantic influences, so that food names always taste of the food they match, and the word "blue" tastes "inky".  Most of these examples come from a single well-studied synesthete, JIW, but Ward and Simner have tested other lexical → gustatory synesthetes, and find that the same patterns hold generally.  Let me know if this still isn't clear, and I'll give it another shot.  I'm going to go fix the sentence on the main page right now...  Edhubbard 23:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Music → color synesthesia
in the article it only describes it as pitches creting colors. i have this, but for me, they also create intritcate, vibrating shapes. i added a blurb about it, but sould music → shape synesthesia be a different section?

Grapheme → color synesthesia
Have no researchers ever considered the possibility of a link with coloured letter refrigerator magnets that people are exposed to as kids?

Personally, i always assumed that's why I did it. 69.181.120.218 04:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Not only has this been considered, it has been researched more than a few times, including quite recently by Nathan Witthoft and Jonathan Winawer, whose article appears in the recent (Feb., 2006) issue of Cortex. There are other similar cases to the one which Witthoft & Winawer report.  However, pulling everything together on this, the general finding is that such things as refrigerator magnets, puzzle pieces, coloring books, children’s toys, and the like, very rarely influence and shape synesthetic associations.  It does happen, as witness the above, but at a statistically very rare rate.  When such items do influence synesthesia, they also often only influence just a handful of the items in the series, rather than all; that is, for example, only the letters ‘A – E’ of the alphabet, only the digits ‘1 – 4’, or only three or four days of the week or months of the year.--Sean A. Day 13:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Just to add to that; as one who experiences grapheme→color synaesthesia, I considered that explanation, but I realized that most of my colors are far too oblique (i.e. various shades of gray and brown and orange, as well as black and white, etc). Most of the colors I perceive would never have appeared on a set of child's refrigerator magnets. Torgo 07:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Revert
I just reverted several edits, the earliest of which had deleted more than half the page. The only reason I mention it here is just to say that all of the newer edits that got lost in the revert are either obsolete (as in the cases of minor edits to the paragraph I deleted before the revert) or edits that I would have deleted anyway (as in the case of # (cur) (last) 16:30, 17 October 2006 68.77.95.18 (Talk) (→Music → color synesthesia)). Just in case anyone had any qualms about that. Torgo 07:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, and one of the edits that got lost in my revert changed some of the text quoted in note number 2. I checked the slashdot discussion from which the quote was copied, and the current text is correct. Torgo 07:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Torgo, I was out of town for the Society for Neuroscience conference and was just catching up on my watch list.  Thanks for reverting those changes, I think that the majority of them were bad, but if there was something in there that was NPOV and not OR that we missed, I assume the original poster will re-add it.  Edhubbard 15:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Question regarding some other stuff
I've been thinking more and more about the way I think about things. I know this might not really be the most appropriate place to be asking questions (rather than article-specific information), but I figured this might end up being the best and most convenient place. I've noticed before that I do a lot of assoiciation between visual and auditory things (and other things, too). For instance, if I am listening to a new song that contains lyrics I can't understand, I always go look them up on various lyric sites to see what they actually are. But once I do that, I kind of create a mental map of the song with the lyrics placed in. I remember where the lyrics were fairly precisely on the webpage (ie. on which lines each individual word is, etc.) and relate it to the song when I'm listening to it. It's as if my mind is pulling up the image I have of the webpage in order to remember the words to the song, even though I've memorized it enough to not have to consciously do anything of the sort. I'm sure everyone does this to a certain extent, but sometimes it feels like it's getting in the way of the song. It's hard to describe, but it's as if I "know the song too much." Once I finish the "mental map" of the song, I don't like listening to it very much anymore. For clarification, this doesn't have the same sort of effect as synaesthesia; I don't literally see images. It's a very abstract, but linear, sort of pattern that just sort of "floats" in my mind. I usually divide the song with mental lines between the chorus and other verses, and I then think of it in spatial-visual terms as well--I can kind of see when I'm coming up to the "next section", or a "new layer" when another instrument comes in. The best way I can describe everything verbally is like a really long piece of sheet music with the different instruments on different bars that intertwine together and use sloping lines instead of musical notes. Or maybe I'm just exagerrating, I don't know...but does anyone know of any articles regarding association like this? In a shorter example, I'm good at remembering where things are and what order they come in, often more so than being able to remember what those things are (I might not be able to tell you what a passage in a book says, but I could probably tell you where on the page the passage can be found, and about how far through the book that page is located). As a result, I'm likely to experience or remember a book or song differently depending on how the book is printed or where I am listening to it (in the car or on my computer, etc).Saeghwin 01:01, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hah, I just found a page here that looks like it is describing what I am talking about almost exactly--even managing to use the same term "mental map" several times. Here's a passage, "Cognitive maps, mental maps, mind maps, cognitive models, or mental models are a type of mental processing, or cognition, composed of a series of psychological transformations by which an individual can acquire, code, store, recall, and decode information about the relative locations and attributes of phenomena in their everyday or metaphorical spatial environment...Put more simply, cognitive maps are a way we use to structure and store spatial knowledge, allowing the "mind's eye" to visualize images in order to reduce cognitive load, and enhance recall and learning of information. This type of spatial thinking can also be used as a metaphor for non-spatial tasks, where people performing non-spatial tasks involving memory and imaging use spatial knowledge to aid in processing the task. These can be abstract, flat or spatial representations of Cognitive spaces..." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_map (Again sorry for filling up more space with unneccesary talking, I just thought this was too ironic to pass up) Saeghwin 13:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Spatial-sequence synesthesia
Yesterday in psychology class we read articles about synesthesia - including spatial-sequence synesthesia, which I took the liberty of adding to this article, though not in depth. Reading the description of spacial-sequence synesthesia in class gave me a shock, because everything it mentioned - a three-dimensional perception of time, etc. - is something I have done for as long as I can remember.

I sent the article to my immediate family, and everyone was puzzled (my brother's exact words were, "Why would anyone think like that?! What a waste of energy!") - all except my mother, who replied at once, "Oh, I do that.  Does it go clockwise or counterclockwise for you?"

Well, then!

I've spent the last two days now asking my fellow psychology students about how they perceive time, and I must admit I am in complete shock. I find it impossible to imagine past years as NOT being farther away than more recent ones, and any given year is OBVIOUSLY a counterclockwise journey around a beautiful, detailed oval. For me, the seasons (generally speaking, respective parts of the oval are made up of flora regularly associated with that season in New England - though I live on the West Coast) fade into one another. I am constantly aware of my orientation with regard to the oval; right now - the end of November, that is - we are all in the upper righthand bit. Regardless of whether or not I deign to pay attention to the three-dimensional intricacies of a respective season of the oval, I am very aware spatially of what part I am at. From what I am now hearing, most people have no inherent feeling of where they physically are in a year - all they know are numbers, or an image of a page of a calendar. I tried to imagine "February" as its respective calendar page, but I can't help but be spatially aware of where the page physically is - the top stretch of the oval, obviously.

I think spatial-sequence synesthesia should be easy enough to picture; I have definitely seen drawings that convey the concept of a colorful, cyclical year. But I suppose non- spatial-sequence synesthetes would have trouble instantly and inherently orienting themselves on a circle, and, indeed, would not see the point.

But I for one would feel completely disoriented and trapped in the moment if I did not view time spatially. I know that time is in reality NOT three-dimensional, but, I suppose, abstract; my shock lies in the realization that most people cannot understand or appreciate the wonderful security of always knowing one's location in the broad scheme of things. By comparison, viewing time as a matrix-like stream of numbers or as simply days on a calendar seems simplistic and devoid of feeling or appreciation.


 * The brain is a powerful and mysterious thing, isn't it? Thanks for your contributions to the article, and I'm glad that your education hasn't just filled your head with facts, but brought you some insight into your own life. Phidauex 16:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * P.S. If you find you enjoy editing on wikipedia, I recommend signing up with a username and joining the action! Remember to sign your posts by putting four tildes in a row at the end of your post, like this ~ . That will automatically convert to your username (if you have one), plus the date and time of your post, so it is easier to follow conversations. Phidauex 16:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)