User talk:Percy Snoodle/Archive 3

Your removal of "tabletop" from rpg articles
Percy, I noticed that you have been editing rpg articles to remove the word "tabletop" in their descriptions. You have also cited the main role-playing game article as a basis for your deletions. I am having a difficult time finding any statements in the aforementioned article that it is considered incorrect to refer to pen and paper role-playing games as tabletop role-playing games. I do, however, see statements making the distinction between tabletop role-playing games and computer role-playing games:

Due to the popularity of CRPGs, the terms "role-playing game" and "RPG" have both to some degree been co-opted by the video gaming industry; as a result, traditional non-digital pastimes of this sort are increasingly being referred to as "pen and paper" or "tabletop" role-playing games, though neither pen and paper nor a table are strictly necessary.

The largest publisher of tabletop role-playing games is Wizards of the Coast. . . Market research conducted at Wizards of the Coast in 1999-2000 indicated that more than 1.5 million people played D&D on a monthly basis, and about 2 million people played all tabletop RPGs combined on a monthly basis. In 2006, non-Dungeons & Dragons tabletop RPGs in the upper echelons of sales typically generated between five and ten thousand unit sales. The standard business model for successful tabletop RPGs relies on multiple sales avenues:. ..

Wikipedia has a separate articles for tabletop rpgs and computer role-playing games, so it seems proper to underscore this difference. Please help me understand your deletions. Ukulele 14:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The bit I was refering to is "terms "role-playing game" and "RPG" have both to some degree been co-opted by the video gaming industry; as a result ..." and "though neither pen and paper nor a table are strictly necessary". "Tabletop" is a misnomer; unnecessary at best, misleading in most circumstances and at worst derogatory.  Thanks for pointing out the extra "tabletops" that have been inserted into the RPG article. Percy Snoodle 15:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Percy, I am surprised at your speedy choice to edit an article you cited to support your argument, especially when the original article did not seem to support your edition decisions. I am curious as how one could reasonably consider the descriptive term "tabletop" as potentially derogatory.  This statement seems to be a personal point of view. Your removal of the descriptive word "tabletop" may potentially make it confusing for others to understand the difference between computer role-playing games and the traditional non-computer role-playing games in the main article as well as other articles about role-playing games.  The fact that the term has been "co-opted" by the video game industry would seem to make it all the more important to make a clear distinction between the two.  Since you removed most occurrences of the world "tabletop" in the main article, some statements are now confusing.  Like this one.


 * "The standard business model for successful RPGs relies on multiple sales avenues:. . ."


 * This statement now seems to be including all RPGs, computer and non-computer types.


 * Though a tabletop, nor pen and paper are not technically necessary for the traditional non-computer role-playing game, I think you would agree that the wide majority of these games are indeed played around a table, and do employ pen and paper. Therefor I do not think argument for eschewing this descriptive term is solid.


 * It appears to me that you have taken a personal issue with the fact that some computer games are being referred to as role-playing games, and traditional non-computer role-playing games should not have to "stoop" to further describe themselves as a non-computer role-playing game. If you google for tabletop rpg I believe you will plenty of respected sources using the term "tabletop" to make the distinction between the two industries.


 * I wish to move this discussion to the Talk:Role-playing_game page where I would like to see some consensus on this issue. I am also going to revert your deletions of the word "tabletop" as they have stood the test of time on that article and I take issue with their hasty removal.  I request that you do not simply revert my revert, as I do not wish enter into an edit war.  I request that you take your case to the the Talk:Role-playing_game page.Ukulele 16:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It wasn't my intention to alter the article to support my case, but rather to correct the incorrect parts you'd pointed out. I'm sorry that wasn't your intention; let's continue this as you suggest on Talk:Role-playing game. Percy Snoodle 17:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Crumple-Horned Snorkack, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to a nonexistent page. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template   to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. SQL(Query Me!) 05:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Alpha Omega (game)
[personal attack removed]

Attribution
Regarding this edit, I added the attribution note per the GFDL. If we don't link to the original article so that the list of original contributors can be easily consulted, we are violating the GFDL. Are you sure WP:ASR discourages this? -- But | seriously | folks   17:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Good question. I'm pretty sure WP:ASR discourages it in that form; but I'm not a license expert so I don't know what the GFDL has to say about the matter.  Perhaps you should raise the question of how attributions should be maintained when copy is moved from one page to another at the WP:ASR talk page?  Percy Snoodle 07:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Notability guidelines for RPG project
Hello,

You have made an excellent list for notability guidelines on the RPG project discussion page. We really need our own guidelines to be able to police our own articles, and to refer to when notability is questioned. For example, all RPGs in the french RPG category have their notability questioned with a reference to the book guidelines, and that's not right.

I suggest you move your list of guidelines from the discussion page to a more prominent place; I think adding it to the general inclusion guidelines (Notability (Role-playing games)) is a bit overkill at this point, so we could settle with moving the guidelines to the project front page. I could do it myself, but since you proposed them I think it's better if you do. Keep up the good work! Jonas Ferry 16:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry to take so much time getting back to you - I've been busy. I've put up a proposal page and will be starting a discussion on WP:RPG Percy Snoodle 14:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

18xx Conventions
I'm rather annoyed that you deleted the article while I was digging up newspaper sources. At first I wasn't going to bother since I felt like the effort would be wasted with the apparent zeal for removing niche content that is going on here, then I was specifically asked to. I finally found the article I was looking for and logon to add it and I see you have deleted the article. Is it not reasonable to give sufficient time when someone says they are looking up references (see its talk page and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Board_and_table_games? It's crap like this as well as you voting for deleting all the 18xx articles I created/cleaned up after you first sending me a thank you for adding them a year ago that makes me wonder why I am wasting my time here at all.

The GM of the WBC 18xx tournament is also digging up references, but I suppose I should tell him to stop wasting his time. For reference here is the article I was going to add: JTamplin 13:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry you feel so put out. I still stand my my original thanks - the quality of your contributions was high, even though the topic didn't meet the notability requirements. Percy Snoodle 14:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

External Play Links
Regarding removing "Where to Play" links citing WP:EL, I'd like to convince you to relent.
 * I don't see where such links fail to follow the current guidelines.
 * Independent of the guidelines, these links ought to be there. As evidence, note if if they are there, they are followed very frequently. People who are reading about a game frequently want to play.
 * For that matter, play links, fan site links, and so on ought to be explicitly in the guidelines for the Wiki Game project. Such sites are frequently meatier and more interesting than manufacturer's sites, which are in the guidelines.  Ddyer 18:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Now, to answer your first point, the guidelines relevant to external play links are to be found at WP:EL - in particular:
 * "Any site that does not provide a unique resource" - In general, multiple online play sites exist for each game, but even when they don't the "resource" it provides is only a duplicate of the play experience of the physical game.
 * The physical experience may be the gold standard, but it's definitely not readily available to the reader. Ddyer 18:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * "Links mainly intended to promote a website" - This speaks for itself
 * Many sites also require registration and/or downloads which are discouraged elsewhere in the guidelines. Additionally, most sites are added by their maintainers - a clear conflict of interest.


 * To answer your second point: No, they shouldn't. Wikipedia is not a directory, it is an encyclopedia.


 * Finally, to answer your third point: Yes, I agree. I shall raise this with WP:WPBTG.  Percy Snoodle 09:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Everyone would probably agree that irrelevant sites should not be linked, and that any link is in some sense intended to promote a site. Some balancing is required.   Wiki is a service to the reader, and the ultimate test of a link's suitability ought to be is seen by the reader as appropriate and useful. As for not a directory; I agree completely.  It would be absurd to try to link to every site where you can play chess, but adding a link to the best place would be a valuable service. Ddyer 18:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Redirect of Tribes (RPG)
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Tribes (RPG), by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Tribes (RPG) is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1). To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Tribes (RPG), please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. CSDWarnBot 13:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Leave product listing in rpg articles
To some people, there is a benefit of having a product list. Especially if there is no other listing on the web. As a collector, I like to know what products have been put out for a game. The manufacturers don't seem to keep a list and only through searching through multiple sources are you able to come up with some information. By posting a list, I am sharing information and saving people time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leinad35 (talk • contribs) 17:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * If there's no single source for the listings, then assembling them here on wikipedia is forbidden by WP:NOR as well as being discouraged by WP:NOT. Percy Snoodle 18:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Original Research?!? A title and ISBN number? I own most of the items and the items I didn't, I checked online thru Amazon and other sources. I try to add a bit of REFERENCE material for people that are interested and twits like you hack it up. "Doesn't meet this criteria! Doesn't follow that guideline!" By limiting the selection of information in an article, you are stifling the article to the point of uselessness.  Leinad35 11:29, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I've got another guideline for you: be civil. "Twits like you" isn't.  Percy Snoodle 14:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Role-playing games
For articles on role-playing games, we recommend the following layout:

Title


 * ==Setting==


 * ==System==


 * ==History==


 * It is intended that this section should give a narrative history of the game. Long lists of all books published for a given game or system are not recommended for inclusion in articles; however, an external link pointing to such a list is strongly recommended.

''' There is no external link as it is a compiled list of the books, modules and supplements. The list is not in the history section; it is set off in a section by itself FOR REFERENCE. Most of the books are now Out of Print because the licensing with WOTC has expired. The list may be a little long but this is all thats going to published. The next version of HackMaster is not even scheduled yet so it may be 2 or 3 years OR not at all. '''


 * Fine; it's still not meant to go in the article. Put it on a Hackmaster fansite, and link there.  Percy Snoodle 14:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * ==See also==


 * ==References==
 * A section for references at the bottom, in the following format:
 * Books, modules, supplements, boxed sets, etc: Author or editor. Title of product (publisher, date). Available online:URL, if applicable


 * ==External links==

Leinad35 11:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

You misunderstand the guideline. If you've used the book as a reference to back up a fact, that's a reference for the article, so it goes in the references. If you want to put a list of products in for people to use as a reference, then that is discouraged by the guideline. If you've assembled the list yourself, that's original research and it's forbidden. Percy Snoodle 14:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Then tell me why Spelljammer lists all its products?

Leinad35 14:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

RivaMUSH
Really weird things going on. The only AfD notice that was ever up there was my misguided attempt as a newer editor for a lump MU* AfD. It failed spectacularly. Trainwreck style. In the mean time, it seems there has been a seperate RivaMUSH AfD, which ended in delete. I think. I'll check the dates, but first I'm going to remove the CSD tag to buy some time, and to be absolutely sure. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, the AfD was an earlier AfD. The article was recreated. I tagged it accordingly, with G4. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for correcting my mistake, and thanks for letting me know. Percy Snoodle 16:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Actualy, since it's passed an AfD since then, G4 shouldn't be applicable. But since the AfD was such a trainwreck, it might. I'll leave it up to the admin to determine. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Removal of War on Terror cultural reference
I don't really get why you removed the reference to the game in The IT Crowd, it was basically a piece of advertising, I have an email from the game publishers, but I thought it would make a point of interest. Douglasnicol (talk) 19:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Summerfest (LARP)
Percy, Hi Summerfest(LARP) was my first attempt at a wikipedia text. Could you please explain a little further why it has been replaced with a redirect to Fools & Heroes? I was attempting to show the history of the event is more than just a pointer to a single society, but is actually a pivotal point in the development of the UK LARP scene...

Regards Dave Ph —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daveph (talk • contribs) 07:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I redirected the article because we've previously had an article on Summerfest LARP which was deleted. I thought it would be better to point editors to the F&H page than to go through another deletion.  Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * So you deleted it because a previous article had been deleted, and nothing to do with the nature of the content? Any pointers to how I find out why the original article was deleted? Don't want to make the same mistake again... Ta Dave Ph —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daveph (talk • contribs) 11:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It wasn't deleted because of the content, but because of the subject: Summerfest was found not to meet the notability guidelines. However, the debate wasn't well-attended so you could certainly make a case that the article should be given a second chance.  The guidelines are here, here and here, and the deletion debate was here. Percy Snoodle (talk) 12:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

BurningMUD article - declined PROD
I have declined the PROD nomination that you made on BurningMUD based on the notion that the presence of one reliable source is an invitation to request that more be added, not an invitation to delete. I have added to the article. Regards, User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 12:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Arduin dungeons
Hi, I was wondering if you could have a look at the Arduin dungeon module pages and suggest some ways to make the pages better. They do not read in a good format I think. Is there a template for these modules and books? They are The Howling Tower, Caliban, The Citadel of Thunder, Death Heart. The Citadel of Thunder needs the most work. I will try and make these better over time and could use some advice. Thank you, Percy! Compsword00 (talk) 12:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Annex
You're saying it would be more appropriate for the ORION Foundation and the WEB (Top Secret) articles would live on The Annex instead of Wikipedia? That's what Annex is for? I have no problem with that. Jeffrywith1e (talk) 15:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's what I'm saying. If there's enough information, it might even be worth setting up a dedicated wikia wiki for TSSI. Percy Snoodle (talk) 07:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Would it be inappropriate to link WEB form the Top Secret (role-playing game) article to the Annex Web article (I copied them over per your suggestion)? Jeffrywith1e (talk) 16:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Probably best to create a category on the Annex, and link to the category page. Percy Snoodle (talk) 18:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I am no sock puppet, I am not a meat puppet. I am someone who felt strongly enough about the above article to stop editing anonymously and actually to create an account so that there would be a trail linking me to my opinion. My normal editing on wikipedia has been for spelling, when I encounter an article with serious missteps in that realm. I have been doing this on and off since I first started using wikipedia. --Hodagacz (talk) 02:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of Cosmic Encounter powers
I have nominated List of Cosmic Encounter powers, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/List of Cosmic Encounter powers. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Slavlin (talk) 05:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Unmade Doctor Who
Thanks for the kind words - I just found out about the FA status being granted! I'm pleasantly surprised to see a list article - and one based on pop culture, at that - getting FA. Cool! 23skidoo (talk) 14:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The Chronicles of Amber (omnibus)
You had replaced the article I crated for The Chronicles of Amber (omnibus) with a redirect with a note that the the book was NN. I've reverted back to the article and added two additional references that I believe satisfy notability under WP:NB (criteria 1). I had started the article after discovering that the link from Fantasy Masterworks linked to the series article rather than one about the book itself. Since the omnibus collects only part of the series, I believe the article for the book is useful. Please let me know if you feel additional work is till necessary to demonstrated notability.--Rtrace (talk) 00:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I do question whether the omnibus meets WP:BK, but I'll leave it be if you're still working on it. Percy Snoodle (talk) 07:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Erol Otus
Percy, could you take a minute and have a look at Erol Otus? Anything you might add there? A picture or birth date? Much appreciated. - Dicecollector29 (talk) 23:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't have anything to add - looks good to me. Nice work. Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Bretts
Percy, were you aware of this site? Bretts RPG Magazine and Zine Index Sees like a nice source of reference material for some of the old non-digital RPG stuff. - Dicecollector29 (talk) 17:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I wasn't. Thanks for pointing that out. Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Role Player's Creed
Hey there. I notice you've edited the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeform_role-playing_game to change reference to the Role Player's Creed that I wrote. I am the original author of that Creed, I have all the original documents including drafts and revisions. I created the chat site "Dark World by Night" but no longer work for the person I created it for. The creed is being used there without my permission. I would appreciate it if you would not edit that citation again. If you have any questions for me about this, feel free to email me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DuchesseArchambeault (talk • contribs) 21:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

RPG notability guidelines == ==

i had been actually trying to find that notability page for some time with no luck. thanks for pointing out its direct location or i may never have found it. shadzar|Talk|contribs 10:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Reply
I'm not sure anyone looks at me for precedent, but I'll change it to say no consensus. Thanks for your input. Keilana | Parlez ici 22:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:FICT
Out of interest, how opposed are you to the current version of WP:FICT? The guideline has been disputed for so long (early December), and has been "proposed" since late January. I have been keeping up with the guideline all this time, and I would love to get some stability in the whole issue again. Normal improvement suggestions can still take place when the guideline is no longer "proposed". What do you think about making another move to get rid of the proposed tag? (I am perfectly aware that this guideline will always have an aura of dispute as long as editors are successful in defending nonnotable plotty fiction articles at AfD. But I see progress in the opposite direction, even if this takes much patience and work.) – sgeureka t•c 18:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry I didn't get back to you, I've been away over Easter. I'll have to look over what's changed since Thursday before I can give you a decent answer. Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, looking over what's still there, the wording is still not tight enough; it's still possible to argue that any given fictional article is a spinout and as such is appropriate even without real-world coverage. However, I'm hopeful that requiring spinout articles to name the section of the notable article they are spun out from, as is being discussed on the talk page, will address that concern. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

RPGproject template
Percy, as you seem to be one of the more active contributors in the RPG project, I thought I'd ask you about this idea. I was considering converting the RPGproject template into a new one that uses WPBannerMeta. This would then easily (and automatically) convert all the templates into ones for which class/importance ratings could be assigned to the articles. Doing this would then allow the appropriate bots to gather statistics about the articles so that the project would know its general status (i.e. how many stubs there are, how many "Start" class articles, how many GAs, etc, etc if, of course, these ratings were assigned in the talk pages). What do think of this idea? Based on a question I recently asked, this lead someone else to convert the BTGProject template into this format (I didn't even know the WPBannerMeta template existed). (As an aside, this now gives the statistics that can be found on the WikiProject Board and table games front page.  I set up categories for the BTG classes and so forth.)  Furthermore, if the RPG template was converted, a request could be made to have some of the ratings automatically filled in by a bot (e.g. identifying articles with the rpg-stub on the main page and RPGproject on the talk page and updating the talk template to identify it as a stub). Anyhow, I thought that I'd ask for some input before I just blindly did this. --Craw-daddy | T | 00:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds like an excellent idea to me. Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, I did this earlier today. Check out Category:Role-playing game articles by quality and Category:Role-playing game articles by importance.  The "Unassessed" and "Unknown-importance" categories should be filling up as the day progresses and the database is updated.  Later today or tomorrow I'll make a bot request to have some of the assessments done automatically (such as filtering pages that have rpg-stub on the article page into the "Stub" class).  The quality/importance statistics should be automatically assessed within a week and then we can add a table with this information to the main RPG Project page (like can be found on the Board and table game project page and numerous other project pages).  --Craw-daddy | T | 13:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for the barnstar Percy! As to your comment about "bickering", I think it's mainly that I don't have the stomach for trying to push through guidelines myself. I can't say that I agree 100% with all WP guidelines (who does), but I certainly don't want to get involved in trying to hash things out. Some time ago I also decided that I was going to avoid what *I* perceived as baiting by some editors and just started working on articles about things that interested me (which are mostly game/RPG-type articles). That's why I was working on the templates to implement the statistics for the two projects, just so that I and others could see the state of the projects (in some sense).

On a side note, you may want to check out the book Hobby Games: The 100 Best, edited by James Lowder. It's one of the closest things to a "scholarly work" that might be found on recent games. (Game designers selected their favorite game or RPG and wrote a short essay about why it is their favorite and how it might have influenced them in some way. They couldn't select ones in which they had any financial interest.)  I've used this book in three articles already (Ogre (game), My Life with Master, and Once Upon a Time, which I'm currently working on). Some of the essays are really dry, but others are an interesting read. (Find it in your local bookstore/library and read a bit first.) At the very least, it's a potential reference for 100 game/RPG articles. :) Anyhow, I shall let others carry the torch for banging out policy and such, and am generally avoiding disputing with editors as it leaves a bad taste in my mouth.  Thanks again!  --Craw-daddy | T | 18:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. The book sounds  interesting - I'll see whether I can track that down. Percy Snoodle (talk) 19:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.


 * Gosh, first I'd heard about it. Percy Snoodle (talk) 13:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Role-playing video game
I notice you got into it with a few people a while back about the main Role-playing game (video games) article. I'm definitely sympathetic to the idea of a merge. But I don't think that's a discussion we can necessarily have until we can improve the main article, and start cutting unnecessary/redundant information from the sub-articles. I've already imported a substantial amount of information from the console/computer RPG articles into the main RPG video game article. But if you could go over it and give it a quick copy edit, you'd be helping out significantly. A merge is impossible in the short term. But I think we can start making big edits that would improve all three articles, and maybe build the case for a merge. Does that make sense? What do you think? Check in at the RPG article or my talk page. Randomran (talk) 00:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, makes sense. I'll have a look today, and see what I can do. Percy Snoodle (talk) 08:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the great edits. We'll keep chipping away at this article over the next little while. Later on, when the main article looks good, we can start to clean up the console/computer articles and remove information that's already tackled in the main article. That would be the next step in the slightly longer term. I'm going to be pretty busy the next few weeks... but drop me a line towards the end of the month and we'll discuss where to move next. Randomran (talk) 21:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)