Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scottish Castles/Archive 1

Older discussion
OK, to start off, here are some questions on your list of desired information:


 * Location map - should we use the Scotland Infobox map?
 * Photographs (external and internal) - easy enough, though involving lots of mileage!
 * Floor plans - this will be more tricky, how do you propose uploading these?

Also, would it be worth organising a separate 'to do' list of redlinks? Or can we just work from the Castles in Scotland list. :Supergolden:: 10:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I like the location map idea, it will coordinate with other Scottish pages. Photos can be added when possible, if we have at least one external to begin with.


 * I'm not sure how readily available floor plans are - I think that an image format would be easiest to manage, although I don't know what the prefered one is.


 * A to - do list may be useful, better still, a list showing the status of each castle page (not started; stub; begun; etc) what do you think? Slink pink 21:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Not sure about 'status' list, might be hard to keep on top of? I added the location map with gbmapping template link into Duntrune Castle. What do you think? :Supergolden:: 13:28, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I like the location map. Should we incorporate this into an info box, with some basic details or do you think it stands better alone? Slink pink 21:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe - what info would you put in an infobox? As for a to do list, maybe we could have a list of redlinks (ie new article needed), followed by a list of stubs (ie attention required)? :Supergolden:: 11:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't know how applicable this would be for most of them, but Infobox Military Structure might be useful for some of the articles. Kirill Lok s h in 15:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

The standalone map looks good. Infoboxes can become overbearing for all but the largest of articles, especially when competing for space with photographs. Just my 50p worth. -- Cactus.man  &#9997;  15:19, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I've thought some more about the 'status list' idea. I envisage the life of an article as follows


 * Red link
 * Stub
 * Short article
 * Final article (checked)
 * Periodic reviews/updates as required.

I think if we could (to-do) list each castle under these approximate headings then it would provide a good check of progress. I will begin to do this on the progress page. Slink pink 17:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Changes to Castles in Scotland
I've noticed some recent entries by User:Lianachan which relate to places rather than castles, e.g. Thurso (now removed). We will have to keep a careful watch for such additions. Slink pink 11:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Category: Castles in Scotland
Do we need both the category and the page? Slink pink 11:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not a fan of list pages - they are uninformative and usually incomplete anyway. Categories are obviously better for, well, categorising. But lists can include redlinks, whereas cats obviously can't include articles that don't exist. I say we keep both for now. :Supergolden:: 16:38, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with that. It may also be helpful to decide which categories will be used throughout (may form part of the template), as I have seen a number used.  Slink pink 17:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The list pages are definitely useful for the redlinks. I agree it should be kept. -- Cactus.man  &#9997;

Template
I have now looked through all the pages that exist on the Castles in Scotland page and have shortlisted my top 5 for the following reasons (no 1 being my favourite):
 * 5 - Balmoral Castle - This is a fine example of the minimum article length which I would like for any castle. It is also a reasonable text/image balance.
 * 4 - Foulis Castle - Although there is no real structure to this article, I particularly like the mix of pictures shown and the arrangement of images in a column on the right.
 * 3 - Edzell Castle - I like the content of this article. Having visited, the garden is the main feature to see, but the history is more important for the article.  Although I'd like more information (and pictures), I like the balance of content.
 * 2 - Kellie Castle - This has good visual appeal, structure and content.
 * 1 - Crathes Castle - Although I'd keep the images to the right, I like the structure and headings used. They capture the information I'd like to see in each article.

Well, your thoughts are appreciated. I think that if we can agree an approximate layout, then a template can be created. Slink pink 17:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

From these articles it would seem that the following structure could be used: Although its good to have a map for each castle, I think there should always be a picture at the top, with the map at the bottom maybe? :Supergolden:: 11:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Introductory paragraph, including location
 * History, divided into 'early' and 'later' or whatever suits
 * The Castle Today - ie description of the state of the place, features etc
 * Gardens - if appropriate
 * Interior - if appropriate
 * Other information specific to any site - ie use in a film etc.


 * Using the above guidelines, I have expanded Orchardton Tower from a substub into a proper article. Is this what we are aiming for? :Supergolden:: 19:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

For castle articles, I think that there should be some sort of an infobox on the side that says basic information like the name of the castle, where it is, what year it was built, who built it, and possibly a picture. --Isabella123 23:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * One of the good things about the 5 "favourite" castle pages mentioned above - and the new expanded Orchardton Tower - is the easy flow of text and pictures. A pic (or two) of the castle in pride of place looks great - map lower down seems good. Sometimes infoboxes can seem a bit indigestible/unattractive - prefer them discreet if used, and well down the page after the main text and pics. (Joining in the discussion rather late . . .) --HJMG 15:11, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I think we should avoid being too rigid with the structure. Some castles lend themselves to different outlines. for example i created the Muchalls Castle article and found a need for several periods of history. I think to put the history under subsections creates an artificial heirarchy that can detract from the flow for the reader. Anlace 23:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Stub Template
I have put up a request for a Scotland-castle-stub template and category at Wikiproject Stub Sorting. I think this should be OK, so in a week we should have our own stub cat for stubby castles, like my favourite, Moreland Castle :Supergolden:: 12:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Excellent work Super. This will nicely clear up the issue of which stub template to use. Slink pink 07:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Stub template and category now created following discussion at WP:WSS. All castle stubs can now be tagged with Scotland-castle-stub instead of Scotland-struct-stub, which will sort all the stubs into Category:Scotland castle stubs. :Supergolden:: 08:45, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Category:Scotland castle stubs is now populated with all relevant stubs from Category:Scotland buildings and structures stubs. :Supergolden:: 08:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Database?
I just found out about this project. Thanks, Slink Pink, for getting this going, and thanks, Supergolden for pointing me here.

Do any of you more experienced Wikipedians know whether Wikipedia supports some type of simple database functionality for articles within a category. I'm imagining someone doing a simple search for all Scottish castles that are, for example, tower houses in Arberdeenshire. We'd have to define a set of basic fields for Scottish castles -- location, type of structure, year of initial construction, year(s) of significant expansion, family (or families) with significant connection, etc. -- which would probably be reflected in an infobox.

Obviously, this could be done at the most basic level with a table on a Scottish Castles page with all of the data, but I have something a bit more interactive and integrated into Wikipedia than that.

I have no idea whether this is possible. If it is, I'd appreciate a pointer to an example of something like this elsewhere on Wikipedia. (If it's not possible and the reasons have been discussed elsewhere, I'd appreciate a pointer to that.)

--JohnPomeranz 21:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thats an interesting idea John. Unfortunatley I've no idea if it's possible - I don't think I've come across anything like that on WP. The only thing i could think of would be to have loads of categories, but that would just get cumbersome. Any other ideas? :Supergolden:: 10:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I love that idea! I too have not seen any such thing, but will investigate.  My initial thoughts were to put that kind of information into an infobox.  This may provide a method of holding all the fields, but we'd still need a search engine. Slink pink 07:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Location Maps
[I've copied some discussion from above related to this issue to bring it all into one place...]


 * Location map - should we use the Scotland Infobox map?


 * I like the location map idea, it will coordinate with other Scottish pages. Photos can be added when possible, if we have at least one external to begin with.


 * I like the location map. Should we incorporate this into an info box, with some basic details or do you think it stands better alone? Slink pink 21:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

The standalone map looks good. Infoboxes can become overbearing for all but the largest of articles, especially when competing for space with photographs. Just my 50p worth. -- Cactus.man  &#9997;  15:19, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Although its good to have a map for each castle, I think there should always be a picture at the top, with the map at the bottom maybe? :Supergolden:: 11:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[Now adding my own two cents (pence?)...]

I agree. Location maps are good. I like the Scotland Infobox map, but it's hard for us non-Scots to use when the subject mapped -- castles in this case -- are generally listed by county because it doesn't show the borders of the counties. I recognize that adding all the county boundaries would clutter up the map. Could we compromise by showing regions and grouping castles by region (or would that fail because some regions have too many castles to make a readable list)?

I note that a few castles (e.g. Brodie Castle and Huntly Castle) have a different style of location map created (or at least added by) User:Topbanana. I like these images, but their fault is not showing the location in the larger context of Scotland.

Maybe what I'm looking for is general Scottish castles article with a large map showing all the castles in Scotland and then detail maps for each region. (Such an article could also talk about Scottish castles in general, discussing common features, etc.)

Another idea... Rather than a simple dot on the map for the castle, could we use symbols that provide more information? Ruin vs. Standing; Open to the public vs. closed; different symbols for different basic types of castle construction... Whichever information we think important enough to make clear at first glance.

--JohnPomeranz 22:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * First, I think your suggestion of a proper Castles in Scotland article is great - i think we really need some sort of overview of how castle building developed across the country, different types of castles, architectural styles, why castle building stopped and when, why there are more castles in some areas, modern day preservation and restoration, all that stuff. The current list page could then move to List of Castles in Scotland. A fine idea.


 * This article could include a map or maps, but my only concern is the sheer quantity of dots, over 3000 across the country, often clustered. Showing different symbols might also be problematic - possible but would have to be kept simple to be useful.


 * Third, I too like the maps by Topbanana, they are on some of the Aberdeenshire Castles, and just show Aberdeenshire. Although it might be nice to make a set of area maps to show the location, rather than the whole of Scotland, I think the Scotland infobox map works well. Combined with the grid ref link it gives the whole picture - from national scale to the precise location.


 * My tuppence worth :Supergolden:: 10:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Yep, I'm all in favour of a proper Scottish Castle article.


 * I also like the large map idea, showing all the castles, but I think this might get a bit crazy. It may be possible to have larger version of the now standard scottish map, with clickable regions (i.e. the current groupings on the Castles in Scotland list, or similar), linking to a regional map showing all the castles that lie within.  Although some regions will have a high density, a reasonably large image could provide a means of showing the approximate location of each.


 * As for Topbanana's maps, I like them, but would prefer a slightly more detailed version - i.e. one that looks more like a map and less like a sketch. Maybe I'm just being picky.  Going back to my previous thought, is it possible to have hover text on a large clickable map, so you could hover over a location icon to gain a very short snippet about that castle? Slink pink 07:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Scottish Castle Article
This is a slightly different topic from the location map, so deserves it's own heading. I have also copied some relavent comments from above.

First, I think your suggestion of a proper Castles in Scotland article is great - i think we really need some sort of overview of how castle building developed across the country, different types of castles, architectural styles, why castle building stopped and when, why there are more castles in some areas, modern day preservation and restoration, all that stuff. The current list page could then move to List of Castles in Scotland. A fine idea. :Supergolden:: 10:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I discovered a lovely info-box style links-box on the pasta page - if you follow the link you may understand what I mean. This might be a useful structure to adopt for a general page on Scottish Castles.  If sufficient information existed, a similar style box could be created, for example:


 * Castle classification
 * Tower house
 * Castle
 * etc
 * Shape
 * L plan
 * Z plan
 * T plan
 * Prominent features
 * Turret
 * etc


 * I know this is possibly leading out of the scope of this Wikiproject, but maybe not... thoughts? Slink pink 12:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Template
I have created a template for the project: WPSCOTCASTLE

Which looks like this:

This can be put ON TALK PAGES of relevant articles to draw attention to our efforts. :Supergolden:: 08:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Good idea. Slink pink 16:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Looks good, I will work through adding it to talk pages. -- Cactus.man  &#9997;  12:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Castle naming
Newark Castle, Port Glasgow was moved to Newark Castle, Inverclyde, the reason given in the edit summary being "std dab by local govt". This "std" is not reflected in the Castles in Scotland list, where Newark Castle, Fife is the only other title to use the current local govt. name. Nisbet, Berwickshire uses the historic county, and Beaufort Castle, Scotland the country. The Earl's Palace, Kirkwall and Bishop's Palace, Kirkwall use the town name, Earl's Palace, Birsay the name of the village and parish. The "std" was not discussed on the talk page or here. Using the county or region name is useful for castles in the countryside, but not the normal usage for castles in towns. A move back to the original name has been requested at Requested moves and votes are at Talk:Newark Castle, Inverclyde. Serious consideration should be given as to whether this new naming "std" should be introduced. dave souza, talk 18:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC) amended ..dave souza, talk 20:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * This 'std' is fairly 'std' when applied to towns, I'm not sure how it applies to structures. At present, as your quick survey reveals, it appears we have no 'std' at all. :Supergolden:: 14:30, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Castles, Tower Houses, Mansions, etc
What to include? The time has come to decide what will be allowed on the Castles in Scotland list. We need to decide what makes a castle a castle and whether or not to include other castle-like things (e.g. tower houses) in our list, or what to do with the things not in our list. Do we...
 * 1) make a Tower Houses in Scotland list?
 * 2) make a seperate Wikiproject?
 * 3) include them in this wikiproject but under a different set of articles?
 * 4) delete them all and forget about them?
 * 5) none of the above.

Once again, your thoughts/suggestions are welcomed. Slink pink 16:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * For me, tower houses are definitely in, being defensive structures. Many castles have an older tower house at their core. My candidate for exclusion would be non-defensive castles, such as Floors Castle and Drumlanrig Castle, which are just country houses called 'castle', and aren't really within the scope of the Wikiproject. Then, on the other hand, there are the country houses which are built around older fortified structures, but are no longer called 'castle', such as Falkland Palace. This project should, I believe, concentrate on defensive structures from the 12th to 17th centuries. :Supergolden:: 14:44, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It seems like real defensive elements are the key, so fortified manor houses might qualify while manor houses not. Tower houses are inherently defensive in nature.  Motte and bailey such as the Bass of Inverurie are perhaps also worth inclusion.

Images
Having previously expressed a wish for as many images as possible of the interior, exterior and gardens/other features of note, it occured to me that each article (where required) could have three sub-pages containing only images. For example,

The article could contain a small number of the best, say one or two from each category, or more if it was a particularly large article. I think that this may help to keep a good balance of text and images throughout without sacrificing material. If this seems agreeable, I can produce a sample using Elcho Castle for which I have a large number of images, and the article needs written anyway. Slink pink 06:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Some_Castle/Inside
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Some_Castle/Outside
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Some_Castle/Gardens


 * Slink, I like your idea, but I think this would be something for Commons, which is designed as an image repository. You can upload a whole bunch of pictures and make a page on commons called 'Some Castle' and put tham all on it as a gallery. Images uploaded to Commons can still be used on Wikipedia in the normal way, and you can add a link to the commons page using the commons template. Typing gives you:


 * Have a look at the Castles in Scotland category at Commons for a start. Sorry if you know all this, but I think its worth spreading the knowledge! :Supergolden:: 12:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

More Pages
This page is growing quite rapidly these days, so I would like your opinions on the proposal of creating a number of other work pages, like the progress page, to categorise specific queries and notes. I don't know what to call such pages or how many we may require. Slink pink 06:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Project page
Hope everyone likes the Project Page reshuffle. I wanted to get more stuff from the discussions onto the front page, hopefully to encourage more involvement and discussion! Feel free to edit away... :Supergolden:: 10:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks Super, I've been meaning to sort it out for a while. Slink pink 11:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Citing Sources
Is there a standard format for citing those tourist boards/notices (those things with lots of info on the castle that are there for visitors to read) as sources. I added soume info to the Broughty Castle article that I got from some but I thought it would look better if it was referenced. Ydam 12:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Didn't know that - do you know what the standard format is or how I can find it? Citing sources is certainly something we should encourage within this project. Thanks, :Supergolden:: 18:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The main details are at WP:CITE, WP:FOOT and WP:CTT. Personally I always thought that references were one of the most important things in an article. It's one thing to state something it's totally different if that assertion is instantly backed up by a source. Anyways, I suppose I would be better off if we asked at the relevent talk page of those links. Ydam 18:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Photos
I've taken some photos of Dudhope and Mains castles in Dundee but they don't have articles as of yet so I'm going to place them here so that when they do get articles they'll be easily accesible for those that need them. Ydam 15:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks Ydam! I would only suggest that if you have images with no article, they would be better off uploaded to Commons rather than Wikipedia. They can still be used in the normal way, but images on Commons don't get 'orphaned' and deleted the way WP images do (although since you've put them here that won't happen). :Supergolden:: 12:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Thats what I did. Ydam 13:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * So you did, silly me. Thanks! :Supergolden:: 13:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Here are a couple picture of Foulis Castle that were taken off the Foulis Castle page. I took these a couple summers ago Foulis Side Foulis King-of-no-pants 03:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

National Monuments Record of Scotland Data
At a minimum, I suggest all articles contain a sentence as follows: "The Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland lists the site as a ____________ (e.g., castle, tower, motte, etc.) and holds records for the monument in its databases under map sheet __________ (e.g., NS92SE), site number _________ (e.g., 3). See article on Crawford Castle.

It would also be helpful to researchers in history and archeology as well as persons researching ancestry or planning to visit Scotland to include (in each article re Scottish Castles) the raw data from public records as shown in the article for Crawford Castle. A good primary source for location and archeological data for many Scottish castles can be found in the public records held in the National Monuments Record of Scotland database. Subheadings listing or expositing this data could include those subheads shown in the article for Crawford Castle (i.e., exact location by map coordinates, archeological notes, etc.). Also, please consider adding footnotes to your article. The archeological data from the National Monuments Record of Scotland database includes footnotes and it would be immensely helpful if those footnotes were reproduced in each article on a Scottish castle. I cannot recall if I had to pay for some of this information when I originated the article on Crawford Castle. Not all of the information held in the National Monuments Record of Scotland database is available on line.

This is NOT to say the article on Crawford Castle cannot be improved - it has a long way to go and I would appreciate any help you can give to improving this article as well as the Lindsay Tower article. I initially had some trouble distinguishing Crawford Castle from the castle known as Crawford Castle or Spetisbury Rings, iron-age fortification and its ruins, at Spetisbury in Dorset, England (see Crawford Castle (disambiguation)). There are likely more good connections to be made between Crawford Castle and William Wallace that have not been uncovered.


 * Hmm. Well, NMRS data is extremely helpful in putting together these articles, and should certainly be a first point of reference for any Scottish Castle page. However, I would advise against including the raw data from the database, as well as the lists of Archaeological notes, footnotes, sources etc. This just builds into a bewildering mess of data which is not appropriate, in my view, to an encyclopedia. Don't forget that this wikiproject only exists within Wikipedia: What wikipedia is not advises against this sort of thing.


 * The RCAHMS databases can be accessed here. (I find PASTMAP particularly helpful) Any castle article should include a link to the relevant online section of the NMRS database, as I have done at Carsluith Castle (site reference included). The data can then be accesssed from there, and doesn't need to be copied into the article as well. What do others think? :Supergolden:: 12:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Powrie Castle
Anyone heard of this one. I'd never heard of it before and it's not in the list but I was browsing through this leaflet and it featured it. I'd love to go and get a photo of it for any future article but aside from the fact that it's in Dundee I can't find any information on it or its precise location aside from a vague reference to it being north of dundee Ydam 18:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Never heard of it, but a Google search came up with, among other things, this photo page with a map link, and this pdf which descibes Powrie Castle on page 11. Good old Google. :Supergolden:: 09:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that, will have to go down later this week and get a photo Ydam 00:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Infobox
Billreid has added an infobox to Spynie Palace and Duffus Castle (there may be others). I think this would make a great template for use across the wikiproject, but I think some discussion is needed to make sure the template suits all castles. My comments would be to add an entry on 'Condition' (ie ruin, occupied, etc), and on a more cosmetic point, to take out the frames around the imiages, and put the photo, rather than the map, at the top. Anyway, thanks to Billreid for making a start. What does anyone else think? :Supergolden:: 12:52, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I've re-jigged it to look like a proper infobox. What do you think?





'''Duffus Castle




 * Billreid 16:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Useful Book
Recently published: Castles of Scotland- Martin Coventry, Birlinn General 2006. It lists around 2700 fortifications in ScotlandBrendandh 22:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Project directory
Hello. The WikiProject Council is currently in the process of developing a master directory of the existing WikiProjects to replace and update the existing WikiProject Council/Directory. These WikiProjects are of vital importance in helping wikipedia achieve its goal of becoming truly encyclopedic. Please review the following pages:
 * User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory,
 * User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory 2,
 * User:Badbilltucker/Philosophy and religion Directory,
 * User:Badbilltucker/Sports Directory,
 * User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory,
 * User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory/United States, (note: This page will be retitled to more accurately reflect its contents)
 * User:Badbilltucker/History and society directory, and
 * User:Badbilltucker/Science directory

and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope to have the existing directory replaced by the updated and corrected version of the directory above by November 1. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 20:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry if you tried to update it before, and the corrections were gone. I have now put the new draft in the old directory pages, so the links should work better. My apologies for any confusion this may have caused you. B2T2 23:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks Bill, I checked and added Portal Scotland to our listing, but our wee project doesnt have any departments at present... :Supergolden:: 10:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Awards
Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afriad) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 15:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)