User talk:EdJogg

I will reply here to messages left on this page. If I leave a message on your talk page, I will expect a reply there.

GWR GA

Having spent a month swotting up and writing up Great Western Railway ships, I hope that there will be no more major edits to Great Western Railway. I should have a clear watchlist sometime next week so I reckon it's about time to put in that GA nomination. Gulp! Geof Sheppard (talk) 16:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I had a wikibreak over Christmas, and have only just caught up the backlog (apart from 50 or so pages that had significantly multiple edits, which I took 'off-watch' while I caught up -- GWR being among them!). I'll try to (start) re-reviewing the GWR page in the next few days -- watch for my edits and you'll see I'm under way. I haven't re-read it for a while, so it should be fairly 'fresh' to me. Thanks for the warning. -- EdJogg (talk) 17:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

2-6-4

Re this edit summary: please note that 2-6-4 locomotives such as SECR K and SR K1 classes are not Pacific (those are 4-6-2), but are Adriatic. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, thank you. The GCR loco still deserves an article, even it it was the first Adriatic tank loco in Britain... I don't always pay a huge amount of attention to my edit summaries -- as is witnessed elsewhere on this page! That's the problem with trying to edit WP in between doing bits of real work... ...especially if you're feeling sleepy too! I've applied a later edit summary to address the matter. -- EdJogg (talk) 12:32, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm on the case - I have at least five printed sources, from such authors as Dow, Haresnape, Jackson, Nock - and the RCTS. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:25, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

A framework now exists at GCR Class 1B; I found three sources all stating "first standard gauge 2-6-4T in Britain" or similar. O.S. Nock was strangely silent on the matter. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:10, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

There is now a refd three-way mutual link between GCR Class 1B, 2-6-4 and Leek and Manifold Valley Light Railway#Locomotives and rolling stock. SECR K and SR K1 classes points at two of these: I don't think that a link to the L&MVLR article would be useful. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't think it needs a link either! That's very good for a 'scratch' article. I wish I were as efficient! -- EdJogg (talk) 21:58, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

MAGIC RAILROAD

If his model wasn't finished in time, why couldn't they use Edward's model design from Season 5 of Thomas and Friends in 1998 for the movie? That would have actually saved them the trouble. Bob.--99.135.89.229 (talk) 04:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you're quite right. I had a look at the Sodor Island Forums site, where I found some other information recently. There's an interview with one of the production staff and they specifically ask about Edward. The response is that there were loads of models taken over to the US but never used, and that Edward was never mentioned as being part of the film.

I've now removed the incorrect information from Edward the Blue Engine.

-- EdJogg (talk) 00:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Top Gear Race to the North GA review

This is an interesting and attractive article with some decent research. The GA review has been put on hold for seven days to allow editors to deal with the issues raised at Talk:Top Gear Race to the North/GA1. Any questions please ping my talkpage. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 12:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Railway engines (Thomas and Friends)

How is it misleading?174.3.98.236 (talk) 13:06, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Some characters, such as Bill and Ben, Boco, etc, appeared first in the Railway Series books, but are not sufficiently significant to have their own WP article. These 'for' links go to an article that deals with the Railway Series side of their character -- matching this page which describes the TV series side of their character. Using 'main' implies that the other article covers everything. Using 'for' is not ideal, so I may have another look later.

EdJogg (talk) 13:11, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

The purpose of {{main}} is to point to the main article, and the word "main" does not mean that the article is bigger.174.3.98.236 (talk) 13:16, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Which is exactly my point. For these characters there is no single 'main' article: they are described in two articles of equal significance, and hence 'main' is incorrect.

Other characters, including Emily, correctly use 'main', as they have their own articles. Consequently the article uses more than one type of template -- I do not think this is a problem.

EdJogg (talk) 13:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Having re-read the documentation for {{main}} myself, I discovered this note:

This template is not to be used as a substitute for inline links or as a "see also". (my italics)

...which suggests that your changes break a basic requirement for this template.

Fortunately I have discovered {{details}}, which should fulfil the original purpose without the apparent mis-use of the hatnote template {{For2}} to which you have taken exception. If you could restore the links using this other template it will save me some time later. Thank you.

EdJogg (talk) 13:43, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, will do. 174.3.98.236 (talk) 03:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

As noted below, {{details}}, as it is currently, will not suit our purpose. I have asked a question about the usage of {{for2}}, but if we cannot use that we may have to provide some mangled wording with {{seealso}} instead to achieve a similar effect. This, I would suggest, is a backward step.

EdJogg (talk) 14:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Following discussions at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#Template:For2 only a hatnote? – (this link will need updating when that page is archived) – it has been confirmed that {{for2}} is appropriate for use within subsections, and hence is suitable for use in the character pages. It is also the subject of a deletion request, which is currently being opposed by a number of registered editors.

Consequently, Major characters in The Railway Series has been modified to re-instate the cross-page links using {{for2}}, and the opportunity has been taken to revise the link wording for brevity and to minimise repetition. The same still needs to be applied to the other character pages.

EdJogg (talk) 14:37, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Steam roller

Now the steam roller issue:

• cf. wp:mos#Section headings174.3.98.236 (talk) 03:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
• cf. {{overlinking}}. If you diagree, I will tag the article with this.174.3.98.236 (talk) 03:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

OH, so it's you here as well!

I genuinely didn't realise it was the same editor. I'm not making this up or trying to score a point -- honest -- it's much less obvious that IP edits are being done by the same person. If you had registered an account I could see that it was the same editor and not simply someone who was making a right mess of the article. I would be interested to know why you don't wish to register a WP account.

As for the article: steamroller is a type of road roller. The two articles are tightly linked. There is no harm in having multiple links between the same articles when this helps the user. 'Overlinking' applies when there are multiple links within the same paragraph or section. It is quite appropriate to repeat a link in adjacent sections if this will help the user.

Regarding the headings: these are used in numerous articles. Having a heading such as "Steam rollers in popular culture" would break the guidelines, so 'steam roller' is dropped, leaving the titles as used.

EdJogg (talk) 10:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, I have taken a fresh look at the article and applied some changes to address your concerns.

Please bear in mind that your initial edits were applied with no edit summary, so other editors have no idea what your concerns were. Further, as an anon editor, you have no page at which we can ask you questions so that you can explain your motives. Uncommented deletions by anon editors are usually treated as vandalism and reverted on sight.

I tried applying {{Details}} to replace the {{For2}} template which you don't like, however this application requires a pipe-trick to hide an anchored link, and this is not immediately possible with the other template. (This does not bode well for the other issue!)

EdJogg (talk) 14:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Which other issue? No, {{details}} is simpler to use than {{for2}}. You simply can not use {{for2}} for your current applications because {{for2}} is a for disambiguation purposes, and it is to be appended at the top of an article.174.3.99.176 (talk) 22:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Wrong, wrong and wrong. Nowhere does it say that {{for2}} is only for use at the top of an article. Before re-applying the changes I checked with other editors and my usage is perfectly correct. It IS being used for disambiguation purposes, just in a slightly unusual way.

Now please leave this template alone and tackle some other area of Wikipedia that is actually needing fixing. This crusade of yours is wasting an awful lot of time that editors could be spending making constructive edits, and also wasting your own editing abilities.

EdJogg (talk) 22:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Which editors have you talked to. I am going to ask for a 30. On Steamroller, the sections headings are prepositional phrases, not nouns or noun phrases. Those pages you see having this style is incorrect. Which pages are those.174.3.99.176 (talk) 22:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Look at the 3rd bullet: "A link for any single term is excessively repeated in the same article." The article is violating wp:overlink.174.3.99.176 (talk) 23:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

You carefully avoided the qualifying phrase, the rest of the bullet point:

""Excessive" is usually more than one link for the same term in a line or a paragraph, since in this case one or more duplicate links will almost certainly then appear needlessly on the viewer's screen."

In steam roller I have already addressed the overlinking. If you took your blinkers off over the use of the template, you would have seen that I had actually agreed with you. Unfortunately, your obsession obscured the issue.

EdJogg (talk) 23:59, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I did see that there were some changes made, that's good. Still, my edit summary said that the 3 instances should be reduced to one.174.3.99.176 (talk) 00:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

And that would have resulted in under-linking, since links should be provided wherever it would helpful to the reader. I reduced the over-linking (which I probably applied during my first few months of editing) to just those which were helpful to the reader. I have learned during my several years here. -- EdJogg (talk) 00:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I won.174.3.99.176 (talk) 16:34, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Pathetic.EdJogg (talk) 16:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Using {{details}}

This is how you use the template:

{{details|Road roller#Road rollers in popular culture|appearances of diesel-powered rollers on film}}

Retract your vote from the template for deletion.174.3.99.176 (talk) 23:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

You know what, that produces the following result:

Further information: Road roller § Road rollers in popular culture, and appearances of diesel-powered rollers on film

Whereas this:

For appearances of diesel-powered rollers on film, see [[:Road rollers in popular culture]].

avoids the repetition contained within the anchored link and is shorter and neater.

Now I would suggest that these two templates are equally easy to use, and the second is far more versatile.

EdJogg (talk) 00:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Overlinking Policy

Where did you see this: "it is accepted practice that every occurrence in a table (ie in each row) should be wikilinked"?174.3.99.176 (talk) 00:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Somewhere in WP:MOS. Can't remember where. I pointed it out to someone once. The idea is that each row of a table should be able to stand in isolation. I suggest you look at the section in tables and you'll probably find it.

EdJogg (talk) 00:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, it may be elsewhere too, but you'll find this at Wikipedia:Linking#Repeated links among the exceptions, ie:

"In general, link only the first occurrence of an item. This is a rule of thumb that has many exceptions, including the following:

• long sortable tables, in which each row should be able to stand on its own. (Rows which are near the top of the table when it is sorted according to one column can be far from it when it is sorted according to another one.)"

I think since I last read this it has been amended to include the word "sortable". So I would agree that this would not apply to a table which would never be sorted in any other way (such as the list of books in the Railway Series, which by default is already sorted numerically, chronologically, by author and by illustrator -- allowing the user to sort alphabetically by title is a bit excessive!)

I would suggest, however, that a table of (real) locomotives might well be made sortable in the future, so multiple linking is not unreasonable in this instance.

EdJogg (talk) 09:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Would this table of (real) locomotives be sortable or not?174.3.99.176 (talk) 16:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

A table of locomotives on an article about locomotives may well be sortable. A number of such already exist. Some are sortable now. Some may be made sortable in the future. Which is what I said. EdJogg (talk) 16:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

So then do you want the table that I edited to be sortable or not?174.3.99.176 (talk) 14:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I presume you are referring to the table of books at The Railway Series, in which case the answer is "no". Because the books are listed in numerical order -- the order in which they were published -- they are already sorted chronologically. Also, since the authors and illustrators changed in a straightforward sequence, they are already 'sorted' by these categories. I don't think any user would really want to sort the list alphabetically, by author or illustrator, so the only possible sort left would be A-Z by book title, and frankly, I don't think it's worth the effort to provide this!

If you were suggesting that the table should be made sortable just so that we can provide links on every line according to policy, then I don't think it's a good reason to do so. If you weren't, then that's not a problem.

As for "a table of (real) locomotives", this was relating to a table that might be found in an article about a real locomotive -- nothing to do with the Railway Series. Apologies if this confused you.

EdJogg (talk) 19:04, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that very much confused me. Well then the issue is settled: if the table on the railway series is not going to be sortable, then only one bluelink required for identical instances.174.3.99.176 (talk) 03:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I was right. Wikipedia:Linking#Repeated links WAS edited since the last time I looked, which was only last September. I spotted the link at the top of my talk page before I archived it just now. (See User talk:EdJogg/Archive 7#Tables in MOS)

EdJogg (talk) 16:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Awdry, Rev, and TRS

Hey,

When I was having a stab at TRS I tried to remove most of the "Wilbert"'s as they're not very encyclopaedic. Especially as the lead introduced him as "Rev. W. Awdry", followed shortly by "Wilbert did this".WP:SURNAME applies here. You're right that when we use "Rev." we need "the Rev." but where ever possible shouldn't we stick to a simple "Awdry"; certainly before Christopher gets mentioned, after that it gets a bit trickier. It should be fairly obvious in each section which Awdry is being referred, especially if it says "The Rev. W." or "Christopher" first. I don't think we should be using Wilbert/Christopher almost colloquially.

Can you have a look at WP:MOSBIO#Honorific prefixes

"Styles and honorifics related to clergy and royalty...should not be included in the text inline but may be legitimately discussed in the article proper"

Does this mean we can use "Rev." in the first mention, then not? There is probably a case for using the common name/published name, but I would have thought that "Awdry" should be enough.

Have I interpreted this correctly, does it sound reasonable?

Cheers, —MDCollins (talk) 23:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, avoid Wilbert/Christopher as per WP:MOS. Otherwise I would suggest we use whatever feels right at the time. I had no problem with your changes, and using 'Awdry' is fine, provided we know which one. Of course, we are in an awkward position -- most articles probably don't have a father-and-son combination to worry about! In a very large number of the articles where they will appear, it will be one or other, and most likely as "the [[Wilbert Awdry|Rev. W. Awdry]]", and just the once.

As for "the Rev", the addendum for section 3 of the same reference will apply, I think:

"In the cases of certain historic persons, an honorific is so commonly attached to their names that it should be included."

As Wilbert's 'pen name' was effectively [the] Rev. W. Awdry, this is the name he is known by, so I see no reason why it cannot be used -- he's probably the most famous 'Rev' in the world! (How many people think it's his forename, do you think?)

Any help? -- EdJogg (talk) 00:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that's cool. BTW, I see why you were thinking about jumping off a Bridge and began to find your position unreasonably untenable (!)....I'll keep an eye.—MDCollins (talk) 00:37, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Anchors?

What exactly are anchor points, and why do they have to be at the top?174.3.99.176 (talk) 02:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

An anchor is an HTML concept. Every heading that appears in the TOC is automatically an anchor. The anchor can be used to jump straight to the section, so [[#Anchors.3F|Anchors?]] would jump to this section on this page, and [[User talk:EdJogg#Anchors.3F|Anchors?]] can be used to jump to this section from anywhere else on Wikipedia. (Note that they are case-sensitive, and can only contain certain characters -- jump to the section from the TOC and look in the address bar for clues...)

They are especially useful for focussing redirects. Rather than simply redirecting to the top of an article, an anchored redirect will take the user directly to the relevant section. This is how the RWS/T&F character pages were created: a whole series of separate stub articles were combined into one, and the individual pages became links to the sections. Hence, when referring to a character such as Oliver the Western Engine, the user can follow the link to the correct section for the Railway Series character. When he gets there, he will immediately see there's a 'for' link that can take him onwards to the T&F character instead, if that's what he's looking for. That is why the link is at the top of the section.

Since there is the distinct possibility that some toe-rag editor who is not familiar with the article or the subject matter may come along and change the heading text, thereby breaking the redirect, it is possible to add an {{Anchor}} template, which ensures that the text used in the redirect will always find the correct target. This also alerts other editors to the fact that the headings shouldn't be altered without very good reason.

The structure of the character pages, and the redirects to them, was established by consensus and much hard work several years ago, and has remained stable ever since. Editors have thus been able to concentrate on improving the content rather than wasting time faffing about with template changes. (Ahem.)

I'm sure that anchors are mentioned in WP:MOS somewhere, but can't remember off-hand, and haven't tried looking.

EdJogg (talk) 09:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

So then {{anchor}} provides the function you are seeking.174.3.99.176 (talk) 17:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

{{anchor}} is perfect, for providing an anchor. {{for2}} does the job of a cross-link. EdJogg (talk) 00:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Cross-linking?174.3.99.176 (talk) 00:55, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Since your not replying, I've replied here.174.3.99.176 (talk) 02:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

That's very helpful of you. You ask a question of EdJogg, give him 90 minutes, in which he was probably having a cup of tea or sleeping or something (it was 2.30am), then reply on my talk page. EdJogg will see this when he sees it. Posting on another user's talk page won't make him reply any quicker.—MDCollins (talk) 16:06, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Richard Hornsby

Hi Ed I've a feeling that all that the large track development section which is lacking inline refs and was added by one editor originally (who only edited 2 articles) may have been lifted from another source. I may be wrong but just way it reads to me. You know how most self written stuff often has grammar and spelling mistakes (like mine) & benefits from abit of tweeking. ? - BulldozerD11 (talk) 14:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not beyond improvement, and it's not obviously lifted from a website. I tried googling for "Lt-Col. R.E.B. Crompton" and "tractor and trailer with dummy gun", and both only returned this article and its wapedia mirror as hits. Ok, that's not conclusive, but the same technique has found copyvios in the past. Short of labelling it as unreferenced, there's not much you can do really. If you don't have a source to back up your suspicions it's rather unreasonable to label something as a copyvio just because it's been well written! :o)

EdJogg (talk) 15:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Thats Ok Ed I leave it as refimprove, I was just abit suspect and wanted a second opinion. I when to it as it had had a big block of tags added. Unreferenced is often misused because its easy to stick on (when really its ref improve or one of the others) woulden't add copy vio as some over zealous editors delete that sort of article completely instead of the section. I'll leave you to your search through guidance notes and policies that people like to cherry pick :; - BulldozerD11 (talk) 17:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

template for2

Ok, here, you say that you are going to use {{details}}, and up there, you say you don't want to.

What is it. Are you going to use it, or are you going to persist to use something you are no supposed to?174.3.99.176 (talk) 07:29, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

YOU are the ONLY person who says I am not supposed to use it. That does not constitute "consensus"! -- EdJogg (talk) 15:01, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to use {{details}} as it doesn't provide the necessary formatting. {{for2}} provides the correct wording and the correct formatting. Job done. I just haven't found the enthusiasm to change the links yet again. It will happen eventually, and no one will die if I don't do it tonight.

I'm waiting to find out if you get an answer to your question elsewhere regarding {{for2}}. There's no point me changing it just so you can change it again. As I've said repeatedly, there is no problem about using this template for the purpose we are using. The reader sees exactly what he needs to see, and worrying about the mechanics is just wasting time. (Remember Wikipedia:Ignore all rules.)

As you will discover, here at Wikipedia "there is no deadline", so I am getting on with my life rather than spending all the time changing stuff that doesn't need changing. It's bad enough that we have to contend with vandals and well-meaning kiddies adding stuff that is inappropriate in some way, without having futile internal arguments about stuff that wasn't broken in the first place.

EdJogg (talk) 14:54, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

"The reader sees exactly what he needs to see, and worrying about the mechanics is just wasting time." - that's a good point. We could type a line of explanation and format it using wiki-markup if we want to; however a template is there that formats it automatically. A reader doesn't see it, doesn't know that "details" should be used instead of "for2" - who cares? It works.—MDCollins (talk) 16:03, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't care which template you use, as long as it is the right one.

For other uses, see EdJogg (disambiguation).

is hatnote, clear as day. You mentioned "I just haven't found the enthusiasm to change the links yet again. It will happen eventually, and no one will die if I don't do it tonight.". So currently, there is a problem with the issue we have? What exactly is this problem? Are the articles linked to this template somehow incorrectly connected? What, specifically, are the letters that are being used that is providing the obstacle you are describing?100110100 (talk) 21:43, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

What? I'm afraid I don't understand your questions. What letters? huh? You don't care which template we use as long as it is your one you would choose? Who cares if it is a "hat note, clear as day"? What is stopping anyone using it anyway, just not in a hat-note position? Think of it as a hatnote for a section.—MDCollins (talk) 22:55, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Excatly, why don't you ask yourself that question. Why is it in the 3 million articles, that this is the only one to use this hatnote on this article where it should not be used?174.3.99.176 (talk) 06:42, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Because it is not being used as a hatnote; because it provides the right text for the right purpose; because it fulfils a need and is helpful to the user; because I've had it confirmed that there is no problem with using it in this way; and because it annoys the hell out of you! (Why don't you ask yourself the question: Why is there only one editor out of WP's 100,000's of contributors that gets upset by it?) -- EdJogg (talk) 11:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

What excatly do you want readers to read, if you don't want them to read "For the characters in Thomas & Friends, see Bill & Ben (TV Series)." or "For the character in Thomas & Friends, see Oliver (TV series)." or "For the character in Thomas & Friends, see Daisy (TV series)." ad nasuem?174.3.99.176 (talk) 06:42, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Give the readers some credit. If they are directed to a section of the article then they will see it for the first time and use or ignore it. If they are reading the article from top to bottom -- which, as a list, is less likely -- they will see the first link and likely as not ignore the subsequent links. This is not a problem. -- EdJogg (talk) 11:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

You have not answered my question.174.3.99.176 (talk)

I've answered your question many times. You do not seem to be reading the answers. -- EdJogg (talk) 10:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

No, you have not answered my question. What is it that you want to replace this hatnote with.174.3.99.176 (talk) 07:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I think I understand the problem. He doesn't realise that a "hatnote" is a template used at the top of a page. It is the position on the page that makes it a hatnote, not the type of template -- although, granted, there are a number of templates whose normal position is 'hatnote'. I'm amazed someone can get so worked up about 87 bytes of mediawiki code! -- EdJogg (talk) 01:51, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Familiarize yourself with wp:hatnote, since I have already given you the link and you refuse to read it.174.3.99.176 (talk) 06:42, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

"Hatnotes are short notes placed at the top of an article". This is not at the top of an article, ergo this template is not being used as a hatnote. Familiar yourself with the page, and tell me where it says that {{for2}} must be used exclusively as a hatnote, must not be used anywhere else, and because it is listed in a page containing examples of hatnotes why that precludes it from being used elsewhere as a normal template. As I said before, would you have a problem if we removed the template and replaced it with suitable (identical) wiki-markuped text? Oh, by the way, have you checked all 3 million articles that use this template as a hatnote to check their validity, or is it only this one page that bothers you. Good call on the RFC though - just remind me, hasn't EdJogg already requested clarification of this matter here?—MDCollins (talk) 23:09, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I have checked all articles. No article uses this template {{for2}} the way you do. The superfluous text is unnecessary.174.3.99.176 (talk) 02:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't matter if these are the only articles using it like this. I'm sure you could find other articles that had 'one-off solutions to one-off' problems.

"Superfluous text is unnecessary" -- well that is certainly a truism (!), but there isn't any superfluous text here. -- EdJogg (talk) 10:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)