Talk:Calvin and Hobbes/Archive 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

External links redux

I cleaned out the external links per WP:EL, removing a number of fan sites. Given the vast number of C&H fan sites, I added a link to DMOZ's listing for Calvin and Hobbes sites, again per WP:EL. I also added a few links for which I couldn't see mention within the article, they might be useful as references at some point? Happy editing! Hiding talk 22:37, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

External Links Compromise (Hopefully)

I noticed that earlier today somebody went through and deleted all of the fan sites from the external links. I have added them back, and also kept the links to various articles and official websites they added. Although a few people seem to feel very strongly about removing the fan sites from the links, the general concensus seems to be to keep them. Thus, I have reorganized the link section based on the format I have seen in most other articles (which by the way, link to fan sites). I have categorized the links into three parts, official sites, fan sites, and articles and other misc. links. Please add fan sites with caution, as some, such as the recently removed "Calvin and Hobbes Browser" have far to many comics on them and thus violate copyright law. Plus, not all fan sites are created equal, so please only add links to useful, and comprehensive sites. In other words, only add the good ones. I hope that this is a compromise that everybody here can agree upon. How does everybody feel about it? - Mjg0503 22:37, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Hi, when you add to a talk page it's usual practise to add to the bottom. I hope you can agree that picking and choosing fan sites constitutes POV somewhat. Also, note that only the sites Calvin and Hobbes::Magic on Paper and The Calvin and Hobbes Jumpstation do not violate Watterson's copyright, and wikipedia has a policy against linking to sites which violate copyright. Given the vast number of Calvin and Hobbes fan sites, I hope people would agree with policy at WP:EL that the best practise is to remove copyright violation sites: External sites can possibly violate copyright. Linking to copyrighted works is usually not a problem, as long as you have made a reasonable effort to determine that the page in question is not violating someone else's copyright. If it is, please do not link to the page. I would also suggest that we follow the policy at WP:EL with regards the clause regarding Fan sites: On articles about topics with many fansites, including a link to one major fansite is appropriate, marking the link as such. In extreme cases, a link to a web directory of fansites can replace this link. I would suggest we link to the DMOZ open source directory, since WP:EL notes with preference to open directories, rather than linking to just one specific fan site, but opinions are welcome. I would appreciate it if people could generate good reason for specifically ignoring established policy. Happy editing! Hiding talk 23:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I will add to the bottom from now on. I diagree that the other sites on the list violate copyright. In fact, Calvin and Hobbes' Magical World has been visited by lawyers from the UPS, and was allowed to stay online. I am the webmaster at Michael's Calvin and Hobbes Site, and in my next update (within a few days, and maybe today if I have time) I plan to remove the comic gallery from the site. I do believe that it is within the confines of fair use, but it is better to be safe than sorry. I plan to instead add a "comic of the month" section, which will only include a few comics on the page for visitors to discuss, and vote for their favorites. In the archive of preivous months, I'll remove the actual strip from the site and add book references. In other words, at any given time I will only have about 5 comics posted on the site, for disucssion purposes only, which is no doubt fair use. Simply Calvin and Hobbes, and the Calvin and Hobbes Hideout have small comic sections, but the collection is so minimal that it serves are basically nothing but an incentive to buy the books. Thus, I do not feel that any of the sites violate copyright, at least not to a high extent anyway.
About the open directory listing: Feel free to add it to links, but I would be against removing the links to the fan sites since many of them are not in the open directory listing, and I feel that they have a lot more to offer than the sites in the directory. In fact, I hae an idea. We should leave only the links to the fan sites already listed, and add a link to the open direcory listing. Then, we should delte links to sites already listed there, and only allow links to sites that have something useful and unique to offer for Calvin and Hobbes fans. In other words, don't link to a site that hasn't been updated in ages and has nothing but two comic strips on it. Sound reasonable? - Mjg0503 23:25, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi, since you admit to being a webmaster of one of the sites in question, do you think you are the most objective person? Also, since policy is clear that we only link to one site, I'd be interested in hgearing a strong argument as to why we disregard that. Please be aware of WP:SPAM, and note that Wikipedia is not a space for the promotion Web sites. Sites which are added by the web master are removed as spam. I think it's also worth noting Watterson's specific views on the characters and copyright. Again, I see no reason why policy should be disregarded. Happy editing! Hiding talk 23:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
I did not add the link to my site, somebody at an anon IP did so. Plus, it is more or less impossible to submit sites to the Calvin and Hobbes listing in the directory, as there is no editor for it, and judging by the amount of dead links, I'd say there hasn't been one for a very long time. I have volunteered for the job about a week ago and still haven't heard from them. Plus, don't you think that we should wait for some other people to respond before you decide to change it? We are looking for a concensus of what to do, so I'm going to change it back before we have the chance to hear some more opinions. In fact, I will leave messages on some of the regulars' talk pages. Happy editing! - Mjg0503 23:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Mike; however, I think that most of the articles should be removed, along with the directory site. If someone wants to search a directory for C & H links, they can do it themselves without a link from Wikipedia. And besides, the extra links the directory provides aren't exactly of the best quality.--FelineFanatic13talk
I sugesst the listing at the Yahoo! Directory [1], if we indeed choose to delete this one, and must have a link to a directory.Mjg0503 00:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm inclined to suggest that all the sites be removed except for the two official ones and Magic on Paper, which has extensive information about the promotional packages distributed to publishers. Feezo (Talk) 02:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree with that. The fan sites (even Mike's) are awash with copyrighted material (multiple strips, extensive text cut+pasted from Bill's books etc.). WP:EL is quite clear on the linking to sites containing copyrighted material. --OscarTheCattalk 08:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
I have removed all of the comics (except for the first and last) from my site, so I am sure that it is no longer violating any copyright, as having two comics on your site with comments and a disclaimer is certainly fair use. You can feel free to delete it, but not on copyright grounds. Mjg0503 17:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

The articles have been added due to their research value. We must not lose sight of the fact that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, therefore there is value in adding such links to germane articles which may aid researchers using wikipedia as such a tool. I would also draw attention to relevant sections of WP:EL:

What should be linked to 5 Sites that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article. Ideally this content should be integrated into the Wikipedia article, then the link would remain as a reference. 6 Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as textbooks or reviews.

I'd also note that the extensive information at Magic on Paper should be incorporated into the article, if we do not contain it, and then add the site as a reference. Happy editing! Hiding talk 13:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Respect policy

I'm not currently seeing a clear consensus here that the policy at WP:EL be ignored. I'm also somewhat confused by comments in the edit summaries that the links remain until there is consensus to remove them. This is contrary to Wikipedia policy. As a rule the fall back is that the policy position is used. Can people explain why they keep reverting the position established by policy? I am not going to engage in an edit war, but I wish to point this out: Wikipedia policy is formed from a consensus of many editors, and should not be disregarded as easily as this. I would also point out no demonstrable consensus to link to fan-sites exists even on this talk page. I would ask that people consider their reasoning before reverting edits made in clear line with established policy. I appreciate people may wish to see fan-sites listed, but Wikipedia has clear guidance that at best one fan site should be linked too. This article is a featured article, and should be held to the highest standards. Wikipedia works best when we all assume good faith in each other. Let's not lose sight of that fact. Can I also remind people of WP:3RR. There are a number of editors who are close to breaching this policy. I am still not clear why edits made in good faith and in line with policy are being reverted.

  • Is it fair to say there is no consensus to ignore the directions at WP:EL with regards the fan sites? Happy editing! Hiding talk 13:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
We seem to be at a dead heat at the moment. Should I try to find others to participate? Mjg0503 20:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
You seem to misunderstand my question. Do you accept there is currently no consensus to ignore the policy at WP:EL? Hiding talk 20:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I agree that we stick to the WP:EL guidelines. There's going to be quite a debate over which fan site gets the lucky one external link though. --OscarTheCattalk 20:40, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
There is not a consensus not to remove it either. Can you offer any other type of solution other than doing it the exact way you want to? In my opinion, the article should offer links to other sites that users would find interesting, and more often than not, fan sites are more useful resources than official sites or newspaper articles. And there are many other excellent articles (e.g. Scooby-Doo, Cheers) that have links to various fan sites, because they are quite useful to users. A good example of this is the Calvin and Hobbes Hideout. Without the link on wikipedia, I would never have known it exsists, and I find it to be a very useful reference, and just all around fun to visit for the C&H fan. I'm open to compromise. - Mjg0503 20:50, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

There IS consensus to remove the links. It is enshrined in the policy at WP:EL. You do not seem to acknowledge that: this issue has been debated many times on many articles, and the policy at WP:EL was established precisely to avoid these situations. Your point of view has already been considered: the majority feel Wikipedia is not a link directory. We are not here to provide links to other sites. Policy is absolutely clear on this. Hiding talk 10:00, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I've read over the policy and it said that it was a guidline not a strict, no flexability poicy. It also said that an article should not be soley a collection of external links, not that it can't have a moderate sized link section after an extremely large article like this one. - Mjg0503 17:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, here's my idea. I think we should list all the links on this talk page and what their good qualities are; then put it to a vote for which ones we should keep. Sound good?--FelineFanatic13talk

Fantastic idea, FelineFanatic13! Let's do it! I think that this is the most fair and democratic way to settle this. - Mjg0503 00:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Remembering that voting is evil and that wikipedia is not a democracy, of course. - brenneman{T}{L} 02:04, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, see Wikipedia is not a democracy. We need to reach a concensus here. Wikipedia policy dictates that external links are kept to the bare minimum, as User:Hiding is saying. One fan site gets linked, which I suggest has itself a directory of further links. --OscarTheCattalk 10:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I used a bad adjective. What I really want to do is something similar to the AfD page, where people post whether they agree or disagree with keeping it. Instead we can call it a "links for Deletation" . - Mjg0503 11:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Sounds a little like we're making up policy as we go along. Any useful content on the external links ought to be alluded to in the C&H article, with a {{cite web}} reference added to the article. That way, the pertinent external links are referenced in context rather than a plethora of "External links" at the bottom of the article. I've done a minor edit to the article, showing how this approach is used for a reference to C&H Magic On Paper, where discussion of collectable items is documented, early in the article. --OscarTheCattalk 12:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I couldn't agree more with this approach. Hiding talk 13:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
OK, grand. I've re-jigged the article to make use of the more usual reference style. I hope this encourages Michael and everyone else to add references as necessary, in an effort to reduce the external links section. --OscarTheCattalk 16:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand exactly what you are doing? Are you saying that if a site is in the external links, that some portion of it should be referenced somewhere in the article? It's not exactly what I had in mind, but it sounds like a good compromise. I think,however, that we should leave maybe a couple of un-referenced links for further research, but if nobody agrees with me, we don't have to do that. I'll see if my site, or any of the others, have anything to add to the article and reference them later today when I have time. If they don't have anything to add, we can delete them. - Mjg0503 17:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Great. I've had a look at your site and am sure you'll have content that should be referenced from wikipedia. And as you say, those external links with nothing to offer will then be removed, to keep the main article concise. --OscarTheCattalk 18:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I've cleaned out the EL section. I left links to three fan sites, Calvin and Hobbes Hideout, Magic on Paper, and the Jumpstation (which can be considered more of a directory). Simply Calvin and Hobbes may be a good reference tool in the future because of its weird facts section [[2]], but for the moment I have removed it, along with my site, until they have something referenced in the article, which should be put in the references section anyhow. - Mike"mjg0503"talk 21:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

External links agreed upon?

Looking at the EL as they stand now, is it safe to say that everything is cool now? There are links to the official sites, three fan sites and a few articles and a radio show. - Mike (talk) 16:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I see no harm in including fan sites provided that their quality/content is good, but i think the link verification dates can be removed. If someone finds a broken link, then he will removed it. -- vineeth 16:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't see any harm in it either, but if you read over this disucssio you'll see that others, most notably Hiding, feel very strongly about having them removed. So, OscarTheCat came up with this compromise. - Mike (talk) 17:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't quite think this was the compromise Oscar came up with, and I've also removed the Magic on Paper link since it displays interviews which are copyright, therefore violating copyright, as I discussed on your talk page, where I made note of the copyright notice within that issue. Hiding talk 21:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Magic on Paper is in the references. Is it all right to keep it in the references, since a large amount of the info is from there? - Mike (talk) 21:42, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Where a site is the source of the information, for example A Concise Guide To All Legitimate (and some not-so-legitimate) Merchandise, it is okay to use it as a reference. Where a site reposts an interview or article, we should not link to that site in the reference if the site hosts the information in violation of copyright; the source is not the site but the original source itself. This is for two reasons: first, the violation of copyright, and second, in the verification of the source. It may be that the site has transposed the article incorrectly; something which can only be gleaned from checking the original text. The original text is what we cite as our source; it is therefore the one we should list. If people want to post links to the talk page noting that such and such an interview is online at blah blah blah, I don't think policy as yet precludes that. Hiding talk 22:00, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

ODP Listing

I have been accepted as the editor for the Calvin and Hobbes listing at DMOZ, so now all of the links are up to date. Plus, I've added links to some better sites. Anybody here with a contribution should submit it! I'm going to add it to the links now, since it is up to date, and better quality. --Mike (talk) 22:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

John oh

Can someone please ban John oh? He keeps removing my merge tags before an agreement has been settled. It's really beginning to annoy me.--FelineFanatic13talk

Yes, somebody PLEASE block John oh. He keeps deleting my merge tags for the Calvin article. - Mjg0503 21:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Unless he breaks the 3RR I can't actually block him. However, can we conclude these merge discussions? As this page is already above the recommended size, are people happy that the Calvin article should not be merged back here? As to the minor characters, is there consensus on merging those? Hiding talk 23:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
It seems to be consensus to merge Moe, and Rosalyn into Secondary characters in Calvin and Hobbes, but Susie Derkins and Miss Wormwood seem to have a good following (I think that they should be left as is, I'm only concerned with the others). Opinion seems divided on Calvin. - Michael Goonan"mjg0503"talk 02:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC) Thanks to OscarTheCat for teaching me, in all my ignorance, how to make my sig cool! :)
Calvin should obviously be kept if Miss Wormwood and Susie are. Feezo (Talk) 05:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm, there's a bit of a mess here isn't there. Right, the basic principle on Wikipedia is that this article, Calvin and Hobbes, is the parent. But, we have a size limit of about 34k or so, which this page breaches. So we tend to split sections off into other, sub-article, such as has happened for Calvin (Calvin and Hobbes character). This means we leave a paragraph at most on #this page, detailing the main points regarding his character, but split the body of the text to a new article and link them via the main and sub templates. So there shouldn't really be any suggestion of a merge of that information back here.
However, the information on Calvin's alter egos should quite probably be moved to Calvin (Calvin and Hobbes character), rather than kept at Secondary characters in Calvin and Hobbes, since they apply more specifically as aspects of Calvin rather than as secondary characters. I would suggest the meat of the information in the Supporting characters section of this article be moved over to Secondary characters in Calvin and Hobbes, (leaving a small paragraph and linking templates), along with Moe, Rosalyn, Miss Wormwood and Susie. The text at the latter two is currently unsourced, so unless we can source that information, the articles on them will probably shrink and can be merged back in. We would then rename Secondary characters in Calvin and Hobbes to Supporting characters in Calvin and HobbesNote, none of this precludes any section being broken back out when information warrants it, but at the moment I think it's best to work through a plan of action based on WP:FICTION and WP:BREAK and move it forwards once we see what we've got. Other sections that we should consider breaking out into seperate articles include the recurring subject matter, the books section and the history, all of which could stand referencing but could also be better expanded. That's my thoughts on taking this forward.
My overall principle is that this article be the main article, and be an obnjective overview of the sub-articles; the trunk to the sub-article's branches. Thoughts? Hiding talk 15:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Hiding - thanks for the write-up. Having read that, I took at look at some other similar articles to see how they handle it.
The Simpsons wasn't much good, 71k for the main article.
Scooby Doo, main article 34k, each character in its own article (even the quite un-notable Tar Monster).
Captain Marvel, main article 45k, was a featured article, one paragraph for the entire supporting cast, plus articles for the Marvel family and Enemies of Captain Marvel.
Dilbert, main article less than 34k, 1 paragraph for each major character, plus a separate article for each major character, plus an article for minor characters.
The Dilbert approach seemed the best one I found, how about we use this then? I think it follows your proposal too.--OscarTheCattalk 15:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
We need to create an article for Hobbes as well. I'll get it started. Be forewarned that I am by no means an excellent speller, so be on the lookout. I'm stil not sure this is the best idea though, as this became a featured article with the character section as part of it. Instead of making articles for each individual character, do you think that we should just make one article called Characters in Calvin and Hobbes so that it is not divided into fifty different articles? - Mike (talk) 20:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
If you want more examples, see Batman and Superman, both of them featured and both of which have recently been shrunk by the method I described above. Hope that helps. Still, you are entirely free to plough your own furrow, I am merely pointing you to policies and guidelines which exist to guide in these circumstances. For the guidance on page size, see Wikipedia:Article size, which, fair play, has changed a bit since I last looked or my memory is going. The old limit was in fact 32 kb, but now there is a soft limit of between 30 and 50 k. This page is 70 k, so does need some trimming, but if, as Michael suggests, we move Hobbes into his own page and the supporting characters out that would probably get the page down to size. I think that's what you are suggesting, and even what you graciously suggest I was suggesting, yeah? Hiding talk 20:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
I've just looked at Dilbert, and ever the contrarian, I have to say I'm not keen on the layout used there. I think the paragraph per major character as structured there is pretty ugly. I'd rather see a paragroah pr two detailing the major characters, rather than each character getting a section. I'm pretty sure there's a policy somewhere that section headings should not be links. Probably in the manual of style somewhere. Hiding talk 20:50, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Agreed - the Batman/Superman articles look good, decent size, 43k/44k. So we should aim for the Calvin article to be a similar sort of size, certainly less than 50k. --OscarTheCattalk 11:45, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
What I mean is put the individual character articles, and Secondary characters in Calvin and Hobbes into one article. I really like your idea, I'm just saying that maybe we should take it a step further. I just think that this would make it less difficult to navigate between pages. - Mike (talk) 21:11, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't think that's the best solution, since we can't link to subsections of articles, in case the subsection hgets renamed and thus the link is broken. Calvin, to my mind, is such an important character, and there is so much that can be written on him, that he should get his own article. I would think if you put all the characters on one page it would also scrunch out at over 50k. Navigation isn't really an issue: that's the whole point behind wiki links. Hiding talk 21:20, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. So what you are saying we should do then, is give Calvin and Hobbes their own articles, and put others like Miss Wormwood, Susie, and Rosalyn into the secondary characters article? I think that sounds good! - Mike (talk) 21:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Yep, that's my understanding. Just hope we don't get into big discussion over who is a secondary character and who isn't! Miss Wormwood, Susie, Rosalyn, Mother, Father and Moe all sound like secondaries to me. Calvin's alter-egos ought to be in the Calvin article, in my opinion. Perhaps Calvin's mother+father ought to each have a section in the secondaries article, at the moment they're merged into a single section. --OscarTheCattalk 11:45, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
In my opinon, everybody except for Calvin and Hobbes are secondary characters, and I agree about moving Calvin's alter egos to the Calvin article. - Mike (talk) 16:12, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Character articles merged/written

Phew! I merged all of the character stubs into secondary characters in Calvin and Hobbes, moved Calvin's alter egos to Calvin's article, wrote an article on Hobbes based on what was here. I then abridged the character sections of the main article. It is now down to 59 kilobytes. The secondary characters article may require some cleanup. Happy editing! - Mike (talk) 23:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Splendid. I've done a dozen or so edits, just fixing some minor typos and added a ref or two. --OscarTheCattalk 22:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I did my best to go through and fix grammar and duplicated points, but I coudn't catch all of them John oh has a habit of repeating himself, it seems. I also reworded a few sections, and updaed the wikilinks - Mike (talk)] 23:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


Since Calvin and Hobbes is published worldwide, would it be a good idea to create an article on different translations?

An early translation in Dutch changed the names to 'Casper and Hobbes.' Later translators would have to keep these changes in. Though the names of minor characters were later corrected again. The name of Susie Derkins was 'Ilse' in Dutch and ms Wormwood was 'mevr Wormhout.'


Kaye (in The Netherlands)

- 12:31, March 14, 2006 (UTC)

See Calvin and Hobbes in translation - Mike (talk) 19:27, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


It's late here, so I may be missing something obvious...but how was a permanent tattoo applied during an interview? Superm401 - Talk 10:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Appears that it was done as part of the Spade in America sketch within Saturday Night Live, with various cuts (see So this would suggest it wasn't done live.
You can see the full thing if you get the DVD (see --OscarTheCattalk 10:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Okay, but can we really believe it was done by Sean Penn? Superm401 - Talk 10:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, the C&H publishers Andrews McMeel say he did it, imdb says he did it, David Spade himself says he did it, there's a TV sketch showing him doing it, there's a DVD available showing him doing it.....that all sounds good enough to me. Smiley.png If you come across some details of how much involvement Sean Penn had (whether he did all the tattoo himself, whether he merely traced it etc), by all means update the article. But I think the article is ok as it stands, given what we know right now. --OscarTheCattalk 10:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. I thought maybe he only did the beginning and end (because of the cuts), but if all sources agree that's good enough for me. Superm401 - Talk 11:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Further outsourcing?

The article still is 59 kb, and should probably get down to around 50. Outsourcing the characters cut 11 off. Does anybody know what else we can outsource? I would think that the books would be a good idea, we could just create and link to another article caleed List of Calvin and Hobbes Books. Sound good? - Mike (talk) 00:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Great idea, it will be good if we do this. --vineeth 05:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, good idea. If we can get it down to less than 50kb, that's a reasonable article size, per WP:SIZE. One thing I want to add though : should we consider creating an article per book, as was done with Dilbert#Media. (Just want to cover all bases before we commence work on this) --OscarTheCattalk 16:50, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
I don;t think every book is worthy of its own article, except for maybe the Complete collection. However, I would be for adding more information about them in the books article. Typical mergist ideology, I guess! - Michael Goonan"mjg0503"talk 21:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
OK, grand. I'm sure there's significant extra content we can add about each book, eg the Watterson intro, particular themes (e.g. the beanie hat). --OscarTheCattalk 21:42, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Good, shall we commence? I have copied the table to the new article, but I want to make sure there is a concesus before I do anything to the main article.- Mike (talk) 22:06, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I went ahead and removed it. The main article is down to 53K now. Feezo (Talk) 01:13, 24 March 2006 (UTC)