User talk:Aranel/archive3

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

This is an archive of User talk:Aranel from January to April 2005. Please do not edit this page—any comments or additions should be directed to User talk:Aranel.


Hi, I hope I didn't mess anything up on WP:CfD. I had answered Netoholic's call for help on WP:TfD, and some of the templates there had associated categories which I needed to get rid of, and when I came over to CfD to do them I saw how much of a backlog there was, so I set to and tried to clear some of it. I do hope I didn't do anything that messed anything up, and that what I did was helpful. I mostly just deleted entries where someone else (you, often) had already deleted the category, and ones where the categories were already empty and there was no dissent on ditching the category. Still, I think that managed to get the page size down a fair amount. Do let me know if you don't need any assistance, or if I'm doing anything wrong. Noel (talk) 03:09, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

PS: I don't usually check other User_talk: pages (so that I don't have to monitor a whole long list of User_Talk: pages - one for each person with whom I am having a "conversation"), so please leave any messages for me on my talk page (above); if you leave a message for me here I probably will not see it. I know not everyone uses this style (they would rather keep all the text of a thread in one place), but I simply can't monitor all the User_talk: pages I leave messages on. Thanks!

Volunteering to Help with CfD[edit]

Hi Aranel, Well now that I am a newly created admin, I can help out with cleaning up requests on CfD. As you appear to be the main worker bee for this page, I didn't want to start helping without talking with you first. Sortior 17:28, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

Aircraft categories[edit]

I hope you aren't fixing the aircraft categories by hand...I was just about to launch a second Pearle run which moves over text (now that she's completed moving the articles and subcategories). -- Beland 06:47, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Category:Christian people[edit]

I have now responded to your question over on my talk page. Regards. --Gary D 02:55, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

User categories[edit]

Hi, as per the discussion on Wikipedia talk:Categorization#Proposed policy: article namespace categories should not be added to user pages, I'd appreciate you having a look at the categories on Alkivar's user page and doing any necessary adjustments. Since I just proposed and added the guideline to the Wikipedia:Categorization page, I'd prefer it that somebody else made adjustments, if required. Thanks. --Lexor|Talk 13:25, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)


Dear aranel, I wonder why Category:Long Hair people should be deleted. I agree it's stupid, but it is nice to take a special note on people with long hair. People like Diane Witt, Crystal Gayle etc have long hair should be noted. Others says it is useless. Do you think that creating a page List of people famous for their hair is viable.

Anyway, how long is your hair? Mine is up to my mid-waist. Thanks.-User:2love 23:09 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Stub tags[edit]

Thanks for what should be a good change on the Lamb Chop thing. But summarizing "move to PBS stub" sounds like you didn't find the Public Broadcasting System article, and renamed to PBS --- leading some of us to investigate whether your new stub needed conversion to a redir, whether you did a cut-and-paste move, etc. I'd have summarized with "retagged as PBS stub". Thanks, and keep up the good work! --Jerzy(t) 19:53, 2005 Jan 26 (UTC)


Hi Aranel - I got up this morning thinking "only five more subcategories of geo-stub, and that will get it to a workable level". Imagine my surprise to discover two of the five had been done! FWIW, I was planning to put separate categories for all those countries with over 40 geo-stubs in the big Category:Geography stubs, and there are now only three left that have that many - Philippines, Serbia/Montenegro, and Thailand. If you think that any other countries should have separate categories, feel free, but I don't see the point of having separate categories if there are too few articles (the two Liechtenstein geo-stubs won't get a separate category!). Anyway, thanks for putting in Greece and Switzerland, and let me know whether you think the subdividing's gone far enough. Grutness|hello? Grutness.jpg 02:33, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Heh. Sounds like me - compulsive organiser sometimes. My "secret" is that when I started I painstakingly went through all the geostubs and made a spreadsheet of name and country - that's how I knew which countries had over 40 stubs. Every couple of days I compare it with the category to see what new ones have turned up. For the record, other than Serbia-Montenegro, Philippines and Thailand there are a handful of countries with 30 or more (mainly eastern European ones - Hungary, Slovenia, Croatia, and the like). Just seemed to me that 4200 geo-stubs was too many for anyone to look through to see what articles from a particular country needed work. The number of un-sub-categorised geostubs is down to about 1000 now... Grutness|hello? Grutness.jpg 02:44, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

More specific cats for writersby subject area[edit]

I considered, i think, all of those 5 changes, leaving them general in the belief that both fiction and non-fiction can qualify -- e.g. two of my favorites are Patrick O'Brian and W.E.B. Griffin, both primarily novelists.

At the very least i think you need to add descriptions to the Cats making clear what the Cat-titles do not; i expect many will consider you obligated to check each item to confirm their work includes the one you have assumed.

But my opinion is that you're just wrong. If it's worth being specific, the title should show it. It may be that mil fic, e.g., is too small for a cat, but that would be reason for creating Category:Military-nonfiction writers and deleting Category:Military writers rather than misusing the existing cat.
--Jerzy(t) 05:11, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)

While i don't have a list of your changes in front of me, i don't think i meant to include Category:Romance writers, about which we probably agree.

I don't doubt your characterization of them as a "horrible mess", tho i haven't looked lately. When i worked on it, IIRC, Category:Writers was a horrible mess, and IIRC i created or reworked many of its subcats, not believing i had or could eliminate it, but believing segregating it into smaller, more homogeneous messes was an improvement and a platform from which others could tackle smaller messes. (At that time, my main interest among Cats was getting articles and Cats out of Category:People; i think for instance that i moved Category:Editors into Category:Writers (whether or not it has stayed there), and IIRC, at one point i had reduced Category:People from something like 140 subcats to more like 70. (This claim would be very laborious to document, so you don't have to take it seriously!)

I hope we are being careful enough about Cat names, BTW, that we do not useCategory:Military fiction writers (which should include soldiers who write romance novels) as opposed to what we are talking about Category:Military-fiction writers i.e., writers of military fiction.

I gotta run, probably more later.
--Jerzy(t) 00:02, 2005 Feb 1 (UTC)

These are turning into too many secondary issues for me to discuss exhaustively, but:

  • You suggest at least rhetorically
    The alternative, of course, would be to get rid of the fiction and non-fiction subcategories and throw in the lot of them together.
To agree with that means admitting i was wrong in creating Category:Writers by fiction subject area and Category:Writers by non-fiction subject area, but on reflection i suspect that is a good idea for two reasons:
  1. It does not dramatically reduce the size of the categories needed: most subject areas have both fiction and non-fiction subdivisions, so that each of those two Cats is likely to be nearly as large as their common parent
  2. Their own subdivisions don't do a particularly better job of categorizing than the corresponding undivided subject-area categories. The rule "write about what you know" means that many military-fiction writers are military-history and/or military-policy writers, and so on; as a result, the main effect of having both fiction and non-fiction sub-cats of a subject area is to require many or most authors in that area to have two tags rather than one. (Remember that these are categories of people, not of works, so the corresponding argument does not apply in that other realm.)
  • Don't worry about "what is meant by the category", what it "is being used for", or "what was going into them", and don't be surprised that this relatively new Cat structure still needs a lot of work (as perhaps best shown by the very active WP:CfD page). I for one often put articles in Cats by saying, e.g., "well, there should be a Category:German-language operas"; if the preview shows it in blue, i save without further research; if red, i may just strip it back to Category:operas, make sure that is blue, and save it with that tag. This is useful (in contrast to creating red-link tags) because it draws the article to the attention of people who are specializing in subdividing operas, and people who are specializing in correcting bad assignments to opera-related categories. (Better that something belonging in Category:Operas goes into Category:Opera than having it stay untagged: bad tags attract eyeballs; nonexistant tags do nothing.) You can't assume the articles in a Cat reveal anything beyond common mistakes. The text of the cat (its description) is a better indication of what the Cat creator had in mind, but in any case, work out what kind of subdivisions should exist, and fix the names and descriptions as needed to produce them, then find better places for things that don't belong in those good categories, and things that are in categories that shouldn't exist.
  • You say "Consistency may be less important than clarity". Well, yeah, but what we should be discussing is how to achieve clarity, and consistency is an important aspect of that: consistency often makes editors clearer about what categories can be expected to exist, and thus about how to accurately assign articles to categories that they have not paid previous attention to.
  • If you really doubt that "science-fiction writers" is grammatically permissible, you will waste a lot of your colleagues' time if you fail to learn more about English grammar and style.

--Jerzy(t) 23:32, 2005 Feb 3 (UTC)


Thanks for consolidating the text onto one line. It was driving me nuts, but I haven't been hanging around in any of the stub discussions so I didn't know whether it was kosher to redo all the code rather than just using one of the stub templates, so I just left it. I'm much happier now. Elf | Talk 06:51, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

nice answer on romans for reference page[edit]

Very impressive exegesis. alteripse 18:41, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Fungi stub[edit]

Hey Sarah, The reason I didn't list it on the main page was that since I only found a few articles, I wasn't sure if it should be deleted or not. I still waiting for opinions on the question in SSP/criteria. But I guess if you have some use for it, that pretty much settles the issue. --jag123 22:10, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)


Sharing the love. Ereinion 03:12, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)


Don't know if it's "good form" to campaign for votes, but I'm standing for admin and I'd greatly appreciate your vote :) Grutness|hello? Grutness.jpg 05:58, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

...and I made it, 44-0-1! Many thanks for the vote! :) Grutness|hello? Grutness.jpg 06:17, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion of useless stub templates and stub categories[edit]

The idea behind this is not to overly clutter TFD and CFD with the votes, and allow the deletion of both on just one deletion page. Are there any improvements do you think I can make that will change your decision? Granted, this gives some power to the project in respect of stubs, but the number of stubs have grown to a capacity where I believe they need to be controlled. Netoholic has a biased against these stubs, apparently, against its creation.

I am very open, and I wish to see this policy pass, and I'm willing to rework at it. Please let me know what you think I can do to improve it. -- AllyUnion (talk) 23:19, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't have anything in particular against the policy, I just don't think that there needs to be a policy. The current deletion system is already complicated enough! (Also, I think we need to put some more thought into whether deletions should be listed first as templates or as categories. If just the category is listed, it's possible that many people using the template will never notice.) In general, I think we need to make the deletion policy less complicated, not more complicated. Any policy that goes above the bare minimum (i.e. specifying whether to list a stub template for deletion as a template, as a category, or both) is more complicated than we seem to need, currently.
There really is not any difference between a stub template and and any other template with an attached category. (We may actually need a policy to handle those, though. It's occasionally somewhat confusing when one of them comes up for deletion. On the other hand, they come up for deletion quite rarely.) In addition, I see no reason why stubs should be treated differently from anything else that is associated with a project. I just don't think a complicated policy is necessary here. -Aranel ("Sarah") 01:09, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The big problem with deleting a stub template is that, when the template is no longer in use, it is common for the template to be removed entirely. Granted, common sense says to place the original stub template back into place, however, this is not always the case. Actually, I was trying to specify in the policy that if you list a stub template for deletion on TFD and it passes, the category along with the template should be deleted. Likewise for a stub category on CFD. To add everything to this, I wished for the project to have the power of their own voting process to remove stub templates without the need to bother TFD and CFD. I feel that if the project is primarily responsible for creating them, they should be the ones maintaining and destroying them. -- AllyUnion (talk) 01:15, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
It might be appropriate to add a note somewhere at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion that if a stub template is deleted, the generic stub template should be used to replace it. (This is just common sense and I don't think it requires a policy change. Administrators already have the authority to use common sense in handling deletions.)
Absolutely. I asked a question over @ Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Stub_sorting#City-stub_is_an_ex-stub on just this matter Courtland 03:03, 2005 Feb 15 (UTC)
If the project were to decide that a template should be deleted and then list it for deletion, chances are extremely good that it would end up being deleted without any problem. Non-controversial nominations for deletion do not create an appreciable amount of extra work. (Unless the template has to be removed from, say, three hundred articles by hand. In which case it's going to be a lot of work anyway.) I'm afraid that if we say that the stub sorting project has the authority to have templates deleted, it will open the door for other projects to short-circuit the deletion process. -Aranel ("Sarah") 01:21, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I understand your concern openning Pandora's box, but in order for them to do so, they will have to get their policy passed. However, it is not to say that some projects have done something similiar. The WikiProject Music has taken upon themselves to create a guideline for notablity which many people on VFD have cited and used. -- AllyUnion (talk) 01:28, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Furthermore, the Pub-stub template was heavily defended when I placed it for TFD. From what anyone can clearly see, it has no usefulness what-so-ever, especially when it should be favored for struct-stub. -- AllyUnion (talk) 01:30, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I think it would be completely appropriate for us to design our own "notability" policy for stub templates, but I think it can still work if it's "unofficial". A deletion decision made by the project would still carry a certain amount of weight at TfD and CfD.
I agree that the pub-stub template probably should have been deleted--it's possible that if it were nominated now it would be deleted. At the time, stub sorting was much less well-organized. However, if an article, template, or category cannot get through deletion on its appropriate page, then it shouldn't be deleted, period. -Aranel ("Sarah") 01:37, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The thing is, I see this policy is no different from the WikiProject Music's guidelines for inclusion. Would it better to redefine that policy page to say that we can carry over our decision to TFD and CFD? As if our votes on our page is the same thing as voting on TFD and CFD, and all we're doing is moving our discussion over to TFD and CFD? -- AllyUnion (talk) 01:43, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I think that ultimately what we disagree on is whether or not there should be any official policy at all.
If we add an offifical policy about deleting stub templates and categories, I'm afraid that it will actually bog down the deletion process rather than freeing it up. In general, I feel that we should avoid further complicating the deletion process unless we absolutely have to add somethign to it.
I like the idea of having a discussion on the project page and then copying it over to TfD or CfD. Is there any particular reason why we couldn't do that under the existing policy (i.e. is it explicitly or implicitly forbidden)? If I were looking at a category deletion discussion and I noted that, say, nine out of ten people had voted for its deletion on an associated project page, that would be a significant factor in how I handled the decision. We do already have the ability to use our own common sense in these matters. -Aranel ("Sarah") 02:52, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
It might be viewed as vote stacking. That is the only thing I can think of that might be considered as a problem. And I can understand why you don't want to make any official policy. It's kind of like the idea of if a law is passed to restrict certain speech, you don't want to set the precedent that it restricts free speech entirely. I understand that ideal, in that by not creating any official policy what so ever, we are free to do whatever we need to do without any restrictions. However, I think we need to think about scalability here. The Wikipedia will continue to grow, and so will our project, because we will have more and more stubs to sort. If we don't have some policy to deal with the increased growth of the Wikipedia, we will have far too many stubs to handle, and far too many to know what to do with. -- AllyUnion (talk) 06:13, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Female chess players[edit]

I thought the female chess player category was always used in parallel with the chess player category. That's the way for all others.--Sonjaaa 02:08, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, of course. We'd want to link to it eventually anyway, I'm sure. -Aranel ("Sarah") 04:06, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)


Hi Aranel - thanks for updating the Category:Buildings and structures stubs heading (I got called away from the computer before I had a chance to do that!) Grutness|hello? Grutness.jpg 05:59, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Xiaolongnu (stubbing)[edit]

I'm curious as to why you did not remove the stubs altogether on Xiaolongnu instead of just trimming down to one stub? My thought would be to pull the stub off; the article began as a one-liner and was stubbed at the outset (to general). Courtland 04:46, 2005 Feb 18 (UTC)

(see also User_talk:Ceyockey) Quite alright; I'm not really clear on when to de-stub and when to re-stub, which is why I asked. Thanks. Courtland 23:18, 2005 Feb 18 (UTC)


Sorry about that. I meant to remove the ugly gaps on the left sides of the templates, since most stub templates don't have those gaps. --ɛvɪs 06:05, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)


Hey there, Aranel. Nice of you to create this stub class, as using it makes a lot more sense than just aggregating band article on the broadness of music-stub. I am just wondering if you have any icon in mind for it? It makes an aesthetical, but nevertheless important difference. Cheers. --Sn0wflake 05:39, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"External links"[edit]

The MoS calls for the section heading to be "External links" even when there is only one. That's because people are unlikely to think to change it when they add a second one. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:02, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

Much to my surprise, I don't see anything in particular in the MoS. I was just presuming on the basis that I've seen quite a few of these changed, with edit summariest mentioning the MoS. I personally don't really care... -- Jmabel | Talk 03:22, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)


I've seen you're very good in Tolkien related articles. Look this: Nan-tathren. It's a Beleriand place not written yet. You can create it, if you want. See also: Beleriand.


Is there any chance of a message board feature, or perhaps even a private messaging system in the near future? Being a SysOp I figure you might be a bit more privy to anything regarding this than anyone else. EreinionFile:RAHSymbol.JPG 03:35, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)


...for your help on the page moves and redirect deletions.  :-) Antandrus 00:52, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

One thing I can't understand...[edit]

In recognition of your dedication to Wikipedia and Wikipedians in all manner of subjects and projects, I hereby award you with the The Barnstar of DiligenceGrutness 05:13, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC) (KC)

One thing I can't understand is how come you've done so much work for Wikipedia (just look at how many people write here to say "Thanks!"), yet no-one has yet awarded you a barnstar... :) Grutness|hello? Grutness.jpg 05:13, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

re: VfD tags[edit]

Whoops... Thanks. Rossami (talk) 14:19, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please stop vandalsing my userpage. --Capital of Liberty 02:52, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You seem to be somewhat confused, since this is your first edit and when you made it you didn't even have a user page. -Aranel ("Sarah") 03:00, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Red link[edit]

You made me click on the red Sarah! You tricked me! Women are too subtle. :-) Deco 06:14, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

rival pages[edit]

we have two rival pages:

we need to merge the two, or get rid of one. Could you admins decide on how best to proceed? Do we need a vote to decide?

Ther eseems to be a split on the correct spelling, as well.

Lincolnshire Poacher

Samuel W. Alderson[edit]

Hi. Just wondering why you removed the nonagenarian category. It seems reasonably fitting. I didn't revert on the assumption you had a good reason. Denni 19:40, 2005 Mar 10 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the speedy reply. I concur with your reasoning. It seems to me that such a category ought =not= to include living candidates, as the information will take maximally a decade to become stale and could become so much faster. Even better, such an age-related category ought not exist at all, except to group ages in centuries and millenia. Denni 23:26, 2005 Mar 10 (UTC)

Thanks for the support[edit]

I really appreciate your words of support. Some of those delete-related discussions get sufficiently convoluted that you have to drag the votes out kicking and screaming, so to speak. Regards, Courtland 04:02, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship[edit]

on this page you commented that you support User:EdwinHJ's adminship... he's been re-nominated (by me) and you might want to vote here if you still support him as admin, or if you oppose.. Pedant 23:06, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC)

PBS stubs[edit]

Hi. I see you recently stubbed an LA station to PBS stub. I defended this stub & category previously but after sorting many television stubs and being unable to get the size of the category by normal operations (as opposed to hunting specifically) above 50 stubs. Therefore, I've done some stub mergers for Sesame Street characters in an attempt to reduce the population further and make it a better candidate for deletion prior to nominating it. How strongly do you feel that the PBS stub should remain in play? Courtland 17:30, 2005 Mar 13 (UTC)

Robert May[edit]

As a faculty member at Oxford, a British life peer and an eminent scientist, is "Australian-bio-stub" really the best category for Robert May? (I haven't kept up with all the new stub categories, so I don't feel confident suggesting an alternatives). Thanks - and thanks for the work you put into re-stubbing articles. Guettarda 21:03, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As a biologist I will of course be biased, but AFAIK Robert May's honours stem from his contributions as a scientist, so I would probably lean towards scientist-stub. I'll change it to that unless someone else feels strongly otherwise. (Or maybe I should just take it past being a stub, huh? :))

The stubbiness of Jonathan Routh[edit]

Hello, I see you've removed the stubbiness flag from Jonathan Routh. I put it there, and I'd already stuck it back in after it was removed earlier, but I hesitate to revert your change because after all you're an administrator and might come running after me with a mop and bucket, or a pistol or something.

It was an extraordinarily long "stub", but my reason for calling it a stub was that it dealt in some detail with only a tiny percentage of Routh's work, and in a very cursory fashion with the rest. I wrote the moderately detailed bit because it interested me and I had the source materials; I skipped the rest as I knew very little about it and lacked any material -- I was hoping that others would eventually contribute.

So the article still looks stubbly to me.

I don't know whether this merits a reply, but if you reply, please do so here rather than on my page. Thanks. -- Hoary 00:00, 2005 Mar 16 (UTC)

There are way, way, way too many articles in Category:People stubs. I tend to remove stub tags from articles that are borderline stubs because it decreases the number of stubs in the category. Many times, it turns out that the article has been expanded since the tag was added but the person who did the expansion neglected to remove the stub tag. I tend to sort stubs en masse, so I don't have time to look through the history of every one and see how it was tagged in the past. All of which is a rather complicated way of saying that if you really think it's a stub, by all means, reinstate the stub tag. (However, I really recommend using something more specific than bio-stub. There's now a UK-bio-stub. There's also a comedian-stub. And a writer-stub. Take your pick.) Being an administrator really doesn't give me any extra clout in making this kind of call. -Aranel ("Sarah") 02:08, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Gotcha. I really know little about JR other than what I wrote, but my impression is that he's best known as somebody who used to appear on British TV and say moderately amusing things -- a TV "personality" rather than an out-and-out comedian. (I never once saw him myself, and indeed have never even seen a photo of him.) So I think that UK-bio is most likely to catch the eye of potential contributors. I'll add that one. -- Hoary 02:16, 2005 Mar 16 (UTC)

Dukes of Lorraine[edit]

Did you even look at the history of the pages? Somebody tried to make the Dukes of Lorraine into France-related stubs before. As I noted at the time, this is misleading - Lorraine was not part of France until 1766. Until that time, it remained part of the Holy Roman Empire. The Dukes of Lorraine never considered themselves to be French, and, indeed, their heirs are the House of Habsburg-Lorraine. They spoke French, but then so did many other people who were not French. They no more belong being categorized as French than do the Dukes of Savoy. john k 02:35, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

They're not exactly not French, in that they spoke French, and obviously Lorraine is now part of France. But I think it's misleading to call them French in any context. Category:Dukes of Lorraine should not be in Category:French History. I'd support some sort of {{monarch-biostub}} template and category. That way we can evade the issue entirely. john k 14:47, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Doctor (children's game)[edit]

I notice that you left a sceptical comment on this article's Talk page. I'm proposing to empty it and make it a redirect to Children's games (role play). I'd be grateful for your thoughts. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:48, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Short Note on Movie Wednesday Releases[edit]

In reading your many wonderful and cogent messages on the talk pages for The Lord of the Rings movies I noticed an interesting comment on the various days of the week for releases of the movies and vhs, dvd, etc. Not knowing you age (and its none of my ding dang business anyway!) I wanted to let you know that in the late 1960's, through the 1970's, I remember that most movies opened on Wednesday (even into the '80's since Return of the Jedi premiered on a Wed. here). One of the interesting things about life is that, often, something that was commonplace when young may not even be known upon reaching middle age. Best wishes to Aranel and Sarah. MarnetteD | Talk 01:31, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)