Talk:European Union/Archive 16

message: Whey, we have GA finally! Okay, good work everyone, doesn't look like outstanding issues have been brought up. Now do we break to do some more work on it, get a peer review or skip straight to FA and deal with the issues as they bring them up there. I favour the latter personally as we need more feedback but to wait for a peer review on something this long.. ugh. Any objections, thoughts, anything we need to do before hand? - J Logan t: 18:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I asked Daimanta (whom I think did a very thorough job on the GA review) to give a very brief impression about our chances for the next steps, so we have some kind of outsider input in this. Arnoutf 19:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great! —Nightstallion 21:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, we have out opinion. Thoughts now? How should we continue? - J Logan t: 21:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Simply nominate it and react to criticism as it comes along? I don't think there's very much wrong with the article any more... —Nightstallion 20:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not so sure, there still unresolved issued relating to the article structure and inclusion of certain topics (sport and religion for example). What's the hurry? We can at least try for peer review. Caveat lector 13:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Sport and religion kind of died down, I don't think it is much to throw around right now really. I for one am prepared to live with it unless people really want to do something about it. I say we just react to criticism as it comes, if they see it as a problem, them we deal with it? - J Logan t: 09:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I can live with the current sports and religion versions. I could support either approach, go for FA and see what happens (this is the quick and painless way and might result in relatively quick FA status, on the downside if it is turned down we have to reconsider); or do it the cautious way go through Peer Review and only later FA (this will take longer, but might later on increase chances for an easy pass as some more issues have been perfected-also perhaps mentioning peer review will count as positive for some admins in the FA process). I am not sure which strategy is wisest. Arnoutf 09:36, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  BTW, just a remark. I just skimmed through the last version we put up FA (May 2006), see article history. I think the current version is much better; but then again, requirement for FA has gone up tremendously since 2006. Arnoutf 09:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thing is with Peer Review is we are still only getting one perspective on ti after all that time, I'm nto sure how much it would help us, we already have loads of opinions here. - J Logan t: 10:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The advantage of Peer Review is that it is flagged as requiring attention at another place possibly bringing in new perspectives/ideas. I think that's what we got from Daimanta in the GA review who did a thorough job checking things we had not previously considered. Arnoutf 19:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Okay, why not. It will add legitimacy to the FA as well and perhaps bring in 3rd point in respect to the "discussion" below. Perhaps there is a manner we can address that we have not considered. I will put to forward for Peer Review shortly unless there are objections soon. - J Logan t: 20:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Post GA 

message: I've noticed we haven't got any information at all on Wikipedia on former groups in the European Parliament. Could someone help me with that? —Nightstallion 21:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh I totally understand we do need it, even the current groups are lacking data. There is the French website that gives an outline but even with that the whole topic gives me a headake. But I'll help, I might be able to get my head round it in doing so, but so long as we don't end up creating fifty billion stubs for each tiny change the groups went through. - J Logan t: 21:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe simple an article listing all the former groups in one article? —Nightstallion 20:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering the amount of data we have available to us right now it would be the best start. Most are former versions of current groups anyway. - J Logan t: 20:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Call for help

message: Are you sure Portugal is one of the countries where most people believe in a God??? According to the map. I don't really think so, 80% of the population? Or more?? I am Portuguese, born and raised, lived here all my life, and I can tell you that maybe around 80% of young people are not religious, that 50% of grown ups aren't religious, and that 20% of old people are not religious. This also changes when we talk about North and South of the Country (being the North much more religious by tradition); and it changes again from Coast to Country (Coastal cities and towns are much less religious than in the interior of Portugal.
So, probably no more than 50% (or 60%) of the population believe in a God. 
Where can I see the stathistics this document is based on?
Everyone knows (at least here) that Spaniards are much more religious than we are in Portugal.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.242.251.230 (talk • contribs) 
: Data is based on the 2005 Eurobarometer. (Eurobarometer 225: Social values, Science & Technology (PDF). Eurostat (2005). Retrieved on 2007-07-21.) the document PDF is here. In the article text the reference (136) gives the link to the document; so you might have checked the reference before putting up this question.
: Note the difference between Religion (ie being member/active in a church like community) versus believing in some kind of God (ie there is more than just physics). 
: BTW Arguments like everybody knows are not accepted in Wiki. Arnoutf 21:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think they are: you just produced figures in a ref to counter them. Sandpiper 18:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nah that's the wrong way round ... citations are needed to insert "facts" rather than to dispute them. Abtract 19:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I trust the figures from Eurostat here. If Spain is indeed more religious, on whose authority would that go into the text, from someone who compares Lisbon with a small Spanish village?? Eurostat (the official statistics agency of the EU) provided the numbers in the article. Disagree with that? Provide a reputable source. (BTW in the strain everybody knows reasoning: Spain does accept same-sex marriage which is not typical of a very religious country so it can't be more religious than let's say Denmark, which does not). But no kidding, I don't care whether Portugal or Spain is more religious, as long as a reputable source is used.  Arnoutf 19:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sadly I have a hankering for accuracy  more than plausible deniability, but there we go. Sandpiper 08:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that accuracy based on "everybody knows" is very unlikely. As I stated above, if there is a source supporting Spain being more religious than Portugal, I am happy to accept that. Arnoutf 10:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I'll also point out that Eurostat gains its data also from national statistics agencies so I don't think there would be a problem of arms length here. Perhaps the difference can be accounted for on the grounds of "god" generically, does one have a higher immigrant population perhaps? I know in the UK the most religious people tend to be Muslims and the Poles who are pushing the figures up. Anyway, as you are talking about EU and national statistics, I am not sure if there is anything with the same standing we can use. Can we just take this as either on the ground you don't see the whole of society or that statistics are always a load of rubbish anyway and while interesting they are not gospel. - J Logan t: 10:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religion 

message: Since the GDP figures on the page seem to be in constant flux, I thought it would be helpful to repeat them here.
According the IMF's April estimates the EU's gross GDP will be $15,849.154 billion for 2007. This should be rounded to $15.8 trillion (not 15.7 as the article previosuly stated). The same database gives $14,518.503 billion (or $14.5 trillion) for the adjusted PPP GDP. 
The IMF's database was last updated in September during which the Euro-dollar exchange rate (on the 14th of September, for the sake of anything better) was €1 = $1.3860 which translates to a € GDP of €11.4.
I going to reassert these figures on the article. Caveat lector (shortly to be renamed Blue-Haired Lawyer) 19:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the October data sheet  with a 	Gross domestic product, current prices of $ 16,574.443 in 2007.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.179.43.242 (talk) 12:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So does anyone actually calculate the figures in native euro amounts not subject to dollar-euro exchange rate translation? Sandpiper 18:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GDP figures (again) 

message: BHL, I see you just inserted  Under these reforms it is intended to move away from subsidy linked production toward direct payments based on farm size and historic production levels. Instead of my Direct subsidies paid to farmers have ceased to be dependent upon the type of crop grown, but instead flat rate payments per hectare of cultivated ground, with premiums for environmentally friendly farming practices. 
First, I'm not quite sure whether you accept now that my edit is factually accurate? If not, please explain.
Second, your proposed alternative still seems to me to be imprecise. toward direct payments ...based on historic production levels is either wrong or misleading, depending on what you mean by it. It is the intention that the subsidy a farmer receives will not be dependant on his historic production levels in any way. The amount of it will in the first instance depend upon how much  his country received historically, now distributed a different way, but I would not understand that from what you wrote. 
Also, what do you mean by it is intended to move away from subsidy linked production. Price support subsidies will continue. Production will continue to be subsidised by the direct payment to each farmer. It is true that Direct subsidies paid to farmers have ceased to be dependant upon the type of crop grown, but you struck that out. Sandpiper 13:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: alternative wording

message: I've copied them over for easy access, and also as I doubt many people are watching the PR page - J Logan t: 09:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, some of these comments have been dealt with, what do people think about the rest? - J Logan t: 12:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the comments are in general useful;  I may look into it in more detail, (sorry that I am a bit absent at the moment, I have a tremendous workload in my non-wiki life at the moment)Arnoutf 17:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ditto, I haven't had chance to go through these in detail (despite the addict in me keeping me coming back when I shouldn't) as some of the changes would need a bit of rewriting doing. Plus some are touching on the contentious elements and bits like not summarising History etc is less explosing the problems here and more the weakness of our other articles. One this FA is done, I suggest we to try to restart the collaboration - we need it on many major articles. - J Logan t: 18:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Been looking through again, do we actualy have to introduce sub-sections all the time? I've never come across this need on other articles. And is tourism info vital? Anyone have that? - J Logan t: 11:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer Review Comments

message: The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
*The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs. Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.[?]
*The lead is for summarizing the rest of the article, and should not introduce new topics not discussed in the rest of the article, as per WP:LEAD. Please ensure that the lead adequately summarizes the article.[?]
*Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?]
*If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.[?]
*Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 000 km, use 000 km, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 000 km.[?]
*Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.[?] Specifically, an example is 000 km.
*When writing standard abbreviations, the abbreviations should not have a 's' to demark plurality (for example, change kms to km and lbs to lb).
*Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.[?]
*As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), dates shouldn't use th; for example, instead of using January 30th was a great day, use January 30 was a great day.[?]
*Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.[?]
*There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
**it has been
**is considered
**might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?] 
*Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: harbour (B) (American: harbor), neighbour (B) (American: neighbor), favourite (B) (American: favorite), meter (A) (British: metre), metre (B) (American: meter), defence (B) (American: defense), organise (B) (American: organize), recognise (B) (American: recognize), criticise (B) (American: criticize), ization (A) (British: isation), isation (B) (American: ization), fulfilment (B) (American: fulfillment), programme (B) (American: program ), sceptic (B) (American: skeptic).
*Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, APR t 02:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Automated Peer Review Comments 

message: *LeadNeeds slight expansion.  Some parts of article aren't summarized
*History The only thing not summarized from the daughter artcile was the issues under Former Yoguslovia.
*Geography The intro doesn't introduce the "Environment" sub-section. The long list of member states is hard to read.  Maybe it would better to name them in the various groups they joined in for some sentence structure.  The last sentence under "Member states" is hidden by the image caption on my screen.
**Is it Macedonia or Former Yugoslavia Republic of Macedonia?  Make sure images and text are consistent throughout.
**You show Main article: European Commissioner for the Environment That is not a main article for this section if you read it.  Remove the hatnote and simply link to article in the text by mentioning the office.
*GovernanceAgain the intro does not introduce the subsections very well and is a little repetitive with the "Politics" section.  No mention of European Central Bank.
*Foreign relations This is not a very good summary of Foreign relations of the European Union.  Doesn't introduce sub-sections and is overall weakly organized.
*Justice, freedom and security This is a strong section and might deserve higher billing.
*Economy Could better summarize Economy of the European Union.  Missing information on Unemployment and Tourism in particular.
*Demographics  This is only missing information on Migration/Immigration.  I would have this directly follow the "Geography" section.
*CultureThis is a reads well on its own, but there is some theoretical overlap with Demographics.  Is language culture or demographics?  It is a strange in terms of overall organization.  I wonder if would better be re-worked in a different way.
*Misc. Overuse of Main article hatnote.  You can link within the text or use a different hatnote if it not a true daughter article.--BirgitteSB 18:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, some of these comments have been dealt with, what do people think about the rest? - J Logan t: 12:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the comments are in general useful;  I may look into it in more detail, (sorry that I am a bit absent at the moment, I have a tremendous workload in my non-wiki life at the moment)Arnoutf 17:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ditto, I haven't had chance to go through these in detail (despite the addict in me keeping me coming back when I shouldn't) as some of the changes would need a bit of rewriting doing. Plus some are touching on the contentious elements and bits like not summarising History etc is less explosing the problems here and more the weakness of our other articles. One this FA is done, I suggest we to try to restart the collaboration - we need it on many major articles. - J Logan t: 18:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Been looking through again, do we actualy have to introduce sub-sections all the time? I've never come across this need on other articles. And is tourism info vital? Anyone have that? - J Logan t: 11:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review by BirgitteSB 

message: The animated map in the member states section overlays material in the next section if the article is viewed on a wide screen (rather than the text flowing round it). Does anyone know how to fix this? Sandpiper 23:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also have that problem on Safari, it is okay on both Opera and Firefox though (SSJ uses Opera I think so I don't think he sees these errors when he makes the images). I do not know the exact cause though nor how to fix it. - J Logan t: 08:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  For me too on Windows Internet Explorer. I think it has to do with the fairly advanced template that is underlying the map :template:European Union Labelled Map (blue). Can someone who knows about these codes have a look please. For now I solved it by putting the clear text thingy in , but that looks ugly because of all the white space created; so it should be seen as temporary at best. Arnoutf 10:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Still bad in my copy of IE6.xx SouthernElectric 10:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see problems these problems om my computer, but you can try to tweak the style margin in the template. (style="margin-left/bottom/top:14px;") (But don't alter margin-right). - S. Solberg J. 12:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What browsers do you have SSJ? Have you tried on IE at all, if so we know it is something else.- J Logan t: 14:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

text: And Arnoutf], think it is due to text sizes but the  doesn't work for me as the image comes down inside the third para, it cuts off everything from similar to relationships. - J Logan t: 14:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it fixed now? I've made the bottom margin thicker. I have a 1024x768 screen and use Opera. The map looks good with my IE6. - S. Solberg J. 15:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, perfect on my screen SSJ, thank you! - J Logan t: 15:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok in my copy of IE6.xx too, many thanks SouthernElectric 16:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Still ok after I removed the clear template (creating the white space)?? Looks fine in Firefox and IE Arnoutf 20:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Aye, fine on mine! - J Logan t: 12:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Just an extra minor point, just thought that the articles are meant to be okay for reading printed off etc. Should not the first frame of the map show the whole EU for that situation then? - J Logan t: 11:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, and there is another issue, that some people have intensionally disabled the animation aspect of .gif files (due to sites misusing the file format in banner ads etc.) so the first frame should really contain all information. SouthernElectric 11:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. - S. Solberg J. 12:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks - J Logan t: 13:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Animated map formatting error 

message: This map/image has been recently changed. Because of non-linear (unlogic) coloring, it now has become less readable and decreased in quality. Does anybody know how to reestablish the old version? all the best Lear 21 15:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you look at the full scale map it is fine. Abtract 15:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Perhaps it is something you should deal with on the image talk page rather than here? - J Logan t: 16:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree the map is much worse, I also agree this should be discussed at the image page rather than here. Arnoutf 22:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

text: That map is acceptable as alternative. I edited your (Lear21) comment to make the link to the image. By inserting a colon before image you get an active link, but not the image. Arnoutf 15:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks for reverting it again. Arnoutf 21:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religion/Image:Europe belief in god.png 

message: I was just looking at some of the refs. The section on legal systems has a ref note 50, which says article 249, treaty of Rome. According to wikisource, , this treaty only has 248 articles. Suggestions, anyone? Sandpiper 00:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, the reference is misleading. It is not the treaty of Rome, but the treaty of Rome as amended, which is now the 'CONSOLIDATED VERSIONS OF THE TREATY ON EUROPEAN UNION AND OF THE TREATY ESTABLISHING THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY' . I have amended reference 50 to include a web link to the actual amended treaty, but there are a number of other references to the Rome treaty which are also wrong and need amending. I am not quite sure whether these will all have to be individual reference entries of the same treaty on the same web page for the different article numbers, or if they can be combined in some way. Also other treaties are mentioned which may be incorrect. Sandpiper 01:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

text: This is a problem with the EU treaties. Books on EU law may have something like "Article 249 (ex 189) EC" when first mentioned. Perhaps we should do the same. When the Reform Treaty comes into force, we will probably need four references, such as Art 248 (Nice) = Art 188c (Maastrict) = Art III-384 (proposed Constitution) = Art xxx-nnn (Lisbon) --Boson 02:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

text: If the wiki article is referring to an active treaty article which may have been moved about, then I think we ought to refer to where it is now, in the effective resulting treaty when all amendments have been applied. If what is being referenced is specifically the original to make some point, thn leave it as such. But it ought to be clear exactly how to look it up. Sandpiper 22:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  missing Article 249, treaty of Rome 

message: When I have a moment, I am going to take up a suggestion by Simonski to have sections dedicated to the four freedoms and to competition law. With luck I'll have some base up by the end of the week. If people know could sources on these topics it would be most welcome. - J Logan t: 08:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Economy, new sections 

message: Please be aware that I have asked for advice on this matter here. Sorry if this has a temporary effect on the article‎. SouthernElectric 11:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Go for it, discussions here have evidently broken down. - J Logan t: 17:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I second JLogan, go for dispute resolution. Arnoutf 18:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

text:  I got the impression AGK didn't fully read everything, I don't blame him, but I definitely got that impression! Ah well, bring on the dispute resolution then indeed. Will be interesting to see the outcome. --Simonski 18:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lear21's conduct 

message: I am rather bothered by the distinction being made here and in other articles between the european council and the council of ministers. In all cases each country sends along a delegate and they talk about what there is to talk about. If it is the heads of state, they talk about big issues, or matters left over from council of ministers meetings. If  councils of ministers, they chat about whatever their specialism is, I take it different ministers depending on whoever was considered responsible for that brief. While the EU might make a distinction between the case of a national leader attending or his subordinates, I do not see that it is a material difference. In each case it is a delegate from the each nation coming for a nice cuppa, a chat, and a bit of sight seeing, and we should say so. The role is exactly the same, so this distinction in name of the meetings is being overemphasised. Sandpiper 10:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is formally a separate body, mentioned as such in the treaties. And the European Council does not engage in legislative activity, or in fact hold any formal power what so ever.- J Logan t: 11:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Agree with J Logan. The Council of the European Union and the European Council are two completely different bodies. They were created at different times, have different membership, different roles, different powers, meet in different places, with different frequencies. The European Council meets about four times a year, in varying locations. The Council of the European Union has about 80 meetings a year, mainly in Brussels; its work is prepared by COREPER, and it has a secretariat of nearly 3000 people. --Boson 16:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  European Council/ Council of ministers 

message: The unanimity and difficult issues treated under the CFSP makes disagreements, such as those which occurred over the war in Iraq,[66] are not uncommon.
There is an extra ARE in the sentence and should read:
The unanimity and difficult issues treated under the CFSP makes disagreements, such as those which occurred over the war in Iraq,[66] not uncommon.
DSaenz175 02:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, can do nothing about it now as some admin has decided to fully protect the article; due to the unwillingness of editors to come to a mutually acceptable compromise on the very small sports section this article is now fully protected. Arnoutf 09:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The template should cause this section to automatically appear on an admin noticeboard where hopefully an admin will carry out the edit. There are quite a lot of minor errors in the article.Sandpiper 10:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:   Found a little typo  

message: Before we archive this lot and move on, I would like to briefly respond to a couple of pessimistic statements about Wikipedia, no doubt born of understandable frustration. The way Wikipedia works does have some disadvantages. But I don't think we need hide our (Wikipedia's) light under a bushel: just look at the amount of correct, relevant, useful, and up-to-date information in this article and its daughter articles; and then compare that with the amount and quality of information in another reputable encyclopedia. Having just done that, I feel a lot happier about this article. --Boson (talk) 20:20, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: it has a lot of facts which seem reasonable and relevant. It does need copyediting, but this can be difficult while things are being changed. I always reckon something always needs at least two goes. One to get the facts in, and a second to tidy them up. Then someone adds a bit and blows it. Sandpiper (talk) 21:58, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with that, "own-text-error-blindness" easly occurs if you try to write something alone, an independent view is almost always worth very much. (PS one of the advantages of writing more than one author on an article, as well as peer review) Arnoutf (talk) 23:40, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Look on the bright side.