Wikipedia talk:Don't overuse flags/Archive 1

message: I agree that flags are very over-used and should be avoided unless there's a good reason to need them. Tuf-Kat 02:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Agreement 

message: * With flags; without flags. – flamurai (t) 17:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More examples 

message: I've removed the image of the Olympic flag, as it was a violation of Wikipedia's fair use policy. Please remember that fair use images can only be used in the article main spaces (the main page though is an exception).--TBCΦtalk? 04:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use image 

message: I believe this should be added to the manual of style. >Radiant< 09:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good idea 

message: Ain't it beautiful? I wish the Brooklyn flag was on WP... – flamurai (t) 09:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose you should also have the coat of arms for their ancestors, a picture of the university logos, and miniature pictures of the several awards and medals. —Centrx→talk • 22:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I believe this infobox is a joke. And I believe that is the point the joker is making... Fimbriated 02:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do admit that Wikipedia is overflagged, but despite that, it is giving me work. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a beautiful infobox... Just H 02:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What infoboxes should look like: 

message: I really enjoyed this essay and I used it as supporting evidence in a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music#Flags. Best wishes, --Guinnog 12:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flags in band articles 

message: Please contribute to the centralised discussion on flag icons at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Flag icons - manual of style entry?. Please add comments over there, not here. Thanks. Carcharoth 13:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Centralised discussion at MoS on flag icons 

message: Isn't it kind of ironic that flags were overused in this essay? The point you're trying to make would have been harder to make without all those flags, kind of contradicting the purpose of the essay (flags generally help illustrate things better). If i'm not getting my point across, I can always go look around for a flag that signifies irony for you :-) Just H 00:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not irony. That's good illustration of a problem. Carcharoth 01:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And the problem wouldn't have been so well illustrated if it weren't for the problem. I can remove all the flags from the essay if you want, but IMO, the essay will look far worse and less convincing. Just like with articles. If flags help an article they should be used.Just H 02:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's almost tautological, and thus impossible to argue with. They are way overused on Wikipedia at the moment and I think this essay gains power from illustrating the point using flags. --Guinnog 11:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Irony 

message: Why is this not a guideline? (Is it too sensible to be one?) -- Hoary 16:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you look at the Manual of Style discussion mentioned in the section before the section before this one?  (SEWilco 02:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, the Wikipedia:Manual of Style is the proper place for a guideline like this. —Centrx→talk • 03:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This could well (in the new version as of earlier today) make a MOS page, though there is too much material to simply integrate it into an existing one, I fear. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]   ‹(-¿-)› 02:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is this not a guideline? 

message: This essay has too many flags, they should all be removed.  18:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're so funnay. ... NOT! --32X 01:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Am I the only one seeing the irony of this essay's utilization of so many flags? With so many of them it does read like a love/hate thing is going on with the authors... (which I suppose explains the post below).  01:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Are you the only one not seeing the section called "Irony" above? (SEWilco 17:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. Thanks for pointing out my foot in mouth (or on my keyboard rather). ;-)  18:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too many flags 

message: This essay has a somewhat unencyclopedic feel to it. It's a guideline I support and try to use in the case of many flag disputes but would be more effective if it had a more 'professional' tone to it. Ohterwise I feel like I'm backing up a rant piece. Mkdwtalk 22:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is currently just an essay, not a guideline, thus it's not really meant to be "encyclopedic", more of an opinion piece I suppose. If someone would like to suggest a similar guideline (perhaps to add to the Manual of Style), I would be all for it. Kaldari 04:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done! See new draft of Wikipedia:Don't overuse flags, a to-be-proposed guideline (probably as part of MOS).  If you see a short page there that contradicts itself, that means it's been reverted to an older version.  The latest version of the comprehensive redraft (as of this writing) is available in the history. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]   ‹(-¿-)› 02:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re-write this Essay 

message: Image:Antiflag.JPG
Feel free to remove it from the main essay, but I figured it illustrated the point better than all those pesky...words...Just H 01:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps there could be a link to the band Anti-Flag at the top of this essay as well. Just H 16:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It doesn't make sense since this is not an essay from a flag hater. The title is pretty much clear: "Don't overuse flags". --32X 19:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Slippery slope, 32x. The author of this could have fooled me in regards to a hatred of flags. There is no mention of flags actually adding to articles, thus I don't see the balance. Just Heditor review 15:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Under what circumstances not listed here already do flags add to an article? —Centrx→talk • 04:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Um, no.  A zillion things of this sort, including images, userboxes and various templates, essay pages, and other miscellanea have been deleted, with extreme prejudice, because they are nothing but disruptive and divisive with no encyclopedically productive purpose. PS: The idea of having a "flag to wave" (your wording) for people who don't like flags is just kind of <ahem> silly. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]   ‹(-¿-)› 02:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that's the point, and all sorts of other junk worse than this joke is kept anyway. —Centrx→talk • 02:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flag to wave for supporters of this essay 

message: I just removed flags from List of National Hockey League statistical leaders. In this case, nationality is not directly relevant to the article subject, and including it provides too much detail. – flamurai (t) 13:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly, flags, among their many other problems, make it appear a person was especially patriotic or nationalistic or involved with the government, when there is typically no evidence for it; and anyway it would with its nuances belong included in the article proper. —Centrx→talk • 16:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The idea that nationality isn't important is wholeheartedly POV.  And thanks for pointing my attention to the NHL article, because now I'm going to reinsert the flags.  Scientz 15:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is nationality ''that'' important? 

message: I don't understand the point about overuse of flags making articles look like Pokémon cards.  Pokémon cards don't have any flags on them, nor are they usually cluttered.  --Brandon Dilbeck 23:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They do have a variety of icons scattered around the card. Jordan Brown 05:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pokémon cards? 

message: This page makes some great points, but its jokey tone means that it may not be taken seriously, and it doesn't offer any solid guidelines. I have written a draft new version at User:Cop 633/Flagcruft sensible draft. This version is more boring, but its more formal tone may have a greater impact. In an ideal world I would like to (a) replace the current essay with this one, and (b) get the general points accepted as a Wikipedia guideline. However, I would be grateful if users could study, edit and offer feedback on the draft first. Cop 633 16:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like what you are doing. --Guinnog 16:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I took it a whole lot forward today. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]   ‹(-¿-)› 02:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Making this page more formal 

message: What about usage when, in an infobox, stipulating the country would cause it to double the height of the information, but using the  would reduce it to one line of information?  —  pd_THOR | =/\= | 17:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is already mentioned in the article under 'When flags can be helpful'. I have made this more prominent in my attempt at a rewrite of the article. Cop 633 17:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: That situation would seem to be fine (though it would seem to often be problematic because it is not clear the reader what country the flag belongs to, and thus the name should be used instead). If a flag is used alongside the name, however, it produces the opposite effect of lengthening the line. —Centrx→talk • 22:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the current draft (as of my writing) addresses this adequately, by strengthening the point Centrx makes here about an icon by itself potentially being meaningless, and simply discourages this practice, and further discourages use of such icons on the birth/death lines, for painfully obvious reasons. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]   ‹(-¿-)› 02:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox line doubling? 

message: I have put forward a proposal here concerning the misuse of flag templates on WP, this proposal deals with the Ulster Banner, but the template could serve as a model for other similar situations.--padraig3uk 13:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And I support it (I also helped develop it, by way of disclaimer.) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]   ‹(-¿-)› 02:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inappropriate use of Flag templates 

message: They've all just disappeared.  Form the Seung-Hui Cho article as well as my own profile.  Its as if the code no longer points to them.  What's up? Scientz 14:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems to be a technical issue.--Guinnog 14:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which seems to be fixed now. Scientz 18:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where did all the flags go? 

message: Just did a total redrafting from the ground up.  I expect it will be reverted reflexively, but I hope it will be studied for problems.  I'll enumerate some of them below.  Rather than just revert it, consider keeping and improving it.  If you feel it is too WP:BOLD and too radical a change, please copy it to Wikipedia:Don't overuse flags/Redraft, for further discussion as a proposed overhaul. NB: I detected a small handful of Briticisms in the original, but my rewrite uses American English (I can write in fairly convincing British English, but it is more difficult for me and time-consuming; I've already spent approximately 6 now 8.5 hours straight on this rewrite...) If anyone wants to re-edit it into British English per WP:ENGVAR, certainly be my guest; I am not pushing for one or the other, either way.
A full delineation of the major changes made and why:
*Shortcuts are always given in upper case. 
*WP:FLAG/WP:FLAGS shortcut should go to the project page about them (Wikipedia:WikiProject Flag Template), not to a rough draft essay opposed to them; we simply don't do that around here, per WP:POINT, as it is misleading and "wikipolitical".
*WP projectpages, like articles, and especially guideline proposals are not "signed" by editors; edit history exists for a reason.
*Needs note explaining that "countries" as used in this essay also applies to US states, etc.
*"Some users enjoy putting  flag icons into articles" is the essay violating itself in WP:POINT fashion.
*WP "users" who edit are referred to as "editors" or "Wikipedians", not "users".
*"Some users/editors/Wikipedians" is polarizing and arguably incivil weasel-wording.
*"Enjoyment" isn't the issue being raised.
*Wishywashy terms like "suggested" that indicate that this is still a draft should be bracketed, as they will be removed if this becomes an actual guideline proposal.
*"General guidelines" ("Gg" hereafter) section completely contradicted itself from one bullet point to another.  If the only reason to ever use flags without country names is "x", then "There is no need to use flags and country names" is clearly false. (And is utterly false to begin with, but that's not the point here).
*First example is a very poor example, as it uses the flag icon templates in a nonstandard, outright purpose-thwarting way! (It puts flag next to athlete instead of country name, leading to a usability nightmare.)  Second example is just as bad; it subverts the template to provide genuinely redundant information in a very confusing format, in the form "Country, release date, movie name, country", which will make screen-reader users pull their hair out. We'll save this for later though... >;-)
* Document failed to address abuse of non-icon flags; fix that, at least in abuse-as-infobox-image and no-alt-or-caption cases.
* Document should also address seals and other non-flags, at least briefly, because they are abused in the same ways.
* "Gg" section completely missed the most cardinal "sin" of flag template usage: putting them in general article prose. Fixed, and then some.
* "Gg" section next contradicted the rest of the guideline (e.g. at the original "Obscurity" entry, which has been refactor in the re-draft, and elsewhere) by improperly recommending that the flag be used without the country name!  WTDF?  This section was correct that there is only one circumstance this should be done in, but chose the wrong circumstance to delineate! The User:Cop 633/Flagcruft sensible draft/Babellflags example usage actually does spill over onto two lines in almost every case (and I use a pretty small font size), the usage in the example contradicts the rest of the essay, most editors would agree that if info in an info box will either wrap or be confusing then it should wrap, and many editors would actually have preferred the counter-example. Nix!
* "Gg" section unnecessarily uses the undefined term "long" (and it was repeated later as "very long"); flag icons, when used appropriately, are also appropriate in "short" lists (cf. Five-pins); there is no logical difference between them, and again, they aren't defined anyway, so the essay really shouldn't be making prescriptions and proscriptions with such vagueness and overbreadth.
* "Gg" section is really a summary, so rename it "Summary".
* "Problems with flag icons" section: Guidelines are not lists of problems, they are lists of recommendations and solutions.  Renamed.
* Guidelines and would-be guidelines do not have "Rationale" sections. If they have to be this defensive, they are not guideline material.  If they cannot simply explain their points naturally in the course of making then, they are not guideline material. Broadly fixed.
* Guidelines should actually be written as prose, not as long lists.  Lists are used to illustrate or summarize not to present the principal guideline material.  Lists in redraft are used properly.
* "Superfluity" bulletpoint got it backwards; it's not the country name that's usually superfluous!
* "Some users believe that a person born in Canada prior to 1965 should get ".  Nonsense.  Or perhaps I should say .  Such an argument is clearly nonsensical, and anyone advocating it in edit summary or talk pages would not be treated too kindly (though hopefully within bounds of civility...) and it needn't be presented as if valid.  Some have argued that flags such as the Northern Ireland "Ulster Banner" should not be overused to represent N.I. topics that do not fall within the legitimate purview of that flag.  But this is not the same argument.  Saving the Red Ensign example for a different purpose, and making the N.I. case where it will have the most impact...
* Subsectionize the "Problems" section so that it is logically divided into what should be done for particular sets of circumstances and concerns, and what the pitfalls are if they are not done.  I don't think this aspect of the redraft is perfect yet, but it's a good start.
* Clarify that, as with many other guidelines (WP:MOS in many places for example, such as at WP:MOSNUM with regard to wikilinking of bare 1981-type year appearances), editors may have a difference of opinion on precisely what to do, and that this should be handled at individual article's talk pages; this essay is not going to settle aesthetic disputes.  Same goes for potentially contentious use of non-flag replacements - essays that want to be proposals/guidelines need to describe consensus not attempt to declare what consensus should be, after all.
* Use explanatory and simple prose to lay out what the issues are.
* Repurpose the bad examples mentioned above as good examples of what not to do; but do them as full links to the actual history copies, because the articles themselves may change to fix the problem, making plain wikilinks to them useless or even misleading. Also, use  to get rid of the extlink icons since these are not actually external links, but internal ones.
* Use the standard templates not their shortcut versions like ; this guideline should not be encouraging the use of deprecated templates (but should not address that either; that's for WikiProject Flag Template to deal with, perhaps at TfD).
* Repurpose the Canadian Red Ensign example in a way that is actually guiding.
* Repurpose the material about color-blind and blind users. The claim that flag images are totally useless for them is patently false, because the standardized templates include alt. text, but there are some underlying points here that're very important.
* Give a clear recommendation and rationale for when and when not to use historical flags. (This could be controversial as to some of its specifics, but I think it presents a good first stab at clearing up that issue.)  Further guidance on this topic is probably needed, but at least the ball is rolling.
* Similarly, give a clear recommendation and rationale for use of flag icons with individuals with "complicated life stories". (Again, parts of this, maybe all of it, could be controversial.  But I believe it is a major improvement over the original, which was full of WP:OR and personal supposition, was wandering into the land of WP:CREEP and even WP:BEANS, and was generally unhelpful, as it essentially just bemoaned problems without offering any solutions.)
* Relatedly, explicate the Northern Ireland "Ulster Banner" as a major case in point.
* Similarly, explicate Chinese Taipei and example of how one needs to be careful, should understand the background of the flag one is plastering all over the place, and listen to the objections of other editors.
* Remove inline flags from Naomi Watts example (which is otherwise probably worth keeping), as again it violates the guideline's own recommendations by using them inline where they do not belong (as opposed to other examples which properly, and necessarily, use them illustratively.)
* Make actual recommendations for how to handle multi-national people (possibly controversial, but I stand by this rewrite as logical, predictable and understandable): Base it on citizenship, not residency.
* Remove Neeson example; the points are already covered in rewrite, and old version actually appeared to encourage use of flag templates in birth/death lines in infoboxes, which is a terrible idea.  If some bio infoboxes do not have a "Nationality" line, then that's just too darned bad; don't use these templates in them at all.  The new text actually resolved the Neeson dispute entirely: Use flag(s) of current sourced citizenship, use no flags for birth/death place, N.I. situation spelled out clearly w/o need to resort to more example-itis - no need to even use Liam as an example any longer at all.
* Replaced near-nonsense "English nationalism" example with a more common one, Scottish.
* Move McCartney point to where it is quite a bit more salient.
* Put examples of appropriate use at the top.
* Remove another faulty example; new text gives good ones that don't omit the country name.
* Remove bad example that intentionally omits country names; basically the "may be useful space-savers in narrow infoboxes, where the country's flag may take up less space than the name of the country itself" idea must be abandoned, as it conflicts with the rest of this essay (even before I started editing it, mind you).  This has been noted before, above, but it needs to be reiterated here.  Guidelines cannot contradict themselves or they emphatically are not guidelines, by definition, because they fail to guide and cannot possibly reflect actual WP best practices, only confusion.
* Remove Chelsea FC example for same reasons as above, but mention the point it makes elsewhere.
* Move the shamrock stuff to the discussion of invention of new flags, which is now its own guideline section, and more strongly worded with citations to policy and guidelines, and really consolidates the subtopic (which is crossreferenced from another part of the new document draft).
* Remove the "one editor" accusation which is at best a :WP:WEASEL and WP:CIVIL violation and could be plausibly interpreted as a direct WP:NPA violation.
* Add a "See also" section.  There are probably other things that could be in there, but I added the obvious one.
* Move Abdalqadir as-Sufi example to where it is more useful.
* Convert annoying rhetorical question to statement.
* Address purely partisan/factional flags.
* Address military history usage of historical flags; may be controversial.
* New Connolly & Schröder examples no longer relevant: Do not use for birth/death (many, many pitfalls and precisely the "cruft" this essay was originally designed to address from what I can tell).
* Incorporate new Wales example (these edit conflict are killing me!)
* Remove "you" phrasing.
* General cleanup (typos and stuff).
So, there we go. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]   ‹(-¿-)› 00:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow. I got a headache just thinking about all the work you put into that! Looks great to me - probably there are a few things that can be debated later, but this is definitely a much much better essay to work on. Respect! (insert bowing motion)  Cop 633 00:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! But surely someone is pissed off?!?  Heh.  If so, lemme have it.  >;-)  — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]   ‹(-¿-)› 01:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This isn't my fault, is it?  Suuuure... Blame the vexillologist. Scientz 01:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No blaming.  The original stab at this raised a lot of necessary points.  I believe all I've done is expand on them, make them clearer and more guideliney, and resolved their internal conflicts. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]   ‹(-¿-)› 02:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I was mostly being cute, but having now read your reworking, I largely agree with what you have to say. Scientz 02:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Keen. I didn't want you to feel put-upon. :-)  — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]   ‹(-¿-)› 04:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

text:  Don't worry mate, this has been building for a l-o-o-o-n-g time!  Cop 633 01:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:   I just...ummm...like flags, that's all. Scientz 01:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I love flags too, but we needed something like this. I like the rewrite too, SMcCandlish, although there might be minor things I would quibble with. Well done. --Guinnog 02:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I seem to have a talent for completely rebuilding policy pages in one go, for some reason: before, after. <shrug> Probably from about a decade of doing legislative policy analysis, where attention to detail is paramount and the unintended effects of vague or overbroad wording, or failure to think through non-obvious applications, can be pretty severe... I guess it makes me a good "wikiwonk". — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]   ‹(-¿-)› 02:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great update but the one think i dont agree with is that its losing focus on the main point that its always clearer to use words and flags should be only used to convey information for very limited stylistic reasons, eg soccer player nationality's (Gnevin 07:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Total rewrite 

message: I've written a new section for something that I felt wasn't covered properly: the use of e.g. English flags vs. British ones.  See here. I would be grateful if people could take a look and perhaps re-edit it. I can see that it overlaps somewhat with the 'place/date of birth' section, but I think the point also needs to be made separately. Thoughts? Cop 633 15:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Use of flags for non-sovereign nations

message: I have just recently seen flags beginning to appear in nav boxes.  One example is :Template:4.5_and_5th_generation_Fighter_Aircraft. I find this to be unsightly and distracting from the nav box's main purpose, and would propose deprecating the use of flags in nav boxes. Thoughts yea or nay? Askari Mark (Talk) 14:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's definitely ugly. It would look much tidier with the country names, and would be easier to understand too. Cop 633 15:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see someone has put that template up for deletion now.--padraig3uk 15:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Moot point then.  But really, you're just now seeing this?  Flag icons have been used here and there in nav boxes for quite some time.  I don't think it's anything to be alarmed about.  If a particular usage goes to far, just fix it.  There isn't anything special or sacrosanct about nav boxes that makes them flagproof.  :-)  — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]   ‹(-¿-)› 18:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flags in Nav Boxes 

message: I would like to suggest we fork this essay by splitting it here or better yet creating a seperate article. I would fork it down the lines of 
#infoboxes and templates  
#general usage
This would give a clearer view of what we hope to achieve here (Gnevin 07:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure I follow you. Flag templates don't have general usage outside templates (which includes infoboxes) other than in lists/tables, and the usage there isn't sufficiently different.  If you mean split flag icons in templates/tables, and flag non-icons in general, again we don't seem to have enough material.  Can you explain in more detail what you see the issue is?  I suspect it could be easily handled by restructuring the existing document better.  This will never get guideline buy-in if it's split; people aren't going to accept two different flag guidelines. I'd bet money on it. :-)  — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]   ‹(-¿-)› 08:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From my point of view and of this might just be me , the usage of flags in infoboxes and templates (not the flag templates) are two different problems .Since this article is trying to cover to much as so its unclear in context .I would like to see a section which say flags should not be used in infoboxes for x,y and z and can be used for a,b,c  (Gnevin 09:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that the draft guideline already does this to the extent possible (consensus is still forming on some of these issues). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 14:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested fork