Talk:Canada/Archive 12

message: There are too many charts here. They are appropriate in the demographics article, but I think in an introductory article one will suffice:
* Keep chart on ethnic groups; I think in some ways it can be considered to include info found in the other charts; 
* Remove chart on Visible minorities (visibe minority itself has become a controversial term, and could distract from the neutral intent of the article)
* Remove chart on religions 
I agree with suggestions that a picture of the Toronto skyline is needed; Toronto is Canada's largest city, and the section does list Canada's major urban centres; and just so the inevitable accusation of "Center of the Universe" boosterism, I'm from Montreal: it pains me to no end to make this suggestion :-) .  
* Add classic picture of Toronto skyline from Lake Ontario. Caption: Toronto is Canada's largest metropolitain area with a population of 5,111,222 --Soulscanner 08:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures under demographics section 

message: Canada's population is clustered in four areas: Victoria/Vancouver along the Pacific, the Calgary-Edmonton-Winnipeg triangle in the prairies, the Toronto-Quebec City corridor along the lower Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River, and the Maritimes from Gaspe southeast to Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia.  
Even along the international border, the islands of population are separated by many hundreds of kilometers of near-wilderness traversed by railroads and a few highways, but with only scattered small towns along the way.  
Canada has a strange vestigal quality.  If the United States reflects the strength of Republican and anti-merchantilist sentiment in North American during the 18th century, Canada reflects the limits of those sentiments and the ability of the British to persist in redoubts beyond the Great Lakes, along the Saint Lawrence, and on the Atlantic Coast nearest the home islands, particularly because the British had remained he world's preeminent naval power since the defeat of the Spanish Armada.
76.80.9.100 10:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Show a population density map? 

message: The user who just had his contribution reverted as, well, gunk, is correct, there needs to be some more images (or at least one more) of the natural beauty of Canada.  It would appear that the only "natural" picture of Canada in the whole article is of Niagara Falls, and everyone has to agree that to represent the hugely diverse beauty of this country with a single "monument" like the Falls is, well, just not acceptable.  An image of the Rockies or the Prairies is probably in order.  In fact, if there is any possible way to get an image of a flowing wheat field with the Rockies in the distance, that, I think, would be an absolutely fantastic image to show the diversity of terrain in Canada. Lexicon (talk) 13:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures elsewhere 

message: Most of the time when an alternative language is used beside the title of an article, that is because the original name came from a different language, and the original script is being shown. (For example Qur'an) I don't believe that the word Canada came from the original Inuktitut, and thus I believe the placement of the Inuktitut spelling of the word is not germane at the beginning of the article.  What do others think? Regards, -- Jeff3000 20:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inuktitut 

message: This article doesn't really show any information on the discrimination against the French people from the English during the 1930s-1940s. Perhaps someone with some knowledge on this subject can add some? Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.17.13.5 (talk) 16:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  French/English Discrimination 

message: I am re-searching on Canada's Middle-power status in world affairs since 1950.Are there any articles here on wikipedia that people would recomend that I could use for my re-search regarding this topic? Any help would be appriciated.Thanks.--Vmrgrsergr 17:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Talk pages are for discussion about the article in question, not for asking questions on where to get information for your school project, I'm afraid. Lexicon (talk) 17:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Although, you may want to try your question at the WP:Village Pump.--Ramdrake 18:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  need help 

message: I don't think having the provinces as the second section is appropriate; it does not follow the style recommended by Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries/Templates.  I think the old location is the best and that history needs to be after etymology; for those that don't know about the provinces, that's what the wikilinks are for. Regards, -- Jeff3000 04:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right. I was not aware of this template. I'll move this section outlined in Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries/Templates. I moved it from the Geography section where it seemed awkward. I'll move the section to follow Wiki guidelines. Personally, I think it makes sense in the case of a country as decentralized as Canada to mention the provinces earlier to give some context for the politics and history.  I'll recognize, though, that this is my personal opinion which seems somewhat weak compared to a Countries Template. --Soulscanner 03:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The current placement of this section seems to work, but I would otherwise prefer to have this section placed per the wikiproject template. Corticopia 04:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The first time that each province or territory is mentioned in the history section has enough context for the reader to understand what is happening, and in my mind is even better than a listing of the provinces and territories because it shows how each province and territory joined the federation.  Being a featured article this article should follow the template which has reached consensus by many many different editors.  Regards, -- Jeff3000 04:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

text: * No, it/they does/do not have enough context - one cannot tell if some places are cities, regions, colonies, provinces, etc. I have cited first mention of Yukon as an example already. Now that someone has rushed to make the move (after no reply above for a month), there will be many more such problems --JimWae 04:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of all the provinces and territories that are mentioned before the provinces and territories section, only the Yukon does not have sufficient context.  The confederation section clearly identifies regions joining to become provinces, and the north-west territories being created.  A better solution that moving a whole section up, is to add one sentence to fix the Yukon issue.  Regards, -- Jeff3000 04:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

text: *Ontario & Newfoundland (& likely many more) have exactly the same problem --JimWae 05:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Location of province section 

message: The first sentence should be changed to "Canada is a federal constitutional monarchy made up of 10 provinces, and several territories."
Just like how the USA article starts... "The United States of America is a federal constitutional republic made up of 50 states, one federal district, and several territories."
Is there a reason why these two articles differ?
:Is there a reason why Canada is, say, different from the (articles for the) United Kingdom, France, Ireland, et al. -- it's a matter of style, but is also being discussed above. Corticopia 18:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's not several territories, there's three territories, which, unlike the American example, form an integral part of the country.  The reason the articles differ is because they're about different countries with different concepts of "territory." fishhead64 05:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  First Sentence 

message: I've tried to tweak the 2nd paragraph of the introduction, summarising the country's history an little more fully.  I'm not sure if I'm getting it right, though, particularly my choices of piped links.  Comments/editions are welcomed. Corticopia 18:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Second paragraph

message: I had first changed the wording following the comment of a user who read "northern North America" as just "North America". I felt it was more precise this way, and it seemed that people weren't against it. However, User:Corticopia, in sending the bits of intro he didn't agree with to the geography section, also managed to revert verbatim to the old wording of the introduction. I would like people's feedback on whether "northern North America" or "northern half of North America" is most precise and also least likely to cause the same confusion in the future.--Ramdrake 22:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is the issue here?  The original commentator seemed to completely misread/misunderstand the sentence to begin with, and then you -- consistent with recent accusations against you of tendentious editing -- have taken up the mantle to change the long-standing lead (i.e., not changed in months).  I and at least one other editor (Lexicon) had no problem with 'nNA' -- which, noted in the CIA World Factbook, is clear and succinct -- and considered your efforts unproductive, and other editors have either been indifferent or have suggested completely different leads.  Your suggested content edits about Canada being the largest country in NA were, through consensus, moved to the 'geography' section where they may belong.  Moreover, your suggested syntax (or similar) for the article lead is already harked in the lead for the 'geography' section, so why should we be redundant?  As well, indicating that Canada occupies the northern half of NA may be misleading: by what measure?  Do we reckon the northerly portion of the continent to include Ellesmere Island and the rest of the Canadian Arctic Archipelago, or to only consider the mainland (and not islands), a not uncommon understanding of continents (e.g., 'beginning' at Melville Peninsula), in which case the Canadian mainland comprises closer to the northern third of the continent?  At this point, I don't really care, but I'll be back later.  Of course, I'll adhere to whatever a consensus arrives at. Corticopia 22:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You may dispute whether the Arctic Archipelago is part of the continent,in which case latitude-wise what you say may sound right, but area-wise, Canada still comprises 41% of North America (nearly half), which still makes the sentence "Canada occupies most of the northern half of North America" true. So, any way you cut it, the sentence is still right whether or not you count the Arctic Archipelago as part of North America. And to boot, it would be right latitude-wise also if one opted Central America out of North America, which a lot of people do.--Ramdrake 00:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

text: And, after checking, Wikipedia has this to say about the Geography of North America: North America consists of all the mainland and related offshore islands lying north of the Isthmus of Panama (which joins with South America). So it should be clear that the standard definition should include the islands of the Arctic Archipelago.--Ramdrake 00:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: True enough (particularly regarding Central America), but I still maintain that we needn't recapitulate the first line of the 'geography' section as the first line of the intro -- two editors maintain that the syntax of the prior lead is clear, and nothing has since changed.  I will await additional editorial input before acting any further. Corticopia 02:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Northern North America" or "Northern half of North America" 

message: Howdy, Corticopia. Your edits to the  "Canada"  page are fine.  The thing is for some reason my "screwball" countrymen can not agree on anything written on this page.
long form name: no agreement
type of government: no agreement
location in North America: no agreement.
This is probably one of the most schizophrenic articles on Wikipedia.
Take care, eh ArmchairVexillologistDon 22:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Don't sweat it Corticopia :)  

message: I think the second paragraph in the lead is now much too detailed for the lead; we don't have to go through Canada's history in this paragraph starting with the settlements, etc; that's what the History section is for.  The length in combination with the number of blue links makes it very difficult to read.   I suggest we go back to the way it was a week ago.  Regards, -- Jeff3000 03:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Introductions need to be short, lest they give the impression of rambling. The longer introduction overweights the history section, and needlessly repeats details  mentioned later on. I think simply mentioning that Canada gradually gained its independence from Britain incrementally is enough as far as history goes. We should agree to keep the introduction to less than 150 words. --Soulscanner 07:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did request feedback above, but I would not suggest a complete reversion to 'a week ago'.  The introduction remains short -- the edits were meant to provide a bit more detail without overloading the introduction.  When I read the prior introduction, assuming the position of a neophyte, I asked myself: why does Britain have so crucial a role in Canada's history?  It was lacking.  I mean, there was no mention of the French colonial influence that would even give a hint of this (and, thus, Canada's resulting bilingualism), and explorations leading up to the colonial dominance of Britain.  As well, the prior introduction indicated that Canada was originally inhabited by aboriginals, but then skips ahead to the late 19th century.  Feel free to 'dewikify' some of the links (and I disagree that it is 'difficult to read' because of that; just look at other paragraphs below) and I'll try to prune somewhat, but I think the intro remains succinct -- really, it is about the same length than the intro for Australia and is dwarfed by those for the United Kingdom and United States .... Corticopia 14:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The United Kingdom and the United States are not featured articles so they are not the articles to compare to.  The lead was something that was greatly discussed when the article was upgraded to featured article status, and I believe it was succinct allowing people to understand the nation of Canada and not the land currently which is Canada.  Also from Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_%28links%29#Overlinking_and_underlinking:_what.27s_the_best_ratio.3F, if a section has more than 10% of the words linked it is overlinked.  I still believe the way it was a week ago is the best way to go, and I believe Soulscanner agrees with me. Regards, -- Jeff3000 14:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have pruned and tweaked the intro, and will continue to.  The wiki guideline you cite is just that (which should first be applied to the rest of the article, which is excessively overlinked) and is being dealt with.  Nor have you really attempted to explain the logic of a history paragraph that skips ahead straight to Confederation, and omits events before that: that's not a helpful history paragraph (if it even was that?).  Australia, which I also compared to and has also been a feature article, makes some attempt to explain its pre-state status in the second paragraph, and this article should be no different.  In its former state, China was also a featured article with a lengthy lead.  At this point, I am unwilling to relent because two editors prefer brevity to even just a wee bit more informative detail. Corticopia 14:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I can deal with striking the Vikings. :) Corticopia 15:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The historical influence of France and Britain are dealt with in the History section and several other places in the article.  The point is that this changing the lead of an article as dramatically as this requires more than a consensus of one. Jeff3000 points out that the old lead represents a consensus  that was arrived at after a long discussion that resulted in the article becoming a featured article.It would be good form to seek a consensus on these dicussion pages first or edit wars will result.  --Soulscanner 03:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is not the point: the prior 2nd paragraph was incomplete, giving barely a whiff of the historical conflict between English and French which has resulted in the country's political union and bilingualism.  It now contains necessary context and provides a succinct bridge of events up to Confederation.  Arguments about notions being found elsewhere (e.g., 'duplicated') are somewhat moot, since this is true of a number of factoids in the introduction and throughout article -- in any event, the article remains rather bloated and pruning should happen elsewhere (e.g., shunting microdetails to subarticles).  I do not see grand resistance to the tweaked introduction, despite discussion, and I fail to see how adding necessary context is a dramatic change in an article which by its very nature is not static. Corticopia 03:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second paragraph in lead 

message: It would be nice to add a picture of a sitting of the House of Commons in the "Government and Politics" section. Official picures from government websites (that aren't 50 years old) apparantly do not satisfy Wiki copywrite policies. I embarrassed myself by attempting to post one under the impression that it was okay. If anyone has an "action shot" of a debate, I think it would add some dynamism to a rather dry subject and improve the page. Has anyone found anything? --Soulscanner 07:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request Picture of a sitting of the House of Commons 

message: Changing the lead of a featured article this dramatically requires more than a consensus of one. The old lead represents a consensus that was arrived at after a long discussion that resulted in the article becoming a featured article. It would be better form in an article as advanced as this to seek a consensus on this dicussion page before editing the lead. --Soulscanner 03:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * Comment  In my mind it's better to evenly spread out the links so that it's easier to read than linking all the important concepts right away.  For example Federal is not as important a concept in the sentence in the second paragraph as the other links in that sentence and takes away from the other important links. The concept of a Federal constitutional Monarchy is already linked in the third lead paragraph. Regards, -- 04:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment  I hear you, but (for example) the first instance of 'federal' (federalism  (philosophy) or federation (entity resulting from that philosophy), compared to unitary), coupled with 'dominion', succinctly describes the nature of the entity that resulted from Confederation in 1867 which, in turn, resulted from British/French strife.  I think this is also an important notion but that initial link, if need be, can be removed.  At one point, I altered the links in the 3rd paragraph to read as (just) "constitutional monarchy ... A federation comprising ..."  Corticopia 04:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restore second paragraph of lead to Version of June 2 

message: France lost the 7 yrs war. Saying "as a result of" conveys less information - (it could have been a trade "as a result" of a draw. "As a result of" is a "passive" expression that says less. It is frustrating being ignored while you 2 battle. Both of you have reverted this article more than 3x in 24 hours - and the provinces do need to come much sooner in the article --JimWae 07:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 1) France ceded New France to Britain in 1763. That is what is important for Canada. You can say it was becasue they lost a battle, because France wanted to hold onto Guadeloupe. It is largely immaterial in the long run to Canada. What is important is vestiges of the colonial legacy in Canadian government. 2) I think it's important to remove antiquated monarchist bias from the lead; we need to be careful not to give the impression that the monarchy is anymore than symbolic Canada; 3) Similarly, I agree that the provinces should come sooner (where it was before), but the Wiki countries project suggests that it come after Politics. That's a strong arguement. I think we need to reach a greater consensus on this before deviating from this format. --Soulscanner 07:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  France lost 

message: Yes, I do have a problem with:
:In 1867, Confederation united four British North American colonies to form the Dominion of Canada.
The 1867 Constituion never refers to Canada as being so named, nor is such the current name of the country. Capitalizing "dominion" indicates it is not being used to be descriptive but rather something else. This is unnecessarily contentious for the lede, where long explanations are inappropriate. Better to defer "dominion" for the main body - where it can be explained somewhat --JimWae 07:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Reasonable points, Dominion is both conentious and discussed in appropriate detail elsewhere. I have edited to the following: "In 1867, Canada was formed by Confederation of four British North American colonies. A gradual process of independence from the United Kingdom culminated in the Canada Act 1982, severing the remaining vestiges of dependence on the British parliament." I've also edited the second sentence, as the cutting of ties to the British parliament seems far more significant and concrete to me than "reaffirming the sovereignty ...". Comments/reactions both welcome and, I imagine, inevitable.--Gregalton 08:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  <big>D</big>ominion of Canada in lede 

message: Dominion is NOT the same as dominion.  Will those who insist on using the lower case version (i.e., dominion) please get that straight.
ArmchairVexillologistDon 22:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Dominion is NOT the same a "dominion"

message: Icedevil has changed the lead putting political descriptions in the first paragraph. The old lead which had geographical descriptions in the first paragraph and political descriptions in the third paragraph had a strong consensus. I believe it should go back to that format.  Any thoughts,  Regards -- Jeff3000 13:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More lead changes 

message: Since Greenland is officially a territory of Denmark, does it mean Canada also has a border with Denmark. Or, if Greenland is INDEPENDENT, does that mean we border Greenland? In other words, does it mean we have borders with another country besides the US? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.87.7.43 (talk • contribs) 
:Yes, but maritime borders, not land borders.  Canada also shares maritime borders with France (through Saint Pierre and Miquelon). Lexicon (talk) 02:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just asking, since we are on the subject of borders: can Canada be said to share a maritime border with Russia across the Arctic Ocean (regardless of the fact that they both claim sovereignty all the way to the North Pole)?--Ramdrake 13:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't believe so.  200 nautical miles is the limit in international law, and I don't think there's any overlap between Canadian and Russian maritime territory. Lexicon (talk) 03:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Borders 

message: Putting the geographical information of Canada, as being the 2nd largest country, BY TOTAL AREA in the first sentence doesn't seem right. The article needs to start off smooth.
"Canada is the second largest country in the world by total area." needs to be changed.
Preceding comment by User:Icedevil14
----
"Smooth"ness is a subjective evaluation. You replaced it with:
:Canada is a country occupying most of northern North America. It is the world's second largest country by total area and extends from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific Ocean and northward into the Arctic Ocean.[1] Canada shares land borders with the United States to the northwest and south.
My comments:
# first sentence too simple
# second sentence redundantly uses "country" again, and uses "and" twice without punctuation. It does however remove unneeded east & west 
# to many Canadians, Alaska is west, not northwest. To some it is even southwest
# the US being south should be first to eliminuate confusion
*--JimWae 17:28, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Canada, occupying most of northern North America, is the world's second largest country by total area. Extending from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific Ocean and northward into the Arctic Ocean, it borders the United States to the south.--JimWae 21:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, way too many commas. -Another unsigned comment by User:Icedevil14
Better than not using them when you need to - and using too many "and"s. Please cite a style rule that downgrades use of commas. --JimWae 03:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Indeed. I'm struggling to see what the problems with the lead sentence are. The comment about the number of commas is a little silly; three commas is not "way too many." CloudNine 08:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I've restored the version from earlier as it is stronger and better received. BTW, the above links are definitely worth checking out before we mess with the lead. --Ckatzchatspy 10:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. I'm fine either way personally; I don't see why the lead sentence needs to be changed every five minutes. I'm aware User:Icedevil14 is a troublesome editor; he's on his last warning before a more serious block after a lot of petty vandalism and personal attacks on other editors. CloudNine 11:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's just pathedic. This shows how bad you can make this article compared to other articles. The USA doesn't even mention how large the country is until the 2nd paragraph, and here we have it stating the very first sentence. --—Preceding unsigned comment added by Icedevil14 (talk • contribs) 14:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please sign your comments. Use ~~~~ after commenting. I don't appreciate the assumption of bad faith on your behalf. CloudNine 14:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm thinking this article is soon going to lose its status as featured, just because of this first sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Icedevil14 (talk • contribs) 19:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I think there may be some confusion here; I think what is meant is Alaska borders the northwestern portion of Canada instead of Alaska is northwest of (all) of Canada. After all, there's no reason to say that the contiguous United States has southern and eastern borders with Canada (Michigan/Ontario etc.). One is a micro view of the country, whereas the other is a macro view of the country, describing borders with respect to the whole. Given that, I think we need to keep the lede compact - a map can better convey this information anyway. Mindmatrix 15:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  First sentence (2)

message: Talk:Canada#Location_of_province_section
To summarize the argument here, it seems that the main argument against moving the provinces and territories section to the second section is that it goes against the Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries/Templates. 
It seems that one of the first things one should know about Canada is that it consists of 10 provinces and 3 territories. This allows for a better understanding of
* the History section, which describes how these provinces became Canadian
* the Goverenment section, which explains that Canada is a federation. 
The locator map of the provinces helps to place the provinces. More importantly, the description of transfer payments and the division of powers explains why provinces are much more powerful in Canada than, say, departments in France or even "countries" like Scotland and Wales. I think that for large decentralized federations such as Canada, India, and the U.S. it makes sense to describe the political subdivisions and their political status, particularly if these divisions show up on World maps and if it greatly aids in understanding both the history and governments of these countries (which it undeniably does in Canada). I think that this is a flaw with the Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries/Templates, which is after all only a suggestion, not a prescription.--Soulscanner 04:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This does not make sense to me. Before you understand why provinces exist, you need to know what they are, where they are, and, in the case of Canada, their political significance.  Then you can better understand the historical development. For example, before understanding the significance of B.C. and P.E.I joining confederation, it helps to know that B.C. is located on the Pacific and P.E.I. on the Atlantic.  Before discussing, for example, the settlement of the West, you need to know where Western Canada is. You need a rudimentary knowledge of Canada's political geography if you are to understand its territorial and political development. --Soulscanner 22:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving location of province section (2) 

message: Why does Canada remain a constitutional monarchy, yet maintains a parliamentary democracy?  Why not simply is in both cases?  Knowing how contentious things get in here, I thought I'd flag this before being bold and changing it. fishhead64 06:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the intent was to make a contrast with the last sentence of the previous paragraph. Perhaps another word than "maintains" is what we need, though it is not all that inappropriate. "Is" is too plain & does not serve notice that "severing the last vestiges of dependence on the British parliament" does not extend to not having a monarch --JimWae 07:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a rather fine point, don't you think?  Canada is a constitutional monarchy in its own right.  Much as we inherited the crown from Britain, we inherited our parliamentary democracy from it, as well, after all. fishhead64 05:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Remains" and "maintains"