Talk:Kill Bill: Volume 1/Archive 1

message: much of the article reads like a high school book review. there are convoluted sentences and pointless peacock phrases. worse, there are inaccuracies added regularly, building on an already flimsy base. if somebody's not going to rewrite entirely, please slash through what you can when making single edits. the article needs help. example:
Kill Bill is a story that stands alone, but it relies heavily on influences that Tarantino wished to pay tribute to.
what does that mean? how does the second part of the sentence relate to the first? it's bleh. stilted bleh.
kill bill is a complex story. if it's to be retold in detail, the writers should admit that out of the gate. sentences like this try too hard to tell it quickly. the result is confusion and slop:
Uma Thurman plays a character known as 'The Bride' who seeks bloody revenge against 'Bill' (David Carradine) and his squad for attempting to murder her, successfully murdering her fiance and friends, and her unborn child during the rehearsal.
should be broken up, or the details should be left for the real summary.
Hattori Hanzo was Bill's teacher, and feeling an obligation for having trained him, he agrees to break the oath he swore to never create 'something that kills people' again.
that run-on, breathless style is the entire article.
The audience learns that the Bride was not ambushed at her wedding, but at her wedding dress rehearsal.
hello!
When Beatrix quite stealthily attempts to kill Budd (aka Sidewinder, played by Michael Madsen) at his trailer, he is ready, via Bill's warning, and fires a bag of non-lethal rock salt into her chest immediately after the door is opened.
another single sentence crying out for distribution/deletion, but it's a better example of assumption and inaccuracy in the article. "bag" of rock salt? says who? what evidence is there that the rock salt was in a bag? what bag? if it's not true, it shouldn't be put in the article. period. i just removed 3 slops in one edit, and there are plenty more.
After a nostalgic moment, Beatrix unceasingly drives a fist into her coffin...
high school. tabloid, at best. this is an encyclopedia.
In the ensuing fight between the two women, Elle is in possession of Beatrix's sword.
she has beatrix's sword. peacock.
It seems disappointing that Beatrix did not actually kill Budd herself.
POV anyone? the entire paragraph is a fan gone wild, playing movie critic. not appropriate for the article.
As aforementioned, Elle more than likely fell to the actual black mamba as well.
ha!
i'm not going to rewrite this. i think it's hopeless. but if somebody doesn't start striking/rewriting, i'll simply remove the blatant POV and unencylopedic parts, disjoints be damned.
SaltyPig 11:57, 2005 May 21 (UTC)
: took a spin through the whole article, hacking and slashing. serious editors, please review and improve. thanks. SaltyPig 08:58, 2005 May 29 (UTC)
:: tweaked more -- mostly the vol 2 section. barring objection, i will remove the cleanup template from the article, ideally after somebody reviews and tightens the current version. SaltyPig 20:09, 2005 May 29 (UTC)
::: I agree too. I've always hated reading Wikip articles like this, full of modern euphemisms. The synopses of films should be more concise & SHOULD NOT INCLUDE QUOTES TO MAKE THEM MORE DRAMATIC. If anything, quotations should be in a separate section.Tommyt 16:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  article needs total rewrite 

message: are all of the examples in this section attributed to tarantino claims/admissions? the existence of a similarity to another film doesn't necessarily mean it influenced him. if these are mere similarities, the section should be renamed appropriately. SaltyPig 12:21, 2005 Jun 6 (UTC)
: I changed the section title to "Cinematic allusions and influences", which is a bit broader than the specific implication of sourced influences. — Jeff Q (talk) 05:21, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Influence of other films 

message: Hi.  A section of the article is dedicated to a comment by Sands, and it closes by saying that he was heavily criticized for it.  But what was that criticism exactly?  I assume it would be because Sands implied that the  industry never releases the best possible version, or pack on DVD right away, sort of "holding out" on the fans in order to multiply its business.  Am I right?  I mean, it couldn't be because the industry expects people to buy multiple versions of the same movie, they would never get a significant number of people to do that.  We should expand this section, so that the reader can know exactly how Sands's remarks were attacked.  I sure would like to know.  Regards, Redux 02:37, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rick Sands's comments 

message: I just did a thorough copyedit and restructure of the article. I've separated the volumes into "plot" and "details" sections and moved/removed some redundant material. I've moved the soundtracks off this article to their own, as per Pulp Fiction/Pulp Fiction (soundtrack) and other film releases that have a significant soundtrack element (e.g., FLCL). A lot can be written about these two soundtracks, but it won't fit in the Kill Bill article nicely. Some of the images and the two infoboxes still need to be aligned, which I'm trying to do right now. —Tarnas 08:40, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heavy copyedit/restructure 

message: Many felt it resembled an anime (which, to most people, is considered to be a good thing).
weird, p.o.v.-ish sentence, I'm thinking of removing —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.226.145.39 (talk • contribs) 20:16, 7 September 2005
: I agree, I've never read anything saying that about the movie and no source was cited. I've removed it. —Tarnas 00:41, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, that's more in line with an analysis of influences on Quentin Tarantino and his use of them in his films. For the purposes of an encyclopedia, arguing a highly speculative subject like this is best left to the fanboys. Gibson Cowboy 05:54, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  anime shite 

message: Kill Bill Volume 2 (soundtrack) gets its own article while the movie doesn't, why? Shawnc 22:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ther's nothing stopping you creating one.-Gillean666 22:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  vol. 2 main article 

message: I recently held a sort of Films Noirs Festival, and Suzuki Seijun was one of the directors on my list.  I watched Tokyo Drifter and saw scenes that I thought I had seen in modified form in Kill Bill.  For instance, there is a scene in where the background colours change during the scene where Kurata's clerk was shot.  Reminded me of the Beatrix-Pai Mei choreographed formation training scene.  The scene in the club where people were dancing on a glass floor in Tokyo Drifter reminds me of the scene at the House of Blue Leaves in Kill Bill.  Also, both films have very catchy/upbeat/ironic songs playing during/before very violent scenes. Am I just seeing things? --Trtskh 04:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suzuki Seijun References? 

message: I read the whole article, and it seems that it needs to be divided because each section, esp. ones about volumes, needs independence; so others deserve to know a lot more of information. what do you think? 69.227.173.21 22:33, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article needs to be taken out and shot.   Most of it's just a re-telling of the plot, in too much detail and horrible prose.   The character articles, on the other hand, do need expansion. HenryFlower 22:42, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does this article need to be split into several articles? 

message: User:Gillean666 removed the following text from the article, stating "Deleted personal assumption and original research.":
*The name "Beatrix Kiddo" is also hinted at in what one would assume is an inside joke between old friends. In an exchange between O-Ren and The Bride we have them citing the long-running Trix (cereal) slogan "Silly rabbit, Trix are for kids!" It plays on The Bride's real name, Beatrix Kiddo (rab-BIT TRIX...KIDS). In addition to this, it is possible that it plays off of the author of Peter Rabbit, Beatrix Potter.
This interpretation has also been put forward in Jim Smith's book Tarantino. Not the best film book in the world, but nevertheless, it's been published, so it's not original research.
pp. 212:
"For example, we discover in Vol. 2 that the Bride's name is Beatrix. Now, when towards the end of Kill Bill - Vol. 1 O-Ren asks The Bride, 'You didn't think it was going to be that easy, did you?' and The Bride replies in the affirmative, O-Ren says, 'Silly Rabbit, Trix are for kids.' This isn't just a slogan for some cereal and an allusion to The Bride's as yet unknown name, it's also a marrying of Beatrix and Rabbit — which should remind most people of an author who wrote animal stories.
I'll remove the bit about it being "an inside joke between old friends", but restore the rest of it. OK? --Nick RTalk 13:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Restore it if you like but this article has an over abundance of useless information and needs to be cut drastically.Gillean666 22:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, it does. People need to realise that adding stuff (particularly bullet-pointed trivia) to articles doesn't necessarily make them better. But since I could provide a reference for that particular bit, I decided to restore it for now, even if it's eventually removed when the article gets peer reviewed or otherwise gets a big improvement drive... --Nick RTalk 14:02, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research? 

message: I added a cleaup tag to the article.  As it stands now, it's just an embarassment.  What little encyclopedic information it contains is buried under an excruciating reproduction of the entire plot of both movies and what seem like hundreds of useless bullet points.  --Mr Wind-Up Bird ✈ 16:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  cleanup 

message: This was on the first "details" section of the article just before I added the boarding pass image (emphasis added):
:During this first half of Kill Bill, The Bride's real name is bleeped out when characters say it. However, The Bride's real name is present on her boarding pass for her flights to Okinawa and Tokyo.
The image was uploaded as a verification. If it goes away, then this paragraph has to go too. --Fibonacci 07:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boarding pass 

message: Please stop reverting the trivia about "My name is Buck" from Kill Bill. Just because it is crude doesn't stop it from being an accurate piece of trivia for the film. Thank you.--CyberGhostface 21:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eaten Alive Trivia 

message: While we're at it, who the hell thinks she's saying thank you to Bill at the end of the film(s)?  God, maybe, but prolly more like the Fates who specialize in vengence.  Bill's dead, and a jerk, and not the person Kiddo would be thanking.  Duh.  Frou Bear    Phoenix frou 04:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Have to agree with Phoenix.  Thanking Bill is an interesting theory but would need some support.  I changed it to be ambiguous, as it is in the film. Gaohoyt 16:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Adding:  D'oh, I meant the Furies, not the Fates.  Peace out, and (imagine me mouthing this) thank you, thank you!  Phoenix frou 22:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thank you at the end of the film? 

message: I'm thinking that the synopses of the 2 vols are, once again, getting bloated & overdone, such as:
They all suffer grisly death or mutilation at the edge of her sword in a sequence of sustained, graphic violence. The Blue Leaves sequence employs a variety of visual styles including color, black-and-white, a kabuki-like blue-background silhouette, and an overexposed, flashing black-and-white style which seems to suggest an old martial arts movie. The accompanying soundtrack is an eclectic collection of musical styles.
This would fit better into a section about style or themes, but it doesn't belong in the synopsis. Also, the phrase "at the edge of her sword" is just way too dramatic.
And later:
Throughout these scenes, the director exploits the creepy tension between Bill's pleasant demeanor and the violence that we know will occur next.
Again, style or themes section, but not in the synopsis. Or, better yet, in the separate character profile on Bill. Tommyt 17:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite: Redux 

message: The Trivia section has the following line:
The ending of the film is an homage to the ending of Oliver Stone's 1994 film Natural Born Killers based on a screenplay by Tarantino.
Didn't Tarantino disown the film because he disagreed with the way Stone rewrote his screenplay? (Ibaranoff24 00:31, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia 

message: I've fixed the bibliographic style of the first six references. I'm simply too exhausted to finish them. Could anyone with the time or interest do so?
This film is amazing not to mention one of the iconic film of the decade. This article should be cleaned up and turned into an FA. The potential is there but unfortunately so is the flab! Reduce and improve.
This page will help in the cleanup: Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines
Jaw101ie 15:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference clean up 

message: I added this template into the top of the article because it was too long that sections need its own spinoff. Otherwise, sections would be trimmed down before having their own spinoff. What do you think? --Gh87 17:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: no way, the length is perfect for two films worth of material. AlexOvShaolin 03:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding {{tl|toolong}} on top of article 

message: I added this tag in the article because some sections takes away main topic's attention in the article that they needs its own independence from it. --Gh87 07:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not much different from your rationale to add the  template.  It doesn't seem like there is any one section that is so long that it merits its own article.  Also, Kill Bill is essentially one movie (it is almost implied by the tag that it be split according to volume), and so it should remain as one article. --Stux 17:10, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Comment noted, but I am moving the tag to the talk page as it detracts from the article.  I would be interested in what sections you think could be "broken off".  I agree with Stux that a Volume 1/Volume 2 split is a bad idea. Gaohoyt 17:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added {{tl|split-apart}} 

message: After reading the WikiFilms guidelines, I added  tags to the two volume synopes.  Seriously, they're 2800 words long.  It's extremely easy to write this kind of thing, but I'd be interested to hear thoughts on who, exactly, they meant for, and what encyclopedic purpose describing in detail every single event of the films serves. --24.81.13.220 17:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Strong cosign. Why even see these films, when one need only read the entire story on wikipedia? 74.134.255.99 01:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  synopses 

message: Changed the poor-taste edit Snake Choker back to Snake Charmer. ... Now if someone put a reference to Five Point Palm Exploding Heart Technique on the late Mr. Carradine's page - that would be comedy. 24.251.117.209 (talk) 05:10, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Snake Choker 

message: Does anyone know whether the wedding dress was a commercially available design, or specially made for the movie?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.9.175.15 (talk) 20:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Wedding Dress 

message: The link just redirects to the original page.
76.118.30.59 (talk) 03:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Pussy Waggon 

message: I'm wondering why there has to be a note about the Bride being referred to as Beatrix Kiddo at the beginning of the synopsis for Vol 2? seems totally unnecessary & reveals too much too soon.
I think we should remove that & all refs in the plot to BK up until the moment where Elle reveals her true name to the audience. It was a calculated move by Tarantino to keep her real name secret (aside from the plane ticket in Vol 1) up to that point. We should do the same here. Any takers? Tommyt 16:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. You wouldn't reveal that Neo dies in the beginning of the synopsis of The Matrix Revolutions of that Vader is Luke's father in the first paragraph about Empire's plot, and you shouldn't reveal The Bride's name until it's revealed in the film. -- Kicking222 02:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Bride Vs Beatrix Kiddo 

message: as i mentioned before this would cut down on size tremendously and the information is really neat (I've added to it myself), however I'm assuming it isn't primary to the average reader. 'music' can probably be given its own article as well, thats usually standard with long articles with soundtracks. --AlexOvShaolin 02:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Give influences its own article? 

message: Why isn't there any discussion about volume two sucking hard?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.49.55.36 (talk) 13:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Volume 2

message: I've just added a  template to the "Music" section, similar to those in other film articles such as Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope#Soundtrack. However, despite the full track listings being provided in the two soundtrack album articles, the song listing is also repeated in this one. That's one of the things that can be trimmed from this page - better to do what that Star Wars article did (and others such as The_Matrix#Music and Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater#Audio) and use the section for a more general summary style overview of the films' music, leaving the the in-depth track listings to the soundtrack album articles.
In fact, I'm going to change that now. :) Won't go into much detail on the section's text just yet, though.  --Nick RTalk 15:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, done that now. The overview is only a very brief outline at the moment, but I think the article's much better without repeating the full track listings. --Nick RTalk 15:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing track list from music section 

message: You know that link to the crazy 88's battle? Well go to 2:30. She uses a move, that I SWEAR I've seen somewhere before. Trunksamurai 20:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The move 

message: Sorry lads but I seriously don't see any logic whatsoever in putting the two volumes into one article. It will just confuse people and cause inaccuracy. Someone might consider splitting them. thanks Igorndhaswog 12:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I don't have a source at the moment, but Quentin T explained in an interview that it is one movie, put into two volumes for ease of watching  (would be too long as one). If you look at the plot of the films, you can easily see how Volume II is just a continuation of the first. Greengiraffe 03:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There's already a current discussion on this elsewhere in this talk page. Look upwards to see some of the differing views on the matter! --Nick RTalk 17:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vol. 1 and 2 in one article? 

message: kill bill could probably use one of those box thing-ies like the tarantino one at the bottom of this page. --AlexOvShaolin 18:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  box thing-y 

message: What is the make and model of the car over Bills left shoulder in the scene at Budd's trailer where Bill is warning Budd about the Bride coming for revenge?? I assume it's Bill's car because Budd drives a truck and the car does not appear in any other scene at the trailer without Bill. 
Docktergonzo 23:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bill's car is a DeTomaso Mangusta, a rare, limited-run European supercar from the late sixties. This is not to be confused with the Qvale Mangusta, which is a completely different car. There's no Wikipedia entry, but e2 has some information here: http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1539146 (disclaimer: I wrote that e2 node). 128.226.230.88 01:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What make and model is Bills car?? 

message: Oppose.  While the nom. says the Kill Bill article contains all the same information as Beatrix Kiddo, I suspect that the movie summaries in this article are overly detailed, and should be pruned.  Besides, if this article is split into v1 and v2, then you'll just have to split her off again.  Do you forward her to V1 or V2?  Her article, cleaned up, would stand fine on its own, and one shouldn't have to read a plot synopsis of two entire movies to get a basic explanation of the character of Beatrix Kiddo. - 156.34.221.147 02:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge from [[Beatrix Kiddo]] 

message: I'm making some pretty heavy changes to the synopses of the two volumes, trying to keep in mind that *plot* is NOT a scene-by-scene description, but rather a way to focus on the events of the story as they contribute to the work as a whole. The previous descriptions were far too in depth and (by consensus of many users on this talk page) a headache to read. 
If you prefer the scene by scene approach, I would recommend linking this page to an online copy of the script, or a scene-by-scene spoiler site, rather than immediately reverting the changes.
Also, I'm a tiny bit new to wiki, so feel free to be brutal with the new changes; criticism is appreciated and, if you see me make any major mistakes, feel free to point them out on my talk page: it helps me learn.
Cheers, -AmberAlert1713 04:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since you ask, my impression is that you are spending a lot of effort just substituting your own stylistic preferences for someone else's, without making the article significantly better.  In particular, I object to substituting the more ambiguous word "development" for "history" in the Criticism section.  It sounds like you don't believe that this was originally planned as one movie.  If you don't, you could determine this with a little research.  At least we are in agreement that the detailed plot sections are too long. Gaohoyt 08:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks! Constructive criticism always helped. If you think the word history to be a better fit please feel free to edit it. I used "development" because I find "history" to be more ambiguous-- history could refer to anything in the movie's past (and is firmly rooted in the past), whereas "development" refers to the guiding creative process that resulted in the one movie. I therefore firmly believe that it was planned as one movie; a working script, here [] confirms that one movie was always Tarantino's goal. Finally, I tried my best to make sure the "writing style" of my own matched as closely as possible to wikipedia's definition of plot [], especially attempting to pay attention to moral and artistic effects rather than the previous version's scene by scene description (which, if too detailed, could be considered copyright violation). If you have specific ideas of how my update strayed from the ideal description of plot (and there are certainly a few failures here-- I'd like to work next on it following the 7-point plot structure) please feel free to point them out. Cheers AmberAlert1713 20:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing the Plot 

message: Guys, I don't know if this is a UK / US English thing so I'm discussing here (UK perspective). The phrase which I edited, and has now been returned to it's original form "that the comatose Bride is the only survivor of a group of trained assassins" is, to UK / European-English readers a suggestion that she is the only member of the group of assassins who is still alive. A UK reader will not take this to mean that the Bride is the only survivor of an ATTACK BY the group of assassins. I'm not bothered how we word it, but it needs clarity, even for those familiar with the plot. 
Thanks BlueEvo2 19:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My apologies if I'm the one who changed it. While she was a part of the group of assassins, the cop has no knowledge of this; he only knows she was a victim of them. Good call. AmberAlert1713 19:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not a problem - thanks for editing and for responding so quickly: much appreciated. BlueEvo2 19:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The only survivor of a group of trained assassins 

message: watch special features of volume 2, Quentin says that it is ONE movie, only in two volumes for practical reasons (ie 5hr movie not appealing). 124.189.224.26 05:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would make more sense to put this in the actual argument section now wouldn't it? Toxic Ninja 05:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  DONT SPLIT 

message: Does anyone have a reference to the motivation for obscuring the name of Beatrix Kiddo throughout part one? There are probably a quite a few people who would like to know why. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.235.34.47 (talk) 01:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: i concurT ALK•QRC2006•¢ʘñ†®¡ß§ 07:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

text: answered (partially) at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Beatrix_Kiddo#Why_hide_the_name.3F 89.134.159.152 (talk) 15:12, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why hide the name of Beatrix Kiddo? 

message: Kill Bill Vol. 1 and Kill Bill Vol. 2 are two separate movies.  They should be treated as such and have their own articles just as any separate movies do, say like the Star Wars trilogy articles.
But the star wars movies are separate, self-contained stories that create one large arc, whereas kill bill is two movies with one single story continuing throughout both of them.
Truthfully, it is one complete story with two different movies. They need to be in the same article because, they were filmed at the same exact time.Craven 23:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the Pirates of the Carribean trilogy also filmed at the "same exact time"?  10:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is there even any discussion whether or not this should be split into two articles? 

message: What's the movie rating of volume one and volume two? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aceboy222 (talk • contribs) 03:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rated R, I believe.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.209.175.189 (talk) 23:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Movie Rating??? 

message: Kill Bill should NOT be split. Even though they are 2 movies, is just one story. Is like if you write an article of Encyclopedia Britannica, you are not going to right an article for each "VOLUME". Is the same story divided in two, Kill Bill Volume 2 begins with Chapter 6. Tarantino explained that he did it this way because he didn't want to cut the story to much... besides, there is an economic interest here, if you make two movies, you'll make people go twice to the movie theater, buy two DVDs, etc... everything times 2. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yogagye (talk • contribs) 16:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: FOR THE LAST TIME people! If you want to argue this point use the EXISTING thread above! P.S. it is frankly ridiculous to compare a movie franchise to the Encyclopedia Britannica. -- Grandpafootsoldier 06:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think the vote has been going on long enough. Dose anyone know the score? --Steinninn 19:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No splitting