Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Stargate task force/Archive 7

message: Just to let you all know, I've enacted the discussed list reorganisation. The new structure is:
;List of Stargate lists
*Aliens in Stargate
*Human civilizations in Stargate
**Human civilizations in Stargate SG-1
**Human civilizations in Stargate Atlantis
*Planets in Stargate
*Characters in Stargate
**Tau'ri characters in Stargate
***Tau'ri characters in Stargate SG-1
***Tau'ri characters in Stargate Atlantis
**Goa'uld characters in Stargate
**Wraith characters in Stargate
**Ori characters in Stargate
**Ancient characters in Stargate
**Tok'ra characters in Stargate
**Asgard characters in Stargate
**Jaffa characters in Stargate
**Genii characters in Stargate
**Athosian characters in Stargate
**Asuran characters in Stargate
*Technology in Stargate
**Tau'ri technology in Stargate
**Goa'uld technology in Stargate
**Tok'ra technology in Stargate
**Ori technology in Stargate
**Wraith technology in Stargate
**Tollan technology in Stargate
**Asgard technology in Stargate
**Ancient technology in Stargate
**Asuran technology in Stargate
**Miscellaneous technology in Stargate
*Timeline of Stargate
*System Lord
*List of Stargate episodes
**List of Stargate SG-1 episodes and (spoiler free)
**List of Stargate Atlantis episodes and (spoiler free)
**List of Stargate Infinity episodes and (spoiler free)
*List of personnel in Stargate
**List of SGC personnel in Stargate
**List of Atlantis personnel in Stargate
*List of Stargate cast
**List of Stargate SG-1 cast
**List of Stargate Atlantis cast
*Stargate DVD
**Stargate SG-1 DVD
**Stargate Atlantis DVD
Please help fix redirects, but more importantly help fix/expand the articles to fit the new structure, and write the red links. --Alfakim-- talk 19:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very good Job.Well done!Tobyk777 00:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lists reorganised 

message: I utilized the /todo function of the  template for Stargate SG-1: The Alliance some time back (even forgotten I had).I was recently surprised to find it up for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stargate SG-1: The Alliance/To do.I'm not sure where I stand on its deletion in accordance with policy; but if it is deleted, that sets a precedence that effectively prohibits using the sub-page function of the "to do".—pd_THOR | =/\= | 01:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just expalined the feature on the AfD subpage.Tobyk777 01:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes but it was created in the wrong location.The todo should be off the talk page Talk:Stargate SG-1: The Alliance/to do.I moved it... Morphh 02:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Yikes - It looks like our template, however, looks off the main page for the todo.I've opposed the removal. Morphh 02:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean morphh?--Alfakim-- talk 03:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Guess it's all done now but when I was looking at the Stargate Talk Template it was pointing to pd THOR's old todo and not the new one I created off the talk page.So that made me think the template was defaulted to look of the article instead of the talk.If I added the "todo" tag, it would pull up the todo I created.Morphh 12:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It shouldnt do that I checked. You just needed to purge the page.--Alfakim-- talk 17:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  todo deletion 

message: Ok, we've had plenty of discussions about whether or not our articles are ready for PR/FAC, and we're going round in circles. I'm going to ask a slightly different question: Will submitting our 2 attempts to PR do any harm?Please don't give reasons for why it won't do any good, just tell me if it will do any harm.If no-one can give me a good reason why it will do harm, then I'll submit them and we'll find out afterwards if it does any good. --Tango 17:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think there would be anything wrong with two peer reviews at the same time.I do think there will be harm to push two articles for FA at the same time though, but not PR.--Bark 17:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't really matter if they're the same time - I can submit them a week apart if people think that would be better. (Although, I agree - I think it's only FA where it would be an issue.) The main question is if submitting them at all in their current state would cause problems. --Tango 18:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Its not that it would cause harm - I'd like a Peer review when I can no longer see the problems with the articles. currently the problems are obvious as hell. we work on those, and THEN peer review. makes sense no? --Alfakim-- talk 22:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I specifically asked people not to make those kinds of comments. We've discussed their readiness many times - this isn't the place to do it again. --Tango 22:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  PR for our FA attempts 

message: Has anyone writen an article on the new stargate film? --Rayc 04:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Those aren't confirmed yet. Devlin said he wants to make them, nothing more. Konman72 04:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New film? 

message: I was updating the main articles and I came about the literature section. The information about novels is scattered along the articles and the Stargate film novels page is highly underused. Why we don't rename it "Stargate novels" or "List of Stargate novels" and we use it to list all the novels, and then just link the article from the main pages after a brief introduction? Or perhaps "Stargate fiction", since we have short stories to list too? What do you think? --Andromeda 06:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would go with Stargate Novels, but what short stories are you referring to? If they are official then definitely go with Stargate Literature or something similar to that to include all items. Konman72 07:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The short stories published in the Official Stargate Magazine. They're already in the Literature section of each page. I just wanted to centralize all the information. --Andromeda 09:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Gotcha, I understand and agree. Stargate Literature seems proper to me, but I'm not set on it, so whatever you think. Konman72 09:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Stargate literature has been created. Comments are appreciated.--Andromeda 10:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stargate film novels -> Stargate novels 

message: I've created 2 new peer review requests:
*Wikipedia:Peer review/DNA Resequencer (Stargate)/archive2
*Wikipedia:Peer review/Stargate (device)/archive3
--Tango 13:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New PRs 

message: The list of Stargate planets page is looking very good.I think it could potentialy be a FL.However, the "lesser planets" section might need to be incorperated into the table that the rest of the planets are in.Other than that, I think the list is perfect.Tobyk777 22:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I completly concur. American Patriot 1776 21:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Planets list for FL

message: Hi Everyone.Currently our project has many navigational templates specific to certain areas of stargate, like aliens or tech.However, if you want to get from a tech article to lets say, a character article, the navigation is difficult.I propose that we make a quick easy way to acess any stargate article from any other.(With the exception of individual eps).I think that All of the following templates should be merged into Stargate topics, to form a super-nav-template for Stargate: , , , , , .Plenty of other projects have done similar things.Here are some random examples: , , .I think it would be great to have oone big nav template to get from any SG article to any other (excluding episodes).Who agrees?Tobyk777 00:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It will be too big. How about adding links on each template to lists of the things on the other templates? I think most of those lists already exist as articles, and any that don't can easilly be created. (ie. Stargate Planets will link to List of SG-1 regulars, etc) And episodes can be included by linking to the list of SG-1 eps and the list of Atlantis eps, and each ep can link to the list, and the two lists can have navigation templates. --Tango 10:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

text: and  could be merged but anything else would make it to big Nicoli nicolivich 12:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I like the idea - but not as one huge looking template.I would utilize the "show/hide" feature like in our  template.If it could be designed where the primary template was viewable and then there was a "show" link to expand our other templates, I think that would be cool and not take up much space.Morphh 18:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The show/hide feature only works in the monobook skin. I think the article namespace should avoid using features that only work for certain readers. --Tango 20:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A Radical, but logical proposal

message: undoable has been done.SG-1 is leaving TV.However, another network may pick it up.D**N YOU SCIFI!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!How can you accuratly judge a show's ratings in 5 episodes?!? American Patriot 1776 21:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite honestly, I think they're doing it for fear of jumping the shark, and with a show so long-running, it's not unreasonable. Personally, I think it might be able to handle one more season, but then, it might just be better to end it with a miniseries (in the style of Farscape). Lockesdonkey 22:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I was expecting them to at least wait and see what the ratings were for the 200th ep. If that ep didn't get ratings similar to last season, then they're probably right to axe it, but if it did, then there's a chance of ratings improving. It looks like it isn't an official announcement yet, anyway, it's just people leaking it, so I guess there is hope, but not a lot. Prehaps it will end up on another network, although having SG-1 and Atlantis on different networks might cause problems with cross-overs (See Buffy and Angel for a similar situation). I guess we can hope MGM decide to take Atlantis away from SciFi as well, and take them both to a different network. --Tango 22:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps a network with High Definition... :-)I can't believe SCIFI hasn't gone HD yet.Morphh 23:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I am very pissed that they are canceling SG-1.At the same time I am thinking about how little logical sense this makes.How could Atlantis possibly continue without an earth based show?They wouldn't be able to go from Atlantis back to earth without hiring all guest actors for the SGC.Unless they want to make Atlantis 100% peasasus, Atlantis depends on SG-1.If they did go all peagasus it would suck and would bring down Atlantis ratings.At the same time the reasons for SG-1s fall are the producers falut.Moving BSG out of the lineup made it so BSG fans don't watch Stargate before.Also, almost no Stargate advertizing has been done.It's all been done for Eureka; and I'll tell you that Eureka isn't gona last for 10 seasons.Why can't Stargate get just a little bit of the advertising.I also know people who are pissed about the mid season break and have stopped watching because they don't want to be left hanging for 6 months.Once again thats the producers falt.The producers were pretty stpuid on this one; they basicaly dropped the ratings on themselves.Tobyk777 01:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, the could always use some of the characters from SG-1 and move them over. In any case, having occasional use of a few minor characters would probably cost less. I'm inclined to agree with Lockes that there is probably some concern about jumping the shark. I mean, how many more times can they bring Ba'al back? I just hope they go out on top with the end of the season. JoshuaZ 01:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that they should stop using baal and that hes getting rediculous.The whole clone thing is dumb and was just created so that the writers could kill him as many times as they want to.They should just kill him once and for all.I have to agree there.But, the Ori/Merlin plotline is just getting started.They haven't even found the device yet.Unless they defeat the Ori by the end of season 10, they will never defeat the Ori.I don't see how they can.The sieries finale will have to be brilliant.Tobyk777 03:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Cancelling SG-1 shouldn't make it too much more difficult to hire SG-1 actors for the odd scene, what I want to know is what they'll do with the SGC set. They can't justify keeping it just for the odd Atlantis scene, yet without it they can't show anyone coming home by stargate. --Tango 09:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, there is another reason why I think the show is going down.It can't simply pick up any new viewers.There is now 10 years of backround info requied to fully understand the context of each show.Many people I know have tried watching it, gotten very confused and stopped.Because concepts, ideas, races, charcaters and other stuff (which they don't know about) is refreneced and they get lost.The only way to pick it up is to watch every season on DVD all the way through.(which I have convinced some of my friends to do).Bascialy, because of this, Stargate can only lose viewers, not gain new ones.Tobyk777 06:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very good point. It is very hard to get into a series if you don't start at the beginning - that'strue even of shows that have only done a couple of seasons. Coming in on series 10 would be next to impossible. They could avoid so many mentions of past events, but that would just annoy the old fans. Getting rid of the Gou'ld and bringing in a new enemy was a good idea to get around this problem - you don't need to know too much about the Gou'ld to understand the current storylines. --Tango 09:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Lack of Richard Dean Anderson to blame? :) Although, as that link says, this isn't the first time that SG-1 has been on the chopping block, so you never really know. It might have been better to have just made the move to Atlantis as the main show, add actors who wanted to stay to that show, and have them all as one big happy family. Not sure how likely that is now, since Atlantis has much of it's own thing going on. Daniel could definitely cross over, if Michael Shanks and Atlantis writers wished for it.Ned Scott 06:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it was RDA leaving that caused people to leave, they would have left by half way through season 9 - season 9 had pretty decent ratings (not amazing, but good enough for them to make a season 10). --Tango 09:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: RDA's leaving brought down ratings a little bit, but as I said, the show can only lose viewers, and because of the reasons above the producers are making that happen much moer rapidly.Tobyk777 01:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: No official announcement and very close to the craziness of ep 200 makes me wonder how trustworthy this information is. It's probably just something to play on our fears, since we all know that this isn't the greatest SG-1 has been (but still a hell of a lot better than most of Sci-Fi's shows).Ned Scott 01:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really understand your commment.Could you rephrase?Tobyk777 01:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It sounds like a rumor, a hoax. Although a believable one.Ned Scott 02:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Nope, I was wrong, it's real. However, this is just SciFi being.. stupid. They still want to continue the show-> SG-1 will go on.Ned Scott 03:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article you linked to states that the siries as we know it is gona end but may contiue in another form.Tobyk777 04:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The show could end with the feature film that has been rumored. i think this would be the best thing, tie up all louse end and go out with a bang, or even lead into a new series.Nicoli nicolivich 13:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 

message: This is turning into a nice detailed article, but the OR police want citations.Know any sources?If so, please help out.--Bark 22:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Gateworld news has alot of articles on 200.Check that.Tobyk777 01:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm having trouble accessing that site tonight.--Bark 01:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[200 (Stargate SG-1)|200]]

message: Gateworld recently updated their site, meaning that the various Stargate articles here no longer link to the correct page on the Gateworld site. --Quadraxis 14:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Gateworld Update

message: I just made this template: Template:Stargate racebox (see its talk page), designed to go on at the top of a page that is part of a subdivision by race. It is extremely dynamic. However, before spamming it everywhere I thought id just put it through you guys. Tell me what you think.  is a more general template that hides at the bottom.--Alfakim-- talk 19:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a good idea. I'm not sure about the formatting/layout, though. How about something similar to Template:Common law? --Tango 21:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't understand exactly how do you want to use it. --Andromeda 21:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I think it's worth it. It makes them seem more like a series of articles, which is always better to read than lots of disjoint articles. --Tango 20:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  new template 

message: This article should so be named Zat'nik'tel, not just Zat.--Alfakim-- talk 19:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you sure?While it's the proper full name of it, WP:NAME says "Names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists."It's rarely called a Zat'nik'tel in favour of just "zat".—pd_THOR | =/\= | 19:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Zat could redirect to Zat'nik'tel, there'd be no problems - i just think the article should refer to the real name of the device. You rarely hear anyone say "Puddle Jumper" over just "Jumper" - but its called a puddle jumper and thats it.--Alfakim-- talk 20:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely agree. Konman72 20:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also agree.Rename.Tobyk777 01:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[zat]] 

message: According to this page, an article called Ori characters in Stargate should be written. What is supposed to be in here? There isn't even a single Ori called by name. All that we have are a bunch of priors of which is only very little known, and Adria, and they're just followers of the Ori, not of the Ori race. I doubt there is enough to justify creating this article.
:I agree.I should probably be Followers of Origin in Stargate Tobyk777 01:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It makes sense.I still think that calling them Ori wouldn't be right, since they're their followers.How about an article titled Followers of Origin or something.And have Ori Charcters in Stargate redirect to it.It would go in the same format as the wratih page.That would clear any confusion and maintain an acurate title.Tobyk777 03:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ori characters in Stargate 

message: The article Anunnaki seems mostly to be about a rather science-fiction-like Sumerian mythology. However, one paragraph looks like it might be something out of Stargate.
Annunakis are depicted with wings which implies, that they came flying from other planets such as Planet X or Nibiru 3678 years ago in Iraq through the Ashtar Stargate which Americans now must protect until year 2012 waiting for extra-terrestrials to arrive again through the Ashtar (Star) gate in Iraq.
Note that this paragraph originally contained typographical errors that made it not fit with the rest or the article - see diff. Also, it doesn't seem to fit factually with the rest of the article - elsewhere, it says the Sumerians believed that their planet Nibiru entered our solar system every 3600 years (so that Stargate would not be needed), and that this planet was supposed to return in 2003, not 2012.
Cross-referencing Ashtar and "Stargate SG-1" reveals about 255 results on Google. However, cross-referencing Ashtar and Stargate on Google yields about 757 results, and a sample of these from the first 10 do not seem to be related to the show Stargate.
So the question is, is this paragraph a hoax, or is it an unreferenced bit of material with some basis in fringe archaelogical theory / Sumerian mythology?
— Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 15:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This site might be the origin of the statement. This article says that Nibiru (the mythological planent) might be translated as "star, gate, crossing point". However, I have no idea how to evaluate this site based on WP:RS. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 16:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Anunnaki]] - hoax or coincidence/inspiration? 

message: Hi. Just to notify you that a user has made a mass nom of all Atlantis main chars over @ Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aiden Ford. thanks/MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 19:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you very much.—pd_THOR | =/\= | 21:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem there that AFD is going very well.Tobyk777 06:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mass Deletion 

message: I just want to point out that our 2 request for PR haven't gotten any comments whatsoever after 2 weeks of just sitting there.Why do you think this is?I think it might be because of one of the following:
*The public just doesn't care about those articles/No one who cares has seen the PRs
*No one can find anything wrong with the articles/They're perfect
What do you guys think, because I have never seen a PR with zero comments after 2 weeks before.Tobyk777 06:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It might be because of a slight mistake I made when I created the pages - I made the headers one size too small, so on the table of contents they showed up as as subheadings of the previous PR. I corrected it after a few days, though, so I would have thought someone would see them. It's very odd... Prehaps someone should say something on Wikipedia talk:Peer review. --Tango 12:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer Review Failures

message: The following articles are far too small to have their own page.They're just asking for AFDs.They should be merged into other pages:
Triad (Stargate), Runner (Stargate), Project Arcturus, Ernest Littlefield
There may be more.I sugest we do alot of merging since we have been getting more AFDs lately.Tobyk777 21:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a merge tag to Triad (Stargate) to merge into Tollan (Stargate).I think Runner (Stargate) should be merged into Wraith (Stargate).I think Project Arcturus should be merged with Ancient technology in Stargate.I'm not sure about Ernest Littlefield - I'm thinking leave him alone or like Tango suggested, we create a new article for minor characters.Morphh 19:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We already have the article you want to create: Tau'ri characters in Stargate SG-1.Ernest could go there.Tobyk777 19:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh ya, too many articles to keep track off. :-) I even watch that one.haha Morphh 19:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

text: No that article is only for the more major characters. Ernest Littlefield obviously redirects to "The Torment of Tantalus".--Alfakim-- talk 20:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, it isn't. This article is for any revelant character, major or minor. Some characters have minor apparitions, but the consequences of those are important. --Andromeda 13:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

text: How about merging Project Arcturus into Zero Point Module instead? The basic concept is similar, Acturus was really just a ZPM turned inside-out. Bryan 21:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Perhaps true, but by our very nature we are in the crosshairs of deletionists; perhaps you should look into the mass deletion attempt on all Atlantis characters. While the nom was clearly on the extreme wing of deletionism, we have to be careful to remove/merge anything that looks too much like fancruft so that the entire project's work isn't destroyed. I'm afraid that anything of that subject, as detailed as it is, will be subject to AFDs.LD 20:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Articles that shouldn't exist

message: I think this page has reached the point where it could be a feature list.Who agrees?Tobyk777 20:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say it still needs some tidying up. And prioritization. Maybe. --Alfakim-- talk 20:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Planets in Stargate]]

message: On Talk:Stargate SG-1, there is a discussion on the inclusion of links to petitions.To keep the thread in one place please comment there.I just wanted to alert the project to the discussion.Tobyk777 06:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Petition Talk

message: *I just found another article that is too small to exist: Orilla (Stargate).
To prevent more AFDs I ask all project members to list very minor articles here for merging and/or redirction.Tobyk777 01:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: More article that shoudln't exsist

message: Have you guys seen this?This is great.Who's idea is it?Tobyk777 03:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cernen. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 05:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Look at this

message: I noticed the Stargate SG-1 Trivia and the articles to be created Stargate Atlantis Trivia.Don't these articles go against the idea of WP:AVTRIV.This is just for including triva in an ariticle - we've created a whole article with nothing but triva.Thoughts Morphh 18:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely, I didn't even know that that article existed. Perhaps a redirect to Stargate SG-1 is in order, since there is a trivia section there anyway. Konman72 22:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I sugest a redirect and merge before someone nominates it for deletion.Tobyk777 01:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no point redirecting it - who will ever want to go to a page dedicated to trivia? I suggest we put it up for deletion ourselves. If there's anything worth merging, then feel free, but I don't think there is. --Tango 11:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Trivia it mentions isn't even that interesting, it's really just canon differences between the film and the series. No Way Back 12:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If there is anything we'd like to keep, we can combined it with the SG-1 trivia section, however, WP:AVTRIV is something we should follow for the Stargate SG-1 article as well.It is part of our WP:1.0 drive; so we need to start looking at Recommendations_for_handling_Trivia on this and other main articles.Morphh 13:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Trivia