Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Television stations task force/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Cable channels (infobox)

Should the infobox have a section for cable channels? Especially if the station brands by its cable channel (e.g. WWSB) or is a cable only station (e.g Bay News 9) --CFIF 19:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

You brought up a broadcast station, so... eeuggh. What cable channel a station will have varies from cable provider to cable provider, and can vary depending on where in a market you are even on the same cable provider. It's not uncommon for even VHF stations to be moved to a different channel than the one they broadcast on, especially on Time Warner systems. (I've even seen a market's VHF stations shuffled around and yet not leave the general VHF 2-13 area, or even move all of a single channel number. Um... what was the point? This is especially maddening with stations that identify by their over-the-air channel, which is still incredibly common.) It's possible, and maybe even occasionally useful, but it probably won't get used in certain cases, or will become a long list that will dominate the infobox. Morgan Wick 06:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Allentown

Does anyone know what market Allentown/Bethlehem/Easton, PA are in?

i'm guessing either Philly, or Wilkes-Barre/Scranton...

Raccoon Fox 04:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

They are considered to be in the Philadelphia Market. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 04:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Goals, Projects, Tasks.

I have just added sections for Goals, Projects, and Tasks to the Project page. I felt that we were missing these sections that other Wikiprojects seem to use quit effectively. I know that this is kinda bold, but I don't think anyone will object to the idea of these sections. I'm not so positive about the contents of these sections. I based these off of what I've seen done in this project of late. Please add, and if you feel the need remove, content from these sections. I was most unsure about the Goals section, does anyone have any suggestions for what to put there? —A 09:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

WB 100+ Station Group

It worries me that articles like WGWB, a station with a fictional callsign in the WB 100+ Station (Cable Only) Group, has its own infobox calling it a broadcast channel and is listed so. What should we do to make completely sure that these stations are not mixed in with regular broadcast stations. --CFIF 23:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

The article certainly needs to be changed, as there is nothing indicating it is a non-broadcast channel, and my research turned up that it doesn't even have a consistent channel number (it's 31 only on Time-Warner, other cable systems have it on 2, 5, 6, and others, DirecTV has it on 15). Interestingly, the UPN outlet in that market is a digital subchannel of WCTI-TV. I'm guessing the CW would prefer to affiliate with a digital subchannel, which is at least a terrestrial broadcast outlet, over a cable/satellite-only channel. It will be interesting to see what, if anything, is left of the WB100+ station group after the CW merger is complete.

I'm suprised to see there is no WB100+ article in Wikipedia. Would anyone object to the creation of The WB 100+ Station Group? DHowell 03:57, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I made some edits to WGWB and {{Greenville/New Bern/Washington TV}} to clarify that this is not a broadcast station. DHowell 05:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that they should have articles if they are notable. IMO being a major network affiliate is notable enough. This article realy should not be named to what looks like FCC call letters, as it implys that it is a licensed broadcast station. Also a future station could apply to use this callsign, and it would be a problem then. I'd say keep the page but rename it. We should come up with some sort of unofficial NC for this type of station. —A 05:57, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

The sticky thing with that is it identifies as WGWB. I don't know why WB 100+ has to lie and brand their stations with a non-existent callsign. A 100+ article would not be bad. --CFIF 11:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there would be too much of a problem with naming the article by the fictitious callsign, as long as the article clearly identifies that it is not a legitimate FCC call sign. After all, KITT and WASP look like they could be the names of broadcast stations, but the articles are clearly about something else. WJM-TV is an article about a entirely fictional television station. If the FCC assigns WGWB to a real station, then the WB100+ channel should be renamed, e.g. to "WGWB (WB100+)" or "WGWB (Greenville, NC)", and the real station should get the unadorned name, with a disambig link at the top. DHowell 19:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Should WAWB be included on this list? It doesn't show up on an FCC query, but a local editor thinks it is a real station. — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:|User:]] ([[User talk:|talk]] • contribs) (yeah this was me, forgot to sign. —A 08:30, 14 February 2006 (UTC))

WAWB is not a WB100+ station, but it is a digital subchannel of WZDX. The WAWB call letters are just as fictitious as the WB100+ stations, though. DHowell 05:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

What would the other editors of this project think about a small top-of-page infobox ala {{Current}} or {{tdeprecated}} for TV stations that are not licenced by the local authority but that use a callletter like name? Perhaps a broadcast tower with a slash, a title like 'This TV station is not a broadcast station', and a link to a page about the difference between broadcast and non-broadcast TV stations. —A 08:30, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

That sounds good. --CFIF 12:16, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Updating the infobox

Would anyone have a problem with moving the template from it's current form - Template:Infobox Broadcast to Infobox Television station which is currently a redirect to a Television Network infobox? This would bring it in line with the radio stations Infobox Radio station. This conversion could be semi-automated with the AutoWikiBrowser. I don't assume that there would be any objections but I just want to make sure. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 20:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I object. Why don't we convert the television infobox (far superior) for radio use or just leave it as it is. --CFIF 20:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I woudn't try to convert the television infobox for radio use. The current Template:Infobox Radio station is used internationally, and also for satellite radio channels. The Template:Infobox Broadcast would have to be modified extensively, as it is heavily geared towards U.S. (or North American) broadcast television use. I do agree with User:Reflex Reaction in that the current name implies it is more generically applicable than it is. DHowell 01:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a problem per se with renaming the infobox as long as the editor who does so makes sure that ALL stations have been moved to the new infobox before removing/repurposing the old template name. There are currently about 1,100 station pages that include the infobox. Even with using AWB it would take a decent ammount of time. —A 06:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I wasn't more clear. This would be strictly a RENAMING. The current infobox used for television stations would be used but under a new name ("Television station" instead of "Broadcast"). I just brought up the radio stations because of the naming convention of infobox. I agree that the nothing should be done with the old infobox until all the stations have been converted to the new one. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 17:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

See no problem with a rename, all current use boxes could redirect to the new name one. Then progresevely go along and make the needed changes in the articles. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 08:26, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Is there still interest in this? I've seen the infobox used in some interesting ways, such as one infobox for a broadcast group of two radio stations and a TV station. Yeah it was confusing to say the least. I think that if we duplicated the current infobox to Template:Infobox Television station and then moved all single TV station articles over to using the new name, it would reduce some confusion. Perhaps after all TV stations are moved over, the Template:Infobox Broadcast could be changed to be used in situations with multiple stations if people realy want to make these bastard infoboxes. As per the moving, I have access to WP:AWB and it is great for doing these types of moves. Others could put in for rights to use it, and that would speed things up alot. Thoughts? —A 00:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Raccoon Fox

This user has made some non-standard infoboxes that really need to be discussed: Template:NF_TV, for example. --CFIF 23:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I must be missing something. What's wrong with that template? DHowell 04:06, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Look at the purple bar. Do you see that on other non-RF created templates? Anyway, he told me he'd fix the problem. --CFIF 12:50, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't realize the colors were part of the standard. I missed the link to Wikipedia:WikiProject Television Stations/markets. DHowell 05:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Not a supprise from RF, he also has been moving articles as well. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 08:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Boothy443 just pointed out that this user has improperly renamed some TV station articles. I have put a request on this user's talk page asking them to stop. —A 05:53, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

this problem has now been resolved, and no issues should be arising from me in the future regarding this.

Raccoon Fox 15:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if this is the right place to be asking this, but here goes. Is the UKVI TV template really necessary? It's the same as the USVI one, but without the Puerto Rican stations. And one more question: Why are you adding digital stations to the templates? If they're digital only it's one thing, but adding them when they're just part of an already listed analog station just adds clutter. Kimmykun 10:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Userbox

I have created a new userbox for people in the WikiProject: {{User WikiProject TV Stations}}

This user is a member of the
WikiProject Television
Television stations task force.

--CFIF 23:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

If anyone else is not a fan of userboxes, but still wants to show some love for the project; snag the modified WP:TVS template from my talk page. —A 08:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Translator stations

How should we note them in the market boxes? e.g. K60AA or K60AA 60? I think we should note it the first way, as the channel # is already there. --CFIF 20:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Personaly i think that we ought to use the second format, as for people who are not familar with the call signs of translators might not know that the channel number is a part of the callsign. Also i am extremely reltucant to add translators to the market boxes, unless thery are a translator of an out of market station or carry content that exclusive to that translator within the market, otherwise it adds unneeded clutter to the market boxes, considering that one station can have several translatiors assoicated with it. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 21:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Well some are actually low-power stations w/translator style calls. I believe all stations in a market (translators, low-power, full-power stations, and what not), should be listed in the market box. --CFIF 22:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Well if they cat as LP stations, then no problem, but if they are nothing then translators or re-transmitters of a full power station station in the same market, then they are not nessicary to put into the market box, other wise you will end up with some market boxes with majority of the stations translators of a full power station. Anyway the standards for inclusion on the market boxes needs to be solidified, as once again their are problems. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 22:37, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that having non-original stations in the infobox is a bad idea. I'd like to point out that "out west" the markets are HUGE. Take the Salt Lake City market for example. This market covers ALL of the state of Utah, plus parts of all the neighboring states. A quick query of the FCC db for all TV stations in Utah returns this. I personaly don't want to see an infobox with all of those stations listed on it whenever I pull up a Utah TV station. —A 05:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

As to the actual quesiton asked, I'd say include the channel number. Boothy is right, most people don't put 60 and 60 together and realize that the channel number is included in the callsign. —A 05:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Boothy443

Boothy just doesn't like things he doesn't understand. it's human nature to hate what is not like you. I simply added a purple band for easier visibility. I also renamed television stations AS THEY WERE REGISTERED. if you don't like it, then start your own wiki site. I'm following naming conventions, and i don't recall people clamouring for me to be banned.

Raccoon Fox 06:14, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Well i am sorry that you do not know how to understand a naming convention. Their is and has been for a while a set standard for the naming of these artciles, please direct your attention to WP:NC#Broadcasting because you apparently have not. You rational for the name changes is total BS, as many station never had -TV suffix, and DO NOT currently, as we name them by their current designation or official call sign on fille with the repective agency. You seem to have completly ingnored that bu just adding a blanket -TV to every article that does not have one. As for the templates, you were asked to help out with a standard, in which color was basicaly fround upon, you have also ingnored a request by another user to stop, in which afterwards you contiuned. You also have added out of market stations, the subjective see also, based upon the rational that you can see these stationis where you live, disregarding that intention of the templates is to arrange the stations by the market they are assinged to, not the markets in which you can watch them. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 06:30, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

A purple band does not help me see it any better and I doubt it helps anyone else. I don't think the majority in this WikiProject are too happy with you right now (Raccoon Fox), so I would stop this stuff. --CFIF 23:43, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

\

The last time i checked, you and boothy were NOT the "majority". I thought this was Wikipedia, not Cliquepedia.

Raccoon Fox 17:14, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

And the last time I checked, most of the people in the group disagreed with your moves and boxs changes, namely Boothy, A, and I. (CFIF)

The only problem I had with coonfox's edits were the improper article moves. Now that that is cleared up, I've got no particular problem with any edits s/he is making. While I'm not a big fan of the links to other markets in the market boxes, I don't think it is worth having a fight over. —A 22:11, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Is anyone in Denver?

The KMAS-TV article says that KMAS-TV is a non-broadcast TV station carried on local cable. But I get a hits for a KMAS-TV being broadcast out of Steamboat Springs, CO and KMAS-LP broadcasting out of Denver, CO from the FCC DB. This article should be updated to include this informatin, but I wanted to see if by chance an editor in or arround Denver could double check for us. —A 06:35, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Confusing 2 things

Radiojon appears to be the only Wikipedian who knows not to confuse these 2 things:

1. Primary-topic dis-ambiguation
2. FCC not licensing a suffix

An example of the former is why the article of London, England is at London and not at London, England. The unqualified word London makes most people think of the city in England; other London meanings don't weigh so much. The dis-ambiguation page is at London (disambiguation)

An example of the latter is having the station of WTBS at WTBS and not at WTBS (TV). In August 2004, Radiojon decided that stations FCC does not license a hyphenated suffix to a callsign should have the class suffix in parentheses. This punctuation format is consistent with general Wikipedia dis-ambiguation. Having the TV station artice at WTBS (TV) as opposed to WTBS-TV classifies it as a TV station FCC licenses as WTBS without the -TV suffix. How is simply leaving out the suffix consistent with anything?? For the TV station to be the primary meaning of WTBS, that means that it is the meaning most people think of (i.e. nobody just thinks of the letters WTBS as just a set of 4 letters.) Georgia guy 21:16, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Disambig pages exist only when there is multiple meanings for abbrevs and words. I do not see why we need the (TV) notation. Leaving out the (TV) makes it consistent with everything else. It's not gonna change. --CFIF 22:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Many dis-ambiguation pages are created after moving a page from an un-dis-ambiguated title to a dis-ambiguated title, and then editing a re-direct to reveal another meaning exists. Do you feel sure there is no way that WTBS can become a dis-ambiguation page based on what Google reveals?? Georgia guy 22:47, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I am positive. --CFIF 23:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Please explain. Georgia guy 23:06, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Because I just did a google search and 99% of the results were for the Atlanta TV station. --CFIF 23:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Try this with various other TV callsigns that Wikipedia currently has articles about titled with just their root callsign with no suffix. Georgia guy 23:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Now how many people are going to put in a callsign for a radio station that had that callsign years and years ago and does not have it anymore? It isn't worth it. --CFIF 23:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Not just that but there is mention of this in the naming conventions. If a station doesn't use a callsign anymore then it should be renamed so that if another station uses that callsign an article can be created about it. Same logic works in reverse, a past station has no claim to the callsign anymore. —A 10:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps that could be in an article saying something like:

• In 1960, she began her career at WZZZ-TV (now WQQQ-TV.) Georgia guy 23:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Is anyone honestly going to search for the past callsign? It would be a waste of a disambig page. --CFIF 23:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Dis-ambiguation pages for 4-letter combinations are very rarely populous, and so how does it make it such a waste?? Georgia guy 23:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

The big question is, is it really needed? Give me a better reason why we need it. --CFIF 23:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Before you make more comments, please let Radiojon read this discussion. I put a message asking him to read it on his talk page. Georgia guy 23:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

WP:NC is quite clear (I hope, since I wrote that section) that articles should be titled with the station's official call sign, unless disambiguation is necessary in which case the standard WP convention of (stuff in parentheses) should be used. However, this does not absolve editors of all responsibility for judgment. If a station changes a long established call sign, it is reasonable for an editor to leave some "bread crumbs" behind for future editors and readers to follow. For example, WSYR-TV used to be WIXT-TV and before that WIXT; the latter is currently (2006-02-22) a redirect, but if ever someone decided to write an article about the current WIXT (formerly WLFH), it would be reasonable to drop the redirect—although if it were me, I would probably include a one-line dab at the head of the new article. (This is a particularly confusing example, because the WSYR-TV callsign is still associated in many minds with WSTM-TV in the same market.) If a four-letter non-call-sign redirects to a suffixed call sign, and there is more than one station with the same base call, a one-line dab is probably in order unless the two stations are of roughly equal prominence.

The case of Georgia Guy's example above is particularly challenging in the case of a personality bio, because call signs do change, and are often recycles within markets. The style Georgia Guy has shown is what I do in my own writing: give the chronologically-correct call sign (and frequency and community of license where appropriate) followed by information about the current station. But I don't expect an editor writing an article about a well-known Philadelphia personality to make the connection from WNEV-TV to WHDH-TV in Boston—and I even more don't expect an editor in that situation to understand the non-connection between WHDH-TV (channel 5) and WHDH-TV (channel 7), or for that matter between WHDH-TV (channel 5) and WCVB-TV (channel 5). It's great to have that information in an article, but it's unreasonable to demand that every editor do the research to put it in. 121a0012 02:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone else have anything to add? —A 20:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Radiojon should have something to add. Georgia guy 21:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

It has been a week sence I posted the "last call" and no word from Radiojon. Looks like has hasn't made an edit sence the 15th, perhaps he is on a wikibreak? —A 08:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that aside from Georgia guy, we are all in agreement that these moves should be made. WAGA, WGTV, WPXA, WATL, and WATC all need to be moved. I'll put the request in above. —A 08:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Out of market stations on cable

This is probably a stupid question, but should out of market stations on cable (not including Superstations) be added on to market templetes under "cable only"? I ask, because all cable companies in Puerto Rico have WNBC, WSEE-TV, etc. on their lineups as there aren't any local affiliates available. Kimmykun 09:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Bueller? Kimmykun 09:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd say no. But I don't know alot about cable in PR. If there is some crazy amount of people with cable in PR, then I could see it. Do what you think is best for Wikipedia. —A 20:36, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

CoolKatt number 99999

User:CoolKatt number 99999 has been vandalizing UPN related-articles and templates with UPN by replacing it with United Paramount Network. I am in the process of reverting all of his vandalism. --CFIF (talk to me) 03:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I undid about half of his vandalism. I need someone else to help. --CFIF (talk to me) 03:10, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I think I have reverted all of his crap edits. --CFIF (talk to me) 13:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Australian stations

Hi, is there any plans to extend this WikiProject to include Australian stations? I've been working on templates for the aggreated markets...is there an existing Wikiproject for Australian stations? BigDan 13:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Thats a good question. I know nothing about TV in Australia. Is it a network based model with each station having a unique flavor or is it a UK model where "Channel 4" is "Channel 4" regardless of your location? Who is the regulatory body over radio transmissions in Australia? Do they have a searchable DB? Hell I don't even know what the call signs begin with in Australia. If there isn't one already, this is a great opportunity for an Australian Television article. While I don't know how much time the other members of this project have to help out, as we still don't have a page for every station in the US (where most of the editors of this project live), I'm sure that we would help out with advice and encouragement. —A 03:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

This is what I've gathered from "studying" Australian TV stations for the last few years:

Is it a network based model with each station having a unique flavor or is it a UK model where "Channel 4" is "Channel 4" regardless of your location? - A bit of both. It is primarily a network-based model. However, a network's O&O and affiliates share a lot of the same branding elements, so the stations essentially all have the same (or at least similar) look and feel wherever you go in the country. Station groups also tend to align with a particular network (eg. WIN's stations are Nine Network affils), kind of like how McGraw-Hill and Allbritton affiliate exclusively with ABC.

Hell I don't even know what the call signs begin with in Australia. - Aha. The thing is, the TV stations' callsigns all begin with different letters. On the other hand, the last letter in the callsign denotes which state the station's licensed to, eg. ATN-7 is in Sydney, New South Wales; GTV-9 is in Melbourne, Victoria; etc. I guess these aren't international callsigns... or maybe they just omit the ITU prefix.

I'd go into more details, but this probably suffices for now.

In short... I think it'd be a good idea to either extend the project to Aussie stations, or to start a new Wikiproject for them (or maybe under an Aussie culture/media project, if that already exists). That way it'll also be easier to co-ordinate efforts and have some consistency among articles. - Hinto 01:10, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned logos

I was perusing Category:Orphaned fairuse images and noticed a number of TV station logos in danger of getting deleted (look under K and W, especially). I decided to take it upon myself to start restoring these logos to the pages where they belong (if there isn't already a substantially similar logo on the page already). If anyone wants to help in this effort, feel free. I believe historical logos are encyclopedic and shouldn't be deleted just because a station adopts a newer one. See KCOP for an example of how to incorporate old logos in article. DHowell 23:29, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

List of 17 stations

I'm a long time trivia player, and the list is taken from a printed article that I've kept for years. I no longer have the article (this is pasted from my trivia database spreadsheet). I'm not a member of this project, and I thought someone here might want to incorporate this data in to the appropriate place at wikipedia. It was from WTMJ - TV4 in Milwaukee. Contact me on my user page with questions.

There were 17 TV stations broadcasting when WTMJ - TV (Milwaukee) began broadcasting: 1. WRGB-TV, Schenectady, NY, Nov. 10, 1939 2. WNBT TV New York NY July 1 1941* 3. WBKB TV Chicago IL Oct. 13 1943 (probably is 1941 though) 4. WCBW TV New York NY Oct. 29 1941 5. WPTZ TV Philadelphia PASept 1941 6. WABD TV New York NY May 2 1944 7. WTZR TV Chicago IL Jan. 31 1946 8. WTTG TV Washington DC Jan. 1 1947 9. KTLA TV Hollywood CA Jan 2 1947 10. KSD TV St. Louis MO Feb. 8 1947 11. WWJ TV Detroit MI Mar. 4 1947 12. WNBW TV Washington DC June 27 1947 13. WFIL TV Philadelphia PA Sept. 13 1947 14. WMAL TV Washington DC Oct. 3 1947 15. WEWS TV Cleveland OH Oct. 17 1947 16. WMAR TV Baltimore MD Oct. 27 1947 17. WTMJ TV Milwaukee WI Dec. 3 1947 Royalbroil 06:29, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Very interesting. However, without a source this is just trivia and not a verifiable fact worthy of Wikipedia. Please let us know if you can track down the source. —A 07:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I have seen that list before on WTMJ's website (though I doubt it's still there). This website: http://members.aol.com/jeff560/chronotv.html has a list of station sign-ons before 1952, which may be of more help. Kirjtc2 01:19, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Archive or subpages

This talk page is way over the reccomended page size. It is currently ~72K, and recommended page size is ~30k. I just tried to perform an archive, but didn't think I could do it justice without input from other project editors. The problem is that there are a bunch of old topics that are still "issues" such as article names and the infobox. I propose that I create sub-talk pages for the major topics of our project that still get alot of traffic, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Article names and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Infobox are the two that I had in mind, but others might be appropriate. All discussion on these topics, old and new will be moved into these subpages. Then inactive topics could be archived without as many problems. Thoughts? —A 00:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Alert

The US tv station stub has been put up for deletion by User:Ronald20 here. --CFIF (talk to me) 22:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

It was speedily kept. Was someone trying to prove a point. But, thanks for the heads up. —A 05:54, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

For the record, here is a link of the discussion. —A 05:57, 11 March 2006 (UTC)