Talk:Main Page/Archive 21

Clock

What's with the clock in the middle of the main page banner? It would make sense if it told the right time, otherwise some other graphic might better represent what it links to. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 10:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Clicking on it, I think it has something todo with it being American daylight saving today. However when you click it the targeted section is wrong. It should be "#2007" not "#From_2007_on". Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Windows 7 Lead

The lead for the Windows 7 story has grammar and style problems. It currently reads:

Microsoft has been accused of forcing users to run their own software while competitor products get pushed out of the market because of this.

Where it should read:

In the past, Microsoft has been accused of forcing users to run only Microsoft software, causing competitor products to be pushed out of the market.

I fixed it in the article already.

76.68.12.246 23:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Design

Why was the original reporting templates removed from the main page? Honestly IMO the stock template is useless on the front page since we cannot have the DOW jones on there. Plus our OR is most important and should always be on the min page. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 17:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I didn't remove them, just placed them a little further down the page to fill in the ugly whitespace that used to be there. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 20:02, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

On second thought, perhaps the OR and recent interviews should have stayed at the top. I moved them back. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 20:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Ahhh ok. I didn't scroll all the way down actually. Sorry about that. I usually notice it on the front page without having to scroll that far down. I must have just not noticed them there. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 21:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I am all for being bold and changing up the main page, but the edits I reverted, I just thought were too much. I like the idea of the category configuration, but only having our top cats...aka World, crime and law, etc. I just thought is was not good looking otherwise. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 21:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Dow Jones

I'm new to wikinews, but not wikimedia. I was looking at the 5 stock markets at the bottom and wondered why the dow jones wasnt there? Seddon (talk) 19:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Not sure about that. Something to ask at the water cooler, perhaps? ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 19:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The DOW Jones made us stop using their numbers. They wrote to WMF and basically told them to remove it or pay for it. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 22:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, very formal letter from the people running the DJIA. Advice from legal counsel (Mike Godwin) was to drop it before we started getting bills with telephone numbers on them. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 22:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I still think we can get away with showing the daily DOW close. they cannot stop us from doing that. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 22:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing stopping us reporting the closing value in an article, but I'd be very wary of publishing it like the others - particularly as this might mistakenly be taken for current value. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 23:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Well to fix that issue, we just list the closing number for each if we wanted :) DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 23:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

This is what happens when you allow The Great Satan (Rupert Murdoch) to take over a stock exchange. Gopher65_talk 00:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. But they cannot stop the fair use we have, to be able to use their closing number. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 00:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

lead-->lede

This is so grating and obvious, that it must have been covered before. but tradition is that the first few sentences of an article is called the lede, not the lead to avoid confusion with the lead type. For someone versed in news print production, it is extremely amateurish for me to see the word "lead." it looks unprofessional and simply inaccurate. -Drawnmotor3 (talk) 04:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Granted, I've never heard the term before Dictionary.com seems to agree. Though it also says that lead is acceptable use. What I've got to ask... where do you see this that is such a problem? There are only 3 usages of "lead" on the main page. Specifically "Edit Lead". In those cases it is used correctly as it is saying "Edit this lead article", and they are the LEAD as they are the forefront of the page. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 06:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Didn't see this until now, but Drawnmotor3 is correct. However, because Wikinews is not be definition a newspaper, nor can the leading of the type be easily changed (at least not in the same way that you could in Quark or InDesign, etc., I don't think this will be a problem.) 19:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Calebrw (talk • contribs)

The 'lede' of an article is the introductory sentence or paragraph. Look at the BBC news site to see this; the lede is in bold on most articles. 'Lead', in the context which it is used on the Wikinews main page is, as in 'leading article'. Take it as being perhaps a broadcast context - you don't 'lede your report with the story about Zaphod stealing a spaceship' - you 'lead with the story about Zaphod stealing a spaceship'. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 19:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Main page design

Regarding [1], agree with DragonFire1024 (talk · contribs), I like this version better. Cirt (talk) 20:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

My apologies. I was trying to be bold ... but I should have sought consensus first on something like this. Now that I saved it, it does look pretty bad. Sorry. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 21:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

You could try a sandbox in a subpage off your userspace? Cirt (talk) 21:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I already did. See here: User:Tempodivalse/Alternate Main Page. It didn't look so bad there... ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 21:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I commented under the design section. Basically I am all for being bold...I love being bold. I liked the way you had the cats, BloodRedSandman has a good Idea on his design with the cats: Should just be our top cats aka World, crime and law, etc. I like the header as simple as possible, but with the occasional addition of a holiday icon or the likes. I really didn't look past the header and cats before I decided to revert.BUT that said, be bold with the main page! I love that...just well...test it :-P DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 21:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, I changed the page again, but not so radically as before. I think it looks okay now. However, if someone disagrees and reverts, I promise I will not change again without asking first. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 23:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

While looking at other news sites, I saw some secondary lead-type things, so I followed the trend of being bold and added it. R.T. 00:09, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Also ,I think that the articles on the left could be replaced with something much more compact, any ideas are welcome. R.T. 00:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I like your new layout, looks very professional! ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 00:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I am not too fond of the past articles being scroll down as opposed to pull down. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 01:38, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The scroll-down looks out-of-place and contrasts too much with the style of the rest of the page. DSollick (talk) 01:45, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I removed the frame to try to get it to blend in more. I prefer the scroll, because then there is no whitespace at the bottom of the page. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 02:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

first reaction— OMG! redesign. :D. But I likey. Bawolff ☺☻ 03:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Some contents (take all these with a grain of salt, it looks great). It might be better if the text indent on the ticker dissapeared for the redesign. (override the css rules at mediawiki:Common.css/Main_Page). Main lead headlines look a little inconsistant with secondary headlines. I agree that the article's of the day overflow mechanism/scroll bar looks slightly out of place, but it isn't too bad. Perhaps some sort of JS down arrow at the bottom to page the recent articles would be better. It also might be good to have a more link on the country list. Bawolff ☺☻ 03:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit conflict] I was just thinking, perhaps we should hide the edit lead links from users who are not autoconfirmed. (This could probably be acomplished by js putting a class on the body of main page if user is autoconfirmed, and then having display:none;'s in the css). What is people's thoughts on doing that. The links really aren't all that useful if you can't edit semi-protected things. Bawolff ☺☻ 04:47, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

You guys should really consider putting less stuff on the home page. There is hardly any breathing room! Sometimes, less truly is more. -- Poe Joe (talk) 04:44, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

If we are going to have leads on the main page then we should have at least 3. If only 2, then why bother? Also i think the text for the synopsises are absolutely horrid. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 22:44, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, the inclusion of {{Secondary articles}} means that we are highlighting as many as seven articles. That is usually the entire output (and sometimes more) of a day's articles. We are basically highlighting every article. it is overkill. --SVTCobra 23:01, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Why was everything reverted? I thought the page looked well with the 2 leads and the scroll bar -- that way, the white space at the bottom of the page would be much less variable. Currently, I think the page looks less tidy. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 23:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

When the latest news bar (the scroll thing) overflows, it gives the complete main page a horizontal scroll bar (Firefox on Mac), which really looks bad. Besides that, I really agree with Poe Joe that the main page is too crowded. Cheers, Van der Hoorn (talk) 23:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The news ticker overlaps because of the crazy long title. It should only be like that until the next day, if the ticker is programmed correctly. As to the revert: I did it for most of the reasons described above. We don't need to highlight every article on WN. I like the 3 or 4 lead layout. If we have anything less than 3, its almost like saying why have any at all? DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 23:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, I am not too fond of the secondary articles...perhaps because it is indeed just too much perhaps. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 23:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

OK. I replaced the secondary articles list with leads three and four, I agree it was overkill previously. Perhaps we can use {{secondary articles}} later, when we have more articles. Is everybody satisfied now? ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 23:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks better now...yes I think when there are days that we have a lot of articles, the secondary articles can be used. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 23:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Is it OK if I return the scroll to the recent headlines? It doesn't look all that obtrusive, and it will help avoid whitespaces at the bottom. Also,.it makes the page more compact. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 23:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

There is still something screwy in there. I scrolled down to look at the whole page, then when I scrolled back to the top of the page my browser window started displaying a horizontal scroll bar. I scrolled right to see what was causing this, and as I scrolled down the page to see what it was, the horizontal scrollbar vanished. This is with latest Firefox on XP Pro. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 23:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

This is caused by the ticker, which stretches out to the right when there isn't enough room to display a headline. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 23:45, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Four leads is acceptable (although I would prefer two), but if I may make some additional recommendations:

• Remove the scroll bar, as I find it quite annoying to look at a changing bar (imho). If we keep it, then the bar should make sure it doesn't scroll when titles are longer than the bar. There will be many more articles with long titles, so it looks kind of unprofessional when it gives the whole page a horizontal scroll bar.
• Remove the most popular articles section. Possibly instead mention in the overview by date, behind the link, when the link (thus the article) is popular.

Cheers, Van der Hoorn (talk) 23:38, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Minor: There is a <hr> above the right upper lead. Cheers, Van der Hoorn (talk) 23:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

No, no. I meant the scroll bar that used to be on the {{Latest news}} template (vertical one, it's not there currently). I agree that the horizontal one should be fixed somehow. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 23:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Like I said before...I see no point in having less than three leads. Less than three is just making s look like we are too lazy to update anything and are trying to do the least amount of work possible. I have to object to anything less than 3. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 23:45, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I prefer an even number; 3 makes us look like we have normally 4 leads, but we couldn't find more than 3. So kind of your point. I think 4 is fine for now. Cheers, Van der Hoorn (talk) 23:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

For the horiz. scroll bar, it could probably be fixed by either the Ticker getting cut off (overflow:hidden), or the ticker going to two lines when its too long. Bawolff ☺☻ 03:37, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I took a look at the wikicode (and I must say, I'm utterly amazed that all bloody works. It is very very convoluted, there are divs within divs within divs, within div like things (<center>) within tables within tables. Each layer seems to add its own style rules, which contradict the previous layer. Some contradict themselves (width:50%;white-space:no-wrap for thing wider than the page). Anyways, I got rid of the ugly horizontal scroll bar (due to comments above) by doing the following

• Made the country lists wrap if they exceed the page width instead of making a scroll bar
• Made any overflow from the ticker silently dissapear
  • I'm unsure if this is the best solution, other options are:
  • Make font size of ticker smaller
  • Make it go to two lines (this requires the height of it to change dynamically [kind of annoying] or the ticker to have an extra blank line at the bottom most of the time. neither are satisfactory).

We should _really_ consider cleaning up the mess of tables, and separating the content from presentation (or even just keep the presentation stuff self-consistent and without random invalid code). Bawolff ☺☻ 04:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

While I'm still undecided on the overall layout of the new page, can we _please_ return the font to the default, matching that used on article pages? As it is it looks clunky. John Darrow (talk) 20:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. font should be consistent throughout the site. Either Veranda everywhere, or whatever we have as default (just generic sans-serif?) everywhere. Bawolff ☺☻ 22:15, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Overlap

This is happening for me, on IE 6 running on XP, the usual corporate world setup. -- Zanimum (talk) 12:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I thought IE6 was no longer supported. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 12:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Might not be supported by Microsoft anymore. But where I'm working on contract, the Region of Peel, they're very tech-cautious, and haven't upgraded past that version. Either way, a site I run for a non-profit has had 4,699 pageviews in the last month, around 15.68% use IE 6, so it is very much still in use. Presumably our audience is more tech-savvy than most, and upgrades more often, but perhaps they aren't. -- Zanimum (talk) 13:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Call me cynical, but some of those IE6 installs you're seeing in weblogs will be because the machine is so compromised that it can't get updates anymore. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 22:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The portals section has some overlap for me, too. I am using Firefox 3.0.7 on XP. It is not nearly as bad as what Zanimum illustrated, but it still overlaps. --SVTCobra 22:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I am on the latest FireFox and I am on XP and I report that mine is absolutely perfect. I think this is a monitor size issue or screen resolution maybe? DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 22:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a widescreen monitor? The overlap I see is only minor, the names of portals bleed over the down arrow for opening the latest articles. --SVTCobra 23:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Nope. I have a standard monitor. Without getting out a ruler though, I cannot say its size other than its fairly normal for the average computer owner. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 23:12, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Is this caused by the scroll on recent headlines? I don't see anything. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 23:20, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

This is what I see:

I am running Firefox at 1024 by 768 on a Windows XP system. --SVTCobra 23:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I'm getting that one too. Looks like the text size is too big? ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 23:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes I see it...ever so slight but I see it on mine too...maybe text size or boldness? DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 23:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

That's caused by a combination of browser settings (text size) and screen resolution. I have my text size set big so that I can sit a little ways back from my computer and still read everything ok, and I have that problem on a good many websites. Gopher65_talk 00:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I do not believe this is caused by weird res/font size. Nothing is absolute/relative positioned (that i saw), so that really shouldn't happen. In addition on firefox 2.0.0.17 I was unable to replicate the described problem, despite using all sorts of extreme font sizes/resolutions. (although its possible someone changed the design before i tried to get things to overlap). Anyways, I have no idea why that would be happening. (But IE never gives reasons :P) (Note, there is a slight overlap between the down arrow on navBoxes and the nav box title. I don't think thats what is being referred to, correct me if i'm wrong nevermind, I see some people are referring to that. That is a known issue that no one has ever gotten around to fixing, and was present before the new main page. Zanimum's issue is caused by something else.) Bawolff ☺☻ 04:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Note: The problem described by Zaninum could result if the overflow property was dropped or set to visible, however IE has supported that property since version 4 (according to w3schools). Bawolff ☺☻ 04:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Problem that DF and SVT are reporting should be fixed. (may have to do a hard refresh). Bawolff ☺☻ 04:59, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm on this resolution and screen setting: 1280 x 1024 px "HP L1740 flat panel monitor on Intel 82945G Express Chipset Family". I've done a hard refresh and it still happens. -- Zanimum (talk) 12:39, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I see this Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm seeing it too, as illustrated. Note the red box is an artifact of the screenshot process and not part of the page I see. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

To clarify my previous comment, the problem DF and SVT were reporting is fixed. The original issue on internet explorer still remains (I need to track down a version of IE to look at it, which should happen fairly soon). Bawolff ☺☻ 19:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Got to a computer with IE7. As far as i can tell, the issue is the result of position:relative and overflow:auto not playing nicely together. It appears as if IE puts the relativly positioned object where they would be if the overflow on the ansestor divs were set to visible as oposed to auto. Not entirely sure how to fix this, (time for google ;). Bawolff ☺☻ 19:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I know how to fix the problem: get off IE and start using a real web browser. The main page scroll looks just fine in Firefox. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 19:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Here here. :P (I have it partially fixed. The portal nav boxes are still messed up, but the other nav boxes in the scroll bar works). Bawolff ☺☻ 19:37, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Somewhat resolved, but not really. The portal boxes are still screwed, but they don't run into other content, and are only noticable when you scroll to them. If you expand the box, it will go to the right place. Giving the navbox so-called layout while it is in view seems to fix the problem. (but can't do automatically, since scrolled out of view on page load). Bawolff ☺☻ 22:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, i might have fixed it, but don't have MSIE handy to test. Bawolff ☺☻ 22:14, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Nope, the portal boxes are still messed up when viewed in IE (although not as bad as before). Is the scroll causing this, or is it something else? ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 22:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Its a combination of the scroll + the relative positioning of the drop down boxes (see here for better explanation). (They are relatively positioned so that the ↓ can go to the rigt via absolute positioning.) I thought perhaps it was the use of the table that was making my other fix not work (Ie handles tables differently from most other elements)) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bawolff (talk • contribs)

It looks like the scroll is inherently buggy in IE, and none of our efforts seem to fix it. Perhaps we should simply remove it and use a cascading template for the past week's news instead, such as this? ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 00:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah ha! now i got it (it helps to try ands fix ie bugs on a computer with Internet explorer installed). I challange anyone to find anymore bloody overlapping text :P. (might have to do a hard refresh to see changes and/or clear your cache (temporary internet files for ye Ie folks)). Bawolff ☺☻ 00:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Even after purging the main page in IE, I still get overlapping headers when I try to expand the cascading boxes. Also, the scroll bar for {{Latest news}} is kind of funny -- it changes length as you move it. I think we might be best off simply abandoning the scroll idea (although I liked it), and perhaps searching for alternatives on displaying the template. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 00:40, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

IE is kinda weird for caching javascript - sometimes you need to delete temporary inernet files, and refresh with a ctrl+F5 for it to refresh everything). Perhaps we should abandon it though - the reaction to it has been kind of mixed. Bawolff ☺☻ 00:56, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

There is some discussion at the "Scrolling" section below on what we could use instead of the scroll, feel free to chime in there if you have some ideas. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 01:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Scrolling

The scrolling function in the latest news looks quite silly. Can this be removed and the page put back the way it was? The Main Page on a project is supposed to be pretty stable - not have tons and tons of changes every day. Cirt (talk) 21:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Recommend we go back to this version before the scrolling. Cirt (talk) 22:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I personally think the scroll is an improvement. This way, the whitespace at the bottom of the page is far less variable. Plus, it makes the page shorter and more compact. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 02:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Respectfully disagree - it looks tacky and silly. Cirt (talk) 04:43, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that neither one of them looks all that great. Are there any alternatives we haven't tried yet? Bawolff ☺☻ 06:58, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Some sort of cascading box could be an option. R.T. 11:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

We could simply get rid of it altogether, and just have a link to the latest headlines template on the main page. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 14:15, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Or perhaps we should cascade all of last week's headlines? I have an example template up at my sandbox. Is this a viable option? ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 14:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

This is how the main page looked like with the cascading boxes (reverted it because I wasn't sure it looked good). Thoughts? ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 22:00, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it doesn't look so nice, but it looks way better than the scroll bar.

I was thinking that we may do two pages, more or less like a regular news paper. So one page with headlines and the news of today and yesterday. And the "second page" or whatever you want to call it, with less interesting news, some tickers, some older but still popular headlines, etc. I'm not sure how to incorporate this "second page" in Wikinews, but maybe clicking one time to a different page is not so bad in comparison to scrolling a lot or clicking many times on cascading boxes. I'm not sure how to encourage people to click to this "second page", but maybe some of you have an idea? Let me know what you think (also if you think it is a ridiculous proposal). :) Cheers, Van der Hoorn (talk) 22:49, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, we could do something like what Red Thunder proposed here: User:Red Thunder/Main Page Proposal. As you can see, there is no "latest news" template on his layout, instead, you are directed to the template itself for that. I think it might not be a bad idea to incorporate this. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 22:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that if we don't include an article list, many articles will simply never become a lead, and get lost through the cracks without any page views. I think some sort of list of last published on the main page is a must. Bawolff ☺☻ 01:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I suppose we could make use of RT's {{Secondary articles}} template instead, which should be enough to highlight a day's worth of articles. Either that, or perhaps use cascading boxes for {{Latest news}}, as I have done here. This is how the main page looked like with that template (reverted it because I wasn't sure it looked that great). ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 01:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Another option instead of scrolling is reducing the font size. (The "About Us" section really has a useless large font size). I found in the sources that previously a smaller Verdana font was in use (the source of the main page is quite messy if you ask me). Also I see often </br>, which should of course be <br/>. I moved things around a bit on my sandbox. Van der Hoorn (talk) 17:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)