Template talk:Skill box/Archive 1

Comments
The div style="clear:right;" is unnecessary I believe. If there are colisions with progression bar, we can plug it into progression. I don't see any other reason the clear:right is placed there. -PanSola 06:43, 4 May 2006 (CDT)
 * Blah, forgot the sectioning would be above the clear right if I put it inside progression template... -PanSola 06:47, 4 May 2006 (CDT)
 * Can you argue for the fake section please? Your reasons for it are entirely opaque to me. &mdash; Stabber &#x270d; 06:51, 4 May 2006 (CDT)
 * So ppl avoid hitting that edit link altogether. I'm constantly underestimating how many ppl don't read directions so... -PanSola 07:09, 4 May 2006 (CDT)
 * But that is a matter of policy and we have enough eyes watching over the recent changes list to catch that quickly. After all, if someone breaks the skill box template, it will be noticed in a matter of seconds. &mdash; Stabber &#x270d; 07:13, 4 May 2006 (CDT)
 * What is a matter of policy? I can't think of a reason WHY we would want that edit link there. o_O" -PanSola 07:14, 4 May 2006 (CDT)
 * That people shouldn't use the edit link there is a matter of policy. It is easily enforced, and your tinkertoy sections break the uniformity of the site. In particular, not all stylesheets follow a section heading with a horizontal rule. &mdash; Stabber &#x270d; 07:24, 4 May 2006 (CDT)
 * I don't see it as a policy thing, but rather as an intention thing. We don't intend an edit link to be there.  People who see an edit link there and click on it intend to edit the article, not the template. Thus the edit link serves nobody. Though you have a very good point about the stylesheet.  Is there any other way to create a pseudo section that would work? or anyway to only disable edit subsection of the included document but doesn't affect the including document?  I'm still undecided which is the greater evil, but if there is a third way out I definitely welcome it.  -PanSola 07:33, 4 May 2006 (CDT)
 * How about now? &mdash; Stabber &#x270d; 07:50, 4 May 2006 (CDT) Hmm... Didn't work

Should there be a colon after "campaign?" --68.142.14.94 20:39, 10 May 2006 (CDT)

Shouldn't there be a way to list that the skill is available in two compaigns? Such as "campaign: Nightfall, Eye of the North" -- Anon2 1:55, 25 Dec 2007
 * "Campaign" = the campaign this skill belongs to, and not the campaigns this skill is acquirable from (see skill sorting and the fact, that the skill will be disabled until you buy that campaign.) &mdash; Poki#3 [[Image:Poki.jpg|19px|My Talk Page :o]], 14:02, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Template:
Is this a mistake? Skuld  07:04, 12 May 2006 (CDT)
 * It's not a mistake. -PanSola 07:14, 12 May 2006 (CDT)

Elite skill icon
Thought we could use one for the new skill box. I'm sure this would fit nicely next to name or skill type. (T/C) 00:41, 24 May 2006 (CDT)
 * OMG I miss that icon from so long ago. I'd love to use it, but new players will not recognize it, so not sure if it is wise to introduce it... - 01:03, 24 May 2006 (CDT)
 * Well it doesnt mean we have to take away from the wording or icon labling it as an elite skill. [[Image:Chuiu Me Icon.png]] (T/C) 17:10, 24 May 2006 (CDT)
 * I'm in favor of it. It's pretty easy to see at a glance, unlike the yellow skill icon border. -- Gordon Ecker 04:29, 31 July 2006 (CDT)

nbsp
Internet Explorer doesn't display empty cells properly. Specifically, it doesn't display the borders of empty cells. Could someone alter this template so that if stat1, stat2 or stat3 is blank then the collesponding cell has  & nbsp;  (without the space) in it instead of being empty? -- Gordon Ecker 18:51, 29 July 2006 (CDT)
 * I'm not entirely sure what you're asking since there are no/aren't supposed to be borders between the various stats. For example, the mockup in the section above looks the same in IE and Firefox (besides IE's broken PNG transparency).  If I've misunderstood, could you name a skill which looks wrong in IE?  --68.142.14.19 19:11, 29 July 2006 (CDT)
 * The skill box template has 2 forms, the box form produced by, designed to be used in skill pages, which works fine, and the horizonal one called as  , designed to be used as part of a table in skill quick reference pages, which has the border error. You can see the border error on the Monk, Mesmer, Paragon and Dervish skill quick reference pages. -- Gordon Ecker 04:23, 31 July 2006 (CDT)
 * I guess the template usage is confusing, but you were asking about Template:skill box row. Pan fixed it. --68.142.14.19 06:04, 31 July 2006 (CDT)
 * Maybe I am, I'm not really familiar with all the intricacies of template usage. Regardless, the problem hasn't been fixed, {|  |} produces this:

{|  |}
 * Which looks fine in Firefox, but has huge gaps in the table borders in Internet Explorer. -- Gordon Ecker 08:45, 31 July 2006 (CDT)
 * Hmm, Pan put the spaces into skill box row, but the issue now is that some skills have an odd formatting in their templates. Look at the source of Template:Resurrection Signet as opposed to Template:Frenzy.  The skill box row is only putting the nbsp in for undefined stat values, but telling the template "stat0 =" is actually defining it to nothing.  This looks right:

{|  |}
 * Pan, is there a reason for the format used in the signet (and apparently a bunch of other skills? I'm not sure why they're like that.  I'd guess it maybe looks like that so you can override things at various template levels, but it ends up only allowing overriding at the top level, I think.  --68.142.14.19 09:13, 31 July 2006 (CDT)
 * Various fields were designed to be overridable at the template usage level (not sure if that's considered top or bottom), though individual stats were not supposed to be that way. Anyways that design has been scrapped a while ago.  I would recommend taking them out individually if it bothers you. I'll fix Rez Signet right now. - 12:42, 31 July 2006 (CDT)
 * I meant top as in whichever template the person writing code for an article uses and bottom as the last that gets included in the chain, but I guess it doesn't matter if it's scrapped. I use Firefox, so the problem doesn't bother me, heh.  Someone made all the paragon skills look like that because of the use in (some of the?) mesmer skills (User talk:Matrix).  I guess someone told him to look at the mesmer skill QR for guidance in making the paragon QR.  --68.142.14.19 12:51, 31 July 2006 (CDT)
 * Now that I know exactly what the problem is, I've fixed the rest (at least the ones used on the skill quick reference pages). I can't believe Internet Explorer's had that well known table display bug for something like a decade without anyone fixing it. I only use IE for editing pages because that keeps each page I'm editing in a separate window, several unspecified browsers are better for pretty much everything else. -- Gordon Ecker 05:06, 1 August 2006 (CDT)
 * I found another problem, which appears to be in the skill box template itself.


 * For non-questable skills, the questable cell should have & nspb; (without the space) like all the other empty cells produced by the template, but instead it's completely empty, messing with the borders in certain lower-end browsers. Unlike the previous problem, where it was actually being defined as blank in the individual skill templates, here it's undefined in the individual skill templates, so altering the default value of that cell to & nspb; (without the space) should only require editing the main skill box template. -- Gordon Ecker 20:42, 3 September 2006 (CDT)


 * Should be fixed now. (Also, like mentioned above, when something uses  it's actually using the template named "skill box foo." --Fyren 21:09, 3 September 2006 (CDT)

Dagger Skills stat0
We've had a lot of people mistakingly changing the stat0 parameter of dagger skills to the type of the attack instead of the prerequisite (twice on Twisting Fangs). I propose adding a comment to those templates to prevent further mistake. I had done so for Twisting Fangs but someone reverted it (no concrete reasons given). Not wanting to break 2RV, I'm asking here. --Theeth (talk)   17:18, 14 August 2006 (CDT)
 * It was my screw up. Put it back.  --68.142.14.39 17:29, 14 August 2006 (CDT)
 * Alright. But still, that doesn't solve the problem that people wrongly believe that to be the actually attack icon and not the prerequisite. --Theeth (talk)   17:47, 14 August 2006 (CDT)

Category change
To get the template change to "take effect," we have to do a null edit on every article that needs changing. I guess I'll have my bot do it later. --Fyren 04:06, 21 September 2006 (CDT)
 * I will modify the edit a bit for now. For the final version we have to decide about the name of the category first. What is the offcial nomenclature in the "K" menu? "No attribute" or "Unlinked" or "General"? Could you look it up for me? I don't have access to the game right now. --[[Image:TurningL sml.gif|Tetris L]] 04:11, 21 September 2006 (CDT)
 * "No Attribute," but I wouldn't really take it as binding. They don't say "Attrib: No Attribute" in the descriptions where other say "Attrib: Fire Magic."  --Fyren 04:19, 21 September 2006 (CDT)
 * Null edit shouldn't be needed anymore since mediawiki 1.6 or something... The job queue thing will update it. - 04:13, 21 September 2006 (CDT)
 * Gravewit's got it turned down (although I think off and running the shell script once every day or something would be better), so it might take a while. The change Tetris made the queue "length" about 3.6k (Special:Statistics), which has only gone down by a few in the time between my first comment and now.  It does lower semi-randomly, so maybe it's just slower than average right now, though.  --Fyren 04:19, 21 September 2006 (CDT)
 * Down to 1.6k! --Fyren 06:36, 21 September 2006 (CDT)

UGLY - stop the pain
Just looking at Well of Blood page and this template has destroyed our article pages, at first it was the useful but extremely misplaced "[edit skill details]" link, this should be positioned underneath the skill box. but the final straw is the progression table squashed into that type page. I call for a revert. On lower resolutions this must look even worse (1024x768 is bad enough). Stop this ruining of our pages NOW! --Jamie  03:02, 20 October 2006 (CDT)
 * It looks bad on 1280*1024 as well... --[[Image:Kitty1.jpg|24px|]] (Talk) (Cont) (Cool) [[Image:Soft2.jpg|24px|]] 03:05, 20 October 2006 (CDT)
 * I usually run on 1680x1050, when on my laptop, but I can only imagine at that high resolution it would look any good. this change is a bad idea, move the progression tables back to bellow the skill box template, out of the template totally. Also look into moving the edit link (I tried myself yesterday, but I don't have access to the css file and style attribute sometimes noflicts with the css file css. --Jamie [[Image:Jamie.jpg|24px|(Talk Page)]] 03:45, 20 October 2006 (CDT)
 * The edit link was moved because people were complaining no one could figure out how to edit the skill data. It used to be above the header's line, but a usability study on WP has shown that people who aren't regular contributors never use the section edit links.  So I moved them down.  And then showed people the new template.  For weeks.  And discussed it on the S&F
 * Anyway. In the meantime, you can change the CSS in your own copy of monobook.css or gamewikis.css in your userspace which will override the wiki-wide stuff.  You can set the edit link to display:none and the table to clear:right if you want.  I'll change it so you can fiddle with the CSS to float the link top or bottom later.  --Fyren 04:47, 20 October 2006 (CDT)
 * I moved the TOC to above the progression and added a div to allow the edit link to be moved. For table.progression, add a clear:right.  For div.editskill, add a position:absolute, bottom:0, right:0.1em or something like that.  --Fyren 07:40, 22 October 2006 (CDT)

Skill codes?
What about implementing the skill codes from here?


 * Uhm, hello? Anyone here on this page? 195.145.211.193

Usage section
How about having a Usage section on the template noinclude that links to Skill templates. This would definitely have saved me some time, as those GuildWiki: pages are never obvious to find. — Biscuits (talk contribs) 09:16, 9 December 2006 (CST)
 * It should have a usage section. But until it does, when in doubt, I always go to GW:S&F.  From there, the guide for skills (Style and formatting/Skills) has a link at the bottom to Skill templates. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 10:29, 9 December 2006 (CST)
 * And at the top. --Fyren 10:48, 9 December 2006 (CST)

Category Problem
We're running into a problem with the way this template categorizes monster skills now. Namely here: Category:Monster skills by attribute. I assume this is caused by the code in the template that says. — Jyro X 17:11, 29 December 2006 (CST)
 * It's not a huge issue - but you're right, these should be getting tagged as part of Category:Monster skills by the template - I'm not good enough at the script myself to address this though. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:17, 29 December 2006 (CST)
 * I could do it if it were written in Java or C++. =P — Jyro X [[Image:Darkgrin.jpg]] 17:20, 29 December 2006 (CST)
 * It would be a simple check:  17:23, 29 December 2006 (CST)
 * Add nocats = yes. --Fyren 18:43, 29 December 2006 (CST)

noprint edit link
Just something minor but the div containing the edit link should also have the noprint class so it won't show up in the printable version (if anyone actually does print these articles). -Smurf 21:33, 6 January 2007 (CST)

Adrenal skills category
In the skill box, I think it would be useful to modify the section that reads {{#if: {{{adrenaline|}}} | ... to also auto-use a category like Category:Adrenal skills. We could then link that category under "Related articles" within skills that give adrenaline boosts, such as Rage of the Ntouka. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 10:41, 15 January 2007 (CST)


 * In general we seem to be making QR pages for skill lists. I don't like linking to categories in articles, especially when the contents will seldom change.  --Fyren 17:47, 15 January 2007 (CST)

Allegiance and Sunspear skills
We'll need to adjust this template to account for the progression of Alleigance rank and Sunspear rank skills. I suspect that the green numbers for Sunspear skills represent either 0 and 10 or 1 and 10, and that the green numbers for Alleigance skills represent either 0 and 12 or 2 and 12, however it's also possible that they use the same 0...12 progression as other skills. -- Gordon Ecker 22:11, 15 June 2007 (CDT)
 * Sunspear skill progressions are possibly 0..8. My Elementalist is Castellan (rank 8) and has a 23% increase from Intensity, which is the maximum shown on the range. Either that, or the max on the range is a cap and skills no longer gain effectiveness past Sunspear Rank X... Oscidaes 22:16, 15 June 2007 (CDT)

Also on the subject, there's the issue of the Kurzick/Luxon skills having two icons... is it possible to make a second template just for those ten skills, with the ability to show both icons in the one box, instead of just one? Otherwise, we end up having to decide between which icon gets the coveted top spot. (more or less.) -- Jioruji Derako.> 04:28, 18 June 2007 (CDT)

I have made a new template which will use both icons (and label which is which) for allegiance skills. The template is here User:JediRogue/Template:Test. And in the bottom of my testing area you can see the template is the same for normal skills and different for the allegiance skills User:JediRogue/Slide I would like to change the existing template and then the template used in quick references. I think this is a good solution to the current Kurzick bias presented by the templates as they are now. &mdash; ♥ Jedi ♥ Rogue ♥ 13:29, 19 June 2007 (CDT)


 * Maybe to pay back for the Kurzick bias we had, the Luxon icon should go first! :P --Gimmethegepgun 13:35, 19 June 2007 (CDT)
 * Yes, but that would imply that luxons are worthy of recognition lol. I'm certain this is trolling...Lord of all tyria 13:38, 19 June 2007 (CDT)
 * I thought about that. But everywhere its listed as Kurzick/Luxon and its alphabetical this way. It would be cool though it the order changed based on the position of the border though lol. That's way to complicated a template for me though. &mdash; ♥ Jedi ♥ Rogue ♥ 13:39, 19 June 2007 (CDT)
 * Does the wiki software even allow that? Lord of all tyria 13:41, 19 June 2007 (CDT)
 * Can be done, not worth it though. Also please refer to Talk:Kurzick/Luxon_skills_quick_reference and think of ways to solve these points before this is implemented, if it is. -- Xeon 13:54, 19 June 2007 (CDT)
 * I'm working on it now. Also working on making skill bars and mini skill bars have an option for which skill icon to display. atm, it displays Kurzick. If I wanted to show my skill bar, I definitely don't want that. So lookout for my cluttering of recent changes. &mdash; ♥ Jedi ♥ Rogue ♥ 14:02, 19 June 2007 (CDT)

Here's what I was thinking for the QR template: User:JediRogue/Template:Test qr and again for a view of what it looks like User:JediRogue/Slide. Other changes would probably need to change the css used in the qr. Not really sure what I want to do for the skill bars.&mdash; ♥ Jedi ♥ Rogue ♥ 14:48, 19 June 2007 (CDT)


 * That second template (with the little subtitles under the icons) looks perfect; What you could do from there is simply make a new template for it, which we would only use for those ten skills (instead of the current skill box). Only thing we would need from there is to make sure all the category tags and whatnot still work. --[[image:GEO-logo.png]] Jioruji Derako.> 16:17, 19 June 2007 (CDT)

BUMP. Sexy admin review plz. &mdash; ♥ Jedi ♥ Rogue ♥ 23:39, 19 June 2007 (CDT)

wikifying
It might be a good idea to wikify the "PvE only" note on pve skills to point to PvE skills quick reference or somewhere relevant. --Roland of Gilead (talk) 04:59, 30 July 2007 (CDT)
 * I was thinking about that an hour ago too, :D The article needs to be created. PvE skill? -- Xeon 05:07, 30 July 2007 (CDT)
 * There's got to be a category already up... I saw a discussion on the subject back on the portal, check that... --[[image:GEO-logo.png]] Jioruji Derako.> 05:15, 30 July 2007 (CDT)
 * That would be Category:PvE skills, so should an article be listed (would we need it?) or should it be linked to the cat? -- Xeon 05:36, 30 July 2007 (CDT)
 * First off, you need to code the category tag as Category:Blah (the ":" at the beginning is important), otherwise it just adds this page to the category.
 * But let's see now... the category itself's a little convoluted as it is, most of the PvE skills are all divided among sub-categories and whatnot when they should probably all be in the main category as well. For simplicity's sake, linking to the category seems the best option; I'm not sure how well an article would work on that anyway. Such an article would most likely be a quick explaination of what a PvE skill is, and a link to the category... either way, you're ending up in the category. --[[image:GEO-logo.png]] Jioruji Derako.> 05:55, 30 July 2007 (CDT)
 * Bah, i always forget the cat thing, ive done it so many times now that i forget to not to forget to not put it on. Alternatively you can link to the separate qr's at Category:Skill type quick references for each and a Mission skills quick reference can be created to accommodate for the lack of this one, which will then allow people to commentate on each list. -- Xeon 06:05, 30 July 2007 (CDT)

Update for GWEN?
Something like that. ~  Gold  Dean   - 16:17, 8 August 2007 (CDT)
 * class="campaign" | Campaign: || class="campaigndata" |
 * Good idea. Would be worth putting a shortcut in so people could type 'GWEN' instead of 'eye of the north'. Biscuits [[Image:Biscuit.png]] 00:38, 9 August 2007 (CDT)

Unlinked skills
Is it possible to change categorization of the skills in a way that unlinked skills get their own subcategory like Category:Unlinked_skills_(Warrior) instead of all those skills being dropped as separate articles in the main category like Category:Warrior_skills_by_attribute? This could be done by combining the values of "profession" and "attribute". --- : Jill Bioskop X ( T | C )  05:28, 12 August 2007 (CDT)

Category Bugs
There seems to be two problems with the auto-categories, one shouts which all starts " ", all get filed under the " category, the other enviromental 'skills' are listed, to quote from the cleanup tag that was placed on the category "Too much stuff that doesn't belong here, like environmental and title effects" --Nela 04:48, 9 September 2007 (CDT)

Ahem!
Could an Admin add a section to the template for Consise descriptions (if we plan on adding them)?Entrea Sumatae  [Talk]  02:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Unless there's a significant difference (eg an ambiguitiy present in one but not the other) I'd say why bother with the consise, says the same thing. --Shadowcrest  02:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thats what I think too, but Thoughtful wants to add them all. Letss put it to a vote! somewhere...[[Image:Entrea Sumatae.png|Entrea Sumatae]]Entrea Sumatae  [Talk]  02:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, vote time!

For Concise descriptions

 * 1) I think that's it's useful to have both skill descriptions. If no one else wants to find all the concise descriptions I'll gladly do it myself. Thought ful [[Image:Thoughtful Sig.png|19.px]] 02:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Conditional: I don't think the Concise are important enough for the actual skill description (redundant), but I do think they would be perfectly suited for the QR (such as this QR). They'll be documented just fine in that manner as well. --[[image:GEO-logo.png]] Jïörüjï Ðērākō.> <font color="#237d00">.cнаt^  23:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) I support using the concise descriptions but ONLY on QRs. They are quick references and it makes sense to minimize them as much as possible. I know it is a lot of work, but if someone (Thoughtful) is willing then that's not an issue. Now, I am aware that some of the descriptions have errors in them, and some are hardly concise. But I'll give ANet the benefit of a doubt and let them work on that for awhile. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 23:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Against Concise descriptions

 * 1) They're just redundant and useless.[[Image:Entrea Sumatae.png|Entrea Sumatae]]<font color="#4682b4">Entrea Sumatae  <font color="#4682b4">[Talk]  02:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Unless there's a significant difference, such as an ambiguity in one but not the other, don't bother with them. Why should we? It's just saying "Deals +10...26" damage twice.. I got it the first time. --<font face="vivaldi" size="3" color="Steelblue">Shadowcrest  02:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) We don't need it. Unless the official wiki does it and has it looking really good, I can't even think of a way to make it not look silly on the pages. It might even be confusing because we'll be saying the same thing twice. On the other hand, if there is a notable difference between the concise and traditional, we should note it. &mdash;<font color=#55FF22>&clubs; Jedi &clubs; Rogue &clubs; 03:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * We are implementing them at the moment (it's a big task as you can imagine), but still working out how it'll be formatted. The discussion is ongoing. -- Brains12 \ Talk 03:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems rediculous for most, especially blinding flash, which is actually LONGER than the traditional description.[[Image:Entrea Sumatae.png|Entrea Sumatae]]<font color="#4682b4">Entrea Sumatae  <font color="#4682b4">[Talk]  20:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Redundant cluttering. As for the Showhide boxes: They span across the whole page, which imo looks a bit weird. Besides, as far as I know, they only auto-hide when there are 2 or more Showhide boxes on the page... --- [[Image:VipermagiSig.JPG]]-- (s)talkpage 09:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Concise descriptions are pointless, and a lot of them inaccurate as well. We shouldn't add them to the wiki in any form, at least not until blatantly obvious errors like replacing "party members" with "allies" are fixed. [[Image:Felix_Omni_Signature.png]] 22:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) They still need a lot of work, and we should wait until they are completely fixed. Cress Arvein(Talk) 22:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

In between

 * 1) Well, as a matter of documentation I think it deserves it. However, I also think it would clutter stuff up too much. So, if we do add it, I think it should be in a show-hide box (default hide) --Gimmethegepgun 02:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Pan brought up a good point on the Game Updates page, concise is good for QR boxes.[[Image:Entrea Sumatae.png|Entrea Sumatae]]<font color="#4682b4">Entrea Sumatae  <font color="#4682b4">[Talk]  02:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but that would require easily the most massive overhaul of all :/ If we did that, we'd have to: add the concise to all the skills, modify the way QRs are referenced, AND change EVERY SINGLE QR REFERENCE on all of GuildWiki so that it does it that way instead --Gimmethegepgun 02:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * OR change the QR templates to use the concise instead of normal descriptions. Not nearly so hard.[[Image:Entrea Sumatae.png|Entrea Sumatae]]<font color="#4682b4">Entrea Sumatae  <font color="#4682b4">[Talk]  02:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, not so hard since Thoughtful's planning on doing all the work.[[Image:Entrea Sumatae.png|Entrea Sumatae]]<font color="#4682b4">Entrea Sumatae  <font color="#4682b4">[Talk]  02:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know how to make a show-hide box o.o <font color="Purple">Thought <font color="Blue">ful [[Image:Thoughtful Sig.png|19.px]] 02:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * When you said QRs I figured you meant EVERY QR, as in condition causing, blocking, etc ones --Gimmethegepgun 03:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe I just don't know how QR templates work... That would explain a lot![[Image:Entrea Sumatae.png|Entrea Sumatae]]<font color="#4682b4">Entrea Sumatae  <font color="#4682b4">[Talk]  03:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)