User talk:Gaile Gray/Archive Wiki Topics/March - May 2007

From Guild Wars Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Archives by Topic

Guild Wars 2 Wiki

Now that GW2 has been annouced, will ANet want to make an offical wiki for that too or will you guys want the content combined here? Might be good to know and start organizing it early so that it can get a head start unlike this official wiki which is trying to catch up. I started the discussion here. --File:VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG Vallen Frostweaver 16:21, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

I would imagine it would be a big one-wiki thing, and the name Guild Wars Wiki doesn't specify chapter orentation. So best guess is no, this will be the wiki for GW1, and GW2.--The preceding unsigned comment was added by User: .
I would actually guess the exact opposite - two different wikis. As it takes place in the same area, but at a later time, it would grow increasingly confusing to have a single article that's split in two - one part describing how it relates to the original series, and one part to how it relates to GW2. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 21:11, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
Yup. The best example would be Ascalon City. If you put GW1 and GW2, we'd now have to differentiate between pre-Searing, post-Searing, and 100+ years in the future. I'd say that's needlessly confusing to players who only started in GW2. -- sig 21:14, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
As an update, it appears that Mike O'Brien is checking into it with his IT dept.--File:VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG Vallen Frostweaver 08:00, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

I don't see a problem in having the complete (GW1/2) content in this GWW. Just create an Ascalon "main-page" summarising that there exist two versions of the city (or three with pre-searing). Then simply link to the different pages for Ascalon-GW1 pre-/post-searing and Ascalon-GW2 from there. Wiking 22:27, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

That seems like a really good idea. I'll see if that's a presentation that we might consider. --Gaile User gaile 2.png 23:16, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
Actually, the downside of that solution isn't that pretty, from a usability point of view; too many disambiguation pages and the wiki becomes a mess to navigate without clicking links at random trying to figure out where you really want to go. What's the purpose of keeping both games on this site (aside for not needing to click on an extra link in your bookmarks to go to the second wiki)? If we keep the games separate on their own sites, it drastically lowers the amount of confusion and extra work needed to keep everything from getting chaotic. If there's material from this wiki that will need to belong on the other one, it can be copied easily since both sites would have compatible GFDL licenses. Everything we do here on the wiki aims to keep the information as accessible and intuitive as possible; needlessly mixing in one place the documentation for two different games goes against that idea, and is ... I'll just say, not cool :P . --Dirigible 23:50, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
I agree with Dirigible - from a useability standpoint, it'll be much better to have two wikis. They should have links to each other from the main page, and inter-wiki linking available between them to simplify cross-referencing; but from what has been mentioned so far about GW2, it would be far too confusing and unweildy to try to contain them both in a single wiki. Aside from the basics of places and objects with shared names between the two - you also have articles on fundamental game mechanics and user interface and controls that already appear to be different between the two. For ease of site navigation, use, and not to mention everyone's sanity, it's several times better to use two wikis for the two different game series. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 00:00, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
I also agree with Dirigible. For a player new to GW (1 or 2), coming here and doing a search for "Experience" would give him two very different results - it would make it rather confusing for him which is the proper one. Having two different wikies would make it easier to "complete" this one (as GW1 content is likely going to be stable after GW:EN) and then invest fully on GW2, while being able to use different templates and alikes, without the risk of incompatibility. Erasculio 00:04, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
If you consider the objective of the creation of this official wiki--that is, tieing the wiki directly to the game--then yes, having two wikis is obviously a good idea. It may, indeed, be the only workable one. But the idea of points of demarkation into the Guild Wars and Guild Wars 2 articles also has a certain appeal. I don't necessarily see where they are mutually exclusive. But then, numerous points of replication within the two structures probably would not be as objectionable as it would be on, say, a website and in fact their creation, editing, and presence now would ease the establishment of a base for the second project in the future. In other words, because Guild Wars 2 will be a new game, it would appear most likely that a new wiki would be the way we will go. Which is why that very thing is being discussed with our IT Department. --Gaile User gaile 2.png 02:19, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
If GW2 takes place 100 years in the future wouldn't at least *some* of the places be named the same? That's just 1 more reason why there should be another wiki for Guild Wars 2 -- Scourge User Scourge Spade.gif 02:41, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Presuming inter-wiki linking would be in place by then, I think it would be cool if we could link to from Ascalon to GW2:Ascalon, or something similar. LordBiro 05:37, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

We could try the idea of Wikipedia for other language version of the wikipedia. There is a link in the left bar to the same article in different languages. We could use it to have links to the GW2 version of the article. -- Gem (gem / talk) 06:14, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
No, I don't think that makes any sense Gem. Surely we would use that for different language versions of the wiki(s) once they launch? LordBiro 06:49, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

An important point for GW2 Wiki, on my mind, would be to lauch it at the same time as the game and to initially reserve the name and the minimal syntaxe of some models such as skills, NPC, Weapon, Object... Well, all summary models for description of in-game content. The interest would be that it would make possible to initially integrate the wiki in the game -making some informations accessible in game and, why not, if a good vandalisme protection, making possible to add info directly from the game- and that fansites will be allowed to organise them database in consequence when creating it so that the wiki will be the center database for sites. I think there will always be fansites even if there is an official wiki^^.--Ttibot 09:22, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Just a small note - I think it would be better to launch the GW2 Wiki before the game is released. Right now we already have some information about it - by the time of the Beta, we will have enough information to begin the Wiki. Erasculio 09:27, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
Yes, I am sure that we will be doing that. That's why Mike O'Brien is working with our IT folks now, in fact. --Gaile User gaile 2.png 15:28, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
As Gaile said, he has been. Thought others knew when I linked to it above but HERE it is again with Mike's last comments on it for any that may have missed this. --File:VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG Vallen Frostweaver 08:17, 2 April 2007 (EDT)


So, why make a Guild Wars Wiki?--Eloc 19:47, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

It's a fair question, and we have a lot of interesting background that you can read on the Guild Wars Wiki:FAQ. I hope that's helpful to you. --Gaile User gaile 2.png 20:04, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
Ok then. That said, will there be a builds page on this site where people can vote on builds and stuff?--Eloc 20:07, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
You'll find the discussion on that here Guild Wars Wiki talk:Policy/Builds. --Dirigible 20:10, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
Curses! I have been foiled by my slow typing and overly thought-out responses! Here is is anyway: Wow, that's a whole extra can of worms =P Currently, we're looking at something along these lines: Guild_Wars_Wiki:Policy/Builds Voting is a weak and easily abused system, at least as far as builds are concerned, and we haven't agreed to even post builds at all =\ Whatever we end up doing there, it's not going to be like GuildWiki - it's leaning more in the direction of guides and descriptions of historically significant builds to avoid having to deal with the trash that the builds section on GuildWiki has become =P MisterPepe talk 20:11, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
Keep in mind that, while this Wiki is hosted by Arena Net (and so it has all benefits linked to that), it is run by the community, so the answer to your question would not come from Gaile - it would come from all of us. Erasculio 20:14, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
Wow. Good answer. MisterPepe talk 20:15, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
Is that the proper way to reply? Or should I have had used a :::: indentation when replying to Eloc, so it wouldn't appear that I'm replying to you? Ahhh, this wiki thing is nice but it's kinda confusing : D Erasculio 20:19, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
No, it was perfect. I just meant that your answer was covering an important topic, and in a simpler way than I would have. Unlike usual, I wasn't even being sarcastic XD MisterPepe talk 20:20, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
(edit conflict)Just to clear up the confusion over indents, the post you're replying to should have one less indent (thus, your comment has one more). That way, it's easier to read and figure out who's responding to who. However, not many people follow that, so I'm usually the one who's going around fixing the indents. xD — Rapta (talk|contribs) 20:23, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
I see, thanks to both of you : ) Erasculio 20:25, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
(ugh) stupid edit conflicts. Am I allowed to make a page saying User:Eloc Jcg/Builds? Which I basically right down my builds and people can give comments on them to make them better? I don't care if there is voting or not.--Eloc 20:28, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
I think the Idea of Guild Wiki 2 is a geat idea. Seeing as how the two games will not be connected other that the hall of monuments. Morimoto 23:35, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

french official wiki?

Hello Gaile. I've got some questions about the future official french wiki : will it be really set up? when? Do you already have a french speaking staff member in mind to act just as you in this wiki (if can you give me his contact so that i will not diturb you anymore with thooses questions)? The unnoficial french wiki : is under GFDL liscence so that it will be possible to exchange with the official wiki. It is very important for us to know when the official wiki will come. The sooner will be the better so that we could organise in consequence : make our models compatible with the official wiki so that will could share easily our content and give a boost to sections wich are not redondant with the official wiki. It would be very helpfull if you could give me an exact answer to all thoose question. Thanks. --Ttibot 10:59, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Bon jour, Ttibot. I understand your questions about a French-language wiki, and you can be sure that we do have plans for such a wiki in the future. However, we are using the English-language wiki as a "pilot program" and will then branch into other languages in the future. At this time we do not have a timeline for the opening of an official Guild Wars Wiki in any other supported language. I would imagine that it will be several months before this happens. You may find some of the information that I wrote about a German-language wiki helpful in understanding our plans, since the plans would be similar for a French-language wiki. I hope that this information is helpful to you, and thank you for getting in touch. --Gaile User gaile 2.png 15:13, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
Thanks, that is helpfull. I will be the contact between thoose two wikis. You can leave messages on my talk page if you have further information to give/request to me. --Ttibot 17:09, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Other ArenaNet users...

I recently stumbled across User:Emily Diehl. How many others of you are hiding here, eh? :) (I know Mike has a user discussion but no page...) Armond 23:08, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

It is possible to see a list of registered ANet contributors in Special:Listusers. — Rapta (talk|contribs) 23:10, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
Ooh, thanks. Didn't think that page would have the tag for them. Fancy coding, that. Armond 23:19, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Concept Art from the PC Gamer Article

Gaile, could you please provide an opinion on this, thanks! :) -FireFox File:Firefoxav.png 16:08, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

I would also be curious if the image of Gwen at is available for our use. As it's used on the official site, the PC Gamer copyright doesn't prevent use as it would if using a magazine scan; but it's also not listed in the gallery; so it's a bit of a gray area to me (no pun intended). --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 21:40, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
It doesn't seem as a gray area to me, to be honest. Quoting Mike O'Brien here, "go ahead and use whatever you like from the Guild Wars web site", which if you read it in the context used there means the entire site, not merely the gallery. Not sure why that picture would be an exception to that. --Dirigible 21:53, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
Thanks - I had forgotten that comment. I was still thinking in GuildWiki terms there for a moment ... for fansites, that image is a gray area, but not for an official site within the domain :-) --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 21:57, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
Originally I tagged the picture as it was a pcgamer scan, it has since been replaced, so the only issue in my opinion now is, do you delete the original version so the violation is not still on the server. If you see what I mean. --Lemming64 21:58, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
I would recommend deleting the image and replacing it with the official-site-provided image. Is that within wiki protocols? --Gaile User gaile 2.png 01:10, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
Aye, Rainith has already deleted the potential-copyvio image a while earlier, the version that's up now is the safe one. --Dirigible 01:22, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
Materials on our site may be freely used on the Guild Wars Wiki, as Mike O'Brien stated. I need to get an opinion on scanned images. It's our art but it's on their publication -- definitely need clarification. But whether from the Gallery or inserted into a press release or part of a product or events page, the website assets are available to the Wiki. We have some Terms of Use prohibitions against our materials' use outside the website or wiki, but those do not apply to our own official wiki. Just for further information: The reason we're careful about asset use is that we need to prevent a company from taking our website design, wholesale, and trying to parade as "official" when, in fact, the site is a gold-selling, cheat, or exploit site. (Sadly, this has happened.) We also ask that fansites use logos and choose their names wisely, to avoid confusion between their site and the official site. Please let me know if you have further questions and thanks for the care you're showing in establishing clear and direct processes. --Gaile User gaile 2.png 01:10, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Sound Post

Just a gnomey reminder to put the sound updates on your post page, as you said you would. Just so you don't forget, and btw, I was Empyreal Amazon. Hope you like the 450Gold and the Golden Egg. - DяấĢő 01:25, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Thanks for the reminder. I've posted the [Sound Issues] now. --Gaile User gaile 2.png 03:08, 8 April 2007 (EDT)


Your signature must be redirecting to your user or talk page. I've done it for you, but please do it yourself the other time using: #Redirect[[pagename]] . 12:39, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

No. 1. Please log in, but if this is your "log-in" than I apologize -- it just looks strange to me. No. 2. Could you please explain to me what you mean with your comments here? What is it you've "done for me?" To what "the other time" are you referring? I'm sorry, I'm completely baffled by the tone and tenor of this comment. Thank you for any explanation you can provide. --Gaile User gaile 2.png 17:03, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
I think he meant that the image in your signature wasn't redirecting to your talk page or user page (which if you check the history of the image he added). And you don't have to register to contribute to a wiki. :) - BeX 17:08, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
Thank you for the explanation of the former. I didn't create the signature; wasn't aware it was outside protocols; appreciate the help. As for the latter, yes, fine. --Gaile User gaile 2.png 17:46, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
(edit conflict oO) - I don't think this person was intending to be as rude as a first reading would imply. The wording and grammar would suggest to me that English is not this user's native language - and that IP would appear to be this person's login - refers to self as "User 86.83" :) --SnogratUser Snograt signature.png 17:50, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
This was my fault, really. I apologise Gaile, and, I should have created a redirect after uploading this image but I forgot. LordBiro 18:20, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
Yes, I understand, Snograt. I noted after I posted that the IP was in fact a log-in, I understand that log-ins are not required, and so I apologize for my request. (IPs make me woogly, but that's based on years of experience in another medium.)
Please don't apologize, LordBiro. You were very kind to make the image, and its my own lack of skill that required me to accept the gift in the first place so if anyone needs to apologize, it's me. Again. --Gaile User gaile 2.png 18:32, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
It's no big deal, just a misunderstanding. - BeX 00:25, 18 April 2007 (EDT)


Hi, I just noticed that you have lost some stuff when archiving your user page. See this old revision of your talk page. The stuff under the heading "User page" isn't in any of your archives. -- Gem (gem / talk) 07:03, 17 April 2007 (EDT)


These pages have seen a lot of activity over the last few weeks, and I've found that both informative and very enjoyable. I realized quickly the archiving would be essential, and went from one, to two, to now four archive sections. I admire some of the methods I've seen for archiving, and I may adopt something similar in the future. However, in the present, I've been unable to ascertain archiving policies. I've consulted numerous policy pages, but I cannot really find what I'm seeking as far as guidance, opinion, and more important formal policy on retention.

Now, I can archive everything that gets placed on these pages, no problem at all. But I think that over time, that's going to create a lot of "bulk" in the archives, and the very size of the archives will make finding something from previous weeks, months, or years more difficult. So, with that in mind, it is my preference to not archive every single comment on a page, but to make a judicious and continuing appraisal of the contents of each current article and archive section, with a decision then made to (1) leave a topic in place, (2) move it to a relevant archive, (3) move it semi-temporarily to an archive, or (4) delete it when appraised to be content or commentary that does not require its retention into perpetuity.

I'm keenly aware that the GWW is not a forum. And yet, I don't want to set a bar of such formality on my personal page that people will hesitate to say "Hey, good to see you last night" or "I enjoyed the special weekend" or "Please thank the team for the update" or other such casual comments. Yet if someone posts that casual comment, should it be--need it be--sealed into historical record forever? If not, am I allowed or entrusted to make the decision about what is important to save? Am I under a timeline, or might I put something into archive for the short-term, and then delete it later, once the timeliness has passed? Is that decision-making the province of each user about his/her user page?

My thought is that yes, I should be judicious about saves to keep the archives relatively lean and that surely yes, for this User page, I would be the logical (and perhaps sole) individual involved in retention decisions. Can I get feedback on this matter? --Gaile User gaile 2.png 03:13, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

There aren't any real guidelines for archiving, but I prefer archiving everything and deleting nothing. You could create tw o types of archives, those which contain stuff that hold interesting and usefull information and those that are just random "Hi and thanks" comments. If for example keep two separate lines of archives, one for on wiki matters, one for personal and off-wiki stuff. -- Gem (gem / talk) 04:38, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
Another thing you could do is move some topics elsewhere. If someone is talking about a specific topic which doesn't really belong here you could move it to the talk page of somewhere it does - like move GW:EN stuff to the GW:EN talk page. Use the rest of the site as a filing system for the non-personal stuff. That way anyone interested in the topic can find the information and your comments on it in the place they might think to look for it. --Aspectacle 05:19, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
Gaile already keeps a number of archives for different topics, Gem.
I explained to Gaile recently that moving topics is acceptable, as long as a note explaining why it is moved is added, but it is not the comments on support, lore, or future releases that are really posing a problem in this scenario.
Gaile is in a unique position. She receives many comments that are friendly "hello"s, but they bear no relevance to the game, or to her role here. We say that it is important to archive because we should keep a record of conversations in case we need to refer to it in the future. If the chance of future reference to a topic is close to 0% then does it need archiving? If I post and say "Hi, Gaile, I like purple too!" and Gaile replies "That's great! :)" then should we archive that? I'm not certain that the "archive everything" approach is necessarily beneficial. LordBiro 05:26, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
Ah. I think she has the right to remove and permanently delete such comments if she so chooses. (I think any user should be able to do that with their talk page as long as the information they remove isn't of particular importance to the wiki) --Aspectacle 05:34, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
Because all content is saved via the history feature of our wiki software, I see no need to archive anything at all. Archiving is simply a convenience that most editors provide to those reading their talk pages. If you believe that certain comments aren't of interest, I believe it's your right to remove them from an archive or refrain from putting them in an archive in the first place.
That said, I can see feelings getting hurt if you delete user comments. While I know you're striving for archives that are meaningfully browsable -- a goal I support even if I haven't bothered to do the same myself -- it might be better to have a giant archive section for random, historically-meaningless comments, so that you don't give the appearance of deletion.
Policy-wise, I think either choice you make is fine.
Tanaric 06:59, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
Is this an exception we are making here or are we discussing the policy in general? Because right now the user pages policy explicity disallows comments to be deleted even from your user talk page (with an exception being made for archiving). I honestly don't really care much either way, since as you said the article's history is always there, but I wouldn't mind if this point were made clear for future reference. Does the reasoning above apply only as an exception for Gaile, or are we disagreeing with that part of the policy for all users (in which case the policy will need to be changed)? --Dirigible 07:35, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
Biro: I know she has multiple different archives, but I was just suggesting creating one for those random 'hi' comments. Although I understand why others don't see it usefull to archive everything, I have to say that the history is much harder to use instead of scrolling through the arhcives. Well, this isn't the most serious matter in the wiki, but I generally wouldn't make any single user an exception to the wiki etiquette which has been formed. Everyone else archives the random 'hi' sections and Tizzy spams. :P -- Gem (gem / talk) 14:16, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
I wasn't meaning to imply that we should make an exception for Gaile, rather I was saying Gaile's talk page is exceptional, and so we should make life a bit easier for everyone.
I do understand people's concerns, and I had forgotten that the user page policy forbade deleting comments! I just think that with some comments you are unlikely to ever go through the history or an archive looking for them, because they just say "You rock, Gaile!". LordBiro 15:16, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
If you had forgotten the policy, I simply was unable to find it. Now that I understand the expectations, I can archive everything on the discussion pages. I just need a far, far better archive system. That's it, I'm lifting User_talk:BeXoR <-- that one. ;) --Gaile User gaile 2.png 15:30, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
:D ^_^ - BeX 23:25, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
Oh fooey, I've been caught, nearly in the act of archive-format liftage!. *thinks* Look over there, BeXor, sparkly pink elephants! ;) --Gaile User gaile 2.png 01:03, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
Pink elephants, hey? ;) - BeX 05:07, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
I'm sure you're archiving discussions on this page, but when you do so, there's nothing in the edit history (the "history" tab at the top of the page) that says that's what you're doing, not just deleting content. In future, there's a text box near the "save page" button where you can type a short summary of what you did. This will show up on the history pages and the "diff" pages (where we look at the difference between two edits). Please consider typing in that box when doing more than tiny edits to pages (though to be honest I don't always type when I should, so don't feel bad if you forget :P). Thanks! Armond 14:08, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
I think when you see (-1,000) by the owner of a talk page you can make a fair assumption that they are archiving :P If someone really wanted to delete something then they could also put the word "archiving" in the edit summary, lol. LordBiro 15:02, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
I agree with Armond. When I see (-1,000) I don't care who did it, I'll just click on it and check in case that user is attempting to blank his/her talk page. I'd much rather see "Archiving" as the summary. Although even with that summary, I'd still check, just in case. -- sig 22:02, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Election process

If ArenaNet has time, I'd like to get their comment on Guild Wars Wiki:Elections, especially its "stage 4" which could directly involve ArenaNet. It's currently just a working draft, but it would be good to know whether or not ArenaNet would be willing to shoulder the kind of responsibility described there if the community thought it best. (I also realize we want to generally minimize ArenaNet's direct involvement in this, but elections -- especially wiki elections -- can be tricky, and having a trustable third party can make things a lot smoother.) Thanks! --Rezyk 20:11, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Thank you for asking. I do agree that there is a need for a plan at Stage 4, and personally, I am more than willing to help in any way that I can. Let me check on whether such involvement would be ok in the eyes of others who also are very active on the GWW, but I see the merit and the worth of our aiding this cause, and as I said, would be more than willing to assist, most definitely. --Gaile User gaile 2.png 00:15, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
I guess now would be a good time to get further input on this. =) A few users seem willing to accept Guild Wars Wiki:Elections/draft B as is (although alternatives will still be discussed), which can potentially rely on ArenaNet judgment if a dispute reaches stage 4. Would ArenaNet be okay with this? --Rezyk 17:15, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
Hey, Rezyk. You've been more than patient, and thank you. I've sent around an email and hope to have an answer today. Given the need would be rare, but quite valid, I feel it is likely we'd agree to the request. I will get back to you as soon as I have approval. --Gaile User gaile 2.png 18:28, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
*nudge nudge* =) --Rezyk 23:29, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
I never got a reply, so I'm going to make the commitment that, should Stage 4 involvement be required from ArenaNet, we will provide that support. --Gaile User gaile 2.png 01:45, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
Understood. I guess I'll see if the community is up for installing the draft B version, with this commitment. Thanks! --Rezyk 03:21, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
Let me know if any of us can help in any way. As you can see from this week's update, we're very, very pleased to have this wiki, and delighted with the assistance of everyone involved, from the smallest edit to the largest set of page creations. Kudos to all who are involved! --Gaile User gaile 2.png 04:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)