Location linking within region articles[]
What do people think about linking to locations within the individual region articles? For example...
- Shiverpeaks has a list of towns by who controls them, but not explorable areas.
- Kryta has a list of towns (categorised), but not explorable areas.
- Maguuma Jungle and Crystal Desert have a list of towns (uncategorised) and a list of explorable areas.
- Battle Isles has a list of explorable areas and towns, in a kind of bulleted list.
- Realms of the Gods contains links to the various areas contained within it.
- Ascalon and Ring of Fire Islands do not have any information on towns/areas.
This inconsistency makes me think that we should maybe adopt a central policy for what kind of information we put on the actual article pages... What does everyone think? Kidburla 03:16, 16 February 2006 (CST)
Redirection for locations[]
Today I expanded the list of explorable areas. I deliberatly created TWO versions for areas with a "The" prefix, because some people refer to them with and some without the prefix. By adding a cross-reference between the two we should have both versions covered. --Tetris L 20:23, 8 Jul 2005 (EST)
- Found out how to create redirect pages in Wiki and pruned the list. --Tetris L 21:02, 8 Jul 2005 (EST)
Arena Information[]
Two issues:
- Are those arenas listed even real? The ones listed under Competition Arenas (Fort Koga and Amnoon, ...) do not exist.
- Also, who came up with the name "Shiverpeak Arena" and "Deldrimor Arena"? I would think "Yak's Bend Arena" and "Droknar's Forge Arena" would be more intuitive and more accurate.
--Karlos 20:07, 15 Aug 2005 (EST)
- They used to exist (with those names) long ago on the map, but they were changed in one of the first updates to all be accessed from a single arena outpost (I forget which one). Actually, maybe those ones are still on the map. Can't check from here. *shrugs* Either way the names are correct. —Tanaric 22:28, 15 Aug 2005 (EST)
- The names of the arenas used here are the ones shown on the ingame map. And all of those arenas still exists, it's just that some of them are now entered via the "Competitive Arena", which is kind of a launch gate. --Tetris L 00:08, 16 Aug 2005 (EST)
- If you didn't enter the old arenas while they still existed, you can't get to them anymore. A new user only has competition and team (and I guess the low level one in Ascalon). If you enter PvP and look at your quest log, you can still see "Fort Koga" and some others as an entry there while you play on them. --Fyren 05:21, 16 Aug 2005 (EST)
- I know they used to exist. But I have seen too many players come to the Henge of Denravi and ask where "Fort Koga" is! I think we could place a historical note. But if you open the map of any character created past that update, you will see that there is only Team and Competition and the Tomb. I think these names should go. --Karlos 06:51, 16 Aug 2005 (EST)
- In my opinion we list them as maps/levels in the Competition Arenas article under the "Other" section instead of having them as seperate arenas on the master locatinos list. kaarechr 00:08, 23 Aug 2005 (EST)
- I know they used to exist. But I have seen too many players come to the Henge of Denravi and ask where "Fort Koga" is! I think we could place a historical note. But if you open the map of any character created past that update, you will see that there is only Team and Competition and the Tomb. I think these names should go. --Karlos 06:51, 16 Aug 2005 (EST)
- If you didn't enter the old arenas while they still existed, you can't get to them anymore. A new user only has competition and team (and I guess the low level one in Ascalon). If you enter PvP and look at your quest log, you can still see "Fort Koga" and some others as an entry there while you play on them. --Fyren 05:21, 16 Aug 2005 (EST)
- The names of the arenas used here are the ones shown on the ingame map. And all of those arenas still exists, it's just that some of them are now entered via the "Competitive Arena", which is kind of a launch gate. --Tetris L 00:08, 16 Aug 2005 (EST)
Images[]
The images on this page are of horrible quality. Anyone with Photoshop-fu and some free time want to make cleaner (and possibly bigger) versions? —Tanaric 22:30, 15 Aug 2005 (EST)
- Oi! Don't you dare to diz my l33t Paintbrush skillz!!!11 ;) --Tetris L 00:05, 16 Aug 2005 (EST)
- Nice. :) —Tanaric 20:49, 16 Aug 2005 (EST)
Is it just me or does the background transparency not work correctly on PNG files?? Testing if GIF files work correct:
- GIF:
- PNG:
How does it look on YOUR browser? --Tetris L 04:23, 7 Sep 2005 (EST)
- IE doesn't support PNG tranparency. (GIF only supports one color transparency, but I guess that's not an issue here.) Also, there's an "edge" around the top of the GIF version that's lighter colored than the background, for me. I'm using Firefox. --Fyren 04:29, 7 Sep 2005 (EST)
- Since the majority of users use IE I think we should use GIF format. I will change the icons for Locations (Test) to GIF format. --Tetris L 06:35, 7 Sep 2005 (EST)
New Structure[]
I would prefer if we would restructure this page by regions: Instead of ...
- Regions
- Pre-Searing Ascalon
- Post-Searing Ascalon
- Northern Shiverpeaks
- Eastern Kryta
- ...
- Cities
- Pre-Searing Ascalon
- Post-Searing Ascalon
- Northern Shiverpeaks
- ...
- Regions
I would rather structure it:
- Pre-Searing Ascalon
- Explorable Areas
- Cities
- Ouposts
- ...
- Explorable Areas
- Post-Searing Ascalon
- Explorable Areas
- Cities
- Ouposts
- ...
- Explorable Areas
- Pre-Searing Ascalon
I think we would get a structure this way that "feels more natural" this way, with all the places that are geographically close also close to eachother on the list. I will quickly create a new version of the list on a temporary alternate page so you can have a look and compare. --Tetris L 14:42, 22 Aug 2005 (EST)
- I like that. I think I suggested in some talk page 20 years ago.. I prefer grouping them by Region then location type (city/outpost/exp area) rather than the current type that sorts them by location type then region. --Karlos 17:32, 22 Aug 2005 (EST)
- The suggested structure seems better so I'm in favor for changing it. kaarechr 20:33, 22 Aug 2005 (EST)
- I'd prefer the regions and "type" categories to be separate. Do you want each article to be in the parent categories, or just the one leaf category? --Fyren 06:11, 23 Aug 2005 (EST)
- I was not talking about categorization. Just how they are sorted in this specific article. --Karlos 09:14, 23 Aug 2005 (EST)
- Ha ha! I knew that. Really. --Fyren 09:22, 23 Aug 2005 (EST)
Here is a nice example how the new listing structure might look like (scroll down to the post by britehawk). I really like it. (Instead of the colors we might use the map icons.) --Tetris L 21:29, 1 Sep 2005 (EST)
- Comments anyone? If not, then I will go ahead and create an alternative version of the page with the new structure, so you can have a look and then we decide which one to keep. --Tetris L 18:19, 2 Sep 2005 (EST)
- I've created the new version under Locations (Test). Please review and discuss. --Tetris L 00:11, 3 Sep 2005 (EST)
- If nobody objects by tomorrow I will move the current article to a backup location Locations (by Type) and will then overwrite the article with the current article Locations (Test). --Tetris L 22:55, 5 Sep 2005 (EST)
- I've created the new version under Locations (Test). Please review and discuss. --Tetris L 00:11, 3 Sep 2005 (EST)
- I think the wiki bullets and the dashes clash with the icons, but that's all. Maybe some simple icon could be made? The portal icon off the map for the bullets and one of the various signposts for the locations of interest? Not sure if the portal will look good, though. --Fyren 23:32, 5 Sep 2005 (EST)
- If we go through the hassle of creating a new icon for those, then we should fix the other icons as well. With "fix" I mean: Create versions with a fixed width. With the current version, because the mission icon is so much wider than the outpost icon, it looks like there is an additional indent, like the next tree branch (if you understand what I mean). --Tetris L 00:21, 6 Sep 2005 (EST)
- I fixed the icon width, but f*cked up the background transparency in the process. I'm a newb when it comes to photoshopping. :( Gonna try again tomorrow. I will also try to create icons for explorable areas (I like the idea to use the portal vortex!) and points of interest (maybe use the green star?). --Tetris L 17:20, 6 Sep 2005 (EST)
I hadn't noticed this page, but I messed around with the Crystal Desert article. I don't think that should be the final format, but it's an idea I've thrown on the table. I'd think they might go better as subitems for areas; the only difficulty would be things like Augury Rock, Beacon's Perch, etc. which have exits to 2 or more zones. - Lunarbunny 05:40, 30 Sep 2005 (EST)
Other / Unlabeled Locations[]
Should we add locations that are not labeled on the map, but clearly named otherwise (for example on signs or in quest descriptions)? I'm thinking of locations like "Ascalon Settlement", "King's Watch", "Dakutu Village" and others. --Tetris L 19:45, 21 Aug 2005 (EST)
- That's a great idea, Tetris. How did we miss those for so long? :) Umm, now what do we call them. I will tell you quite frankly, I just renamed them to "in-game locations" and I think that was quite stupid. :) All locations are "in game." So, before I revert to the old name, which I also don't like, does someone have a better name for those villages and settlements like Ashford Village and the Ascalon Settlement? "Explorable Area settlement"? "Unenclosed Locations"? --Karlos 18:00, 22 Aug 2005 (EST)
- There's also articles like Orr and Arah currently in locations. --Fyren 22:02, 22 Aug 2005 (EST)
- Those could go under something like "Historical Locations". --Tetris L 22:57, 22 Aug 2005 (EST)
- Until players can actualy GO to Orr and Arah, they should remain in the Lore category. Drascir is at the top of the Ruins of Surmia Mission and Rin is at the bottom of the Nolani Academy mission, they are actual sites in the game. --Karlos 09:13, 23 Aug 2005 (EST)
- And who stipulated that this list is only for places that players can GO to? To me it is a master list of all locations that make an appearance in the game, one way or another, in present or lore. --Tetris L 21:36, 1 Sep 2005 (EST)
- Because this is a list of locations IN the game. Orr and Arah are NOT in the game right now. They are labels in the backstory and history of the game. Not locations IN the game that anyone can go to or near or around. You are free to make a "Historical Locations" section under the "Lore" category. But to list unreachable non-existent locations under the "master" locations list is very misleading to users in my opinion. What are we going to do? Put an asterisk next to them and say "these locations are not actual locations in the game right now"? --Karlos 04:54, 2 Sep 2005 (EST)
- Again, who stipulated that this is a list of locations "IN" the game? And who says that locations like Orr are not "in" the game just because you can't go there? They are mentioned in descriptions many times. In my book that counts as being "in" the game!
- Having said that, I agree we should list them separate from the rest to avoid confusion. But not under a separate article. In my humble opinion they should be listed in THIS article because this article is a list of all locations in the game. My $0.02. --Tetris L 18:19, 2 Sep 2005 (EST)
- :D You just said "This article is a list of all locations in the game!!" Shall we contemplate on the possible meanings of "in"? :) So, the Gods are in the "Rift" should we list that as a location? My idea for this article (which is not necessarily the standard) is that this is a list of all places players can GO to so that they make sure they are not missing out on any place. That is how I use the list. Now, perhaps there exists a user out there who wants to find out about all the locations "talked about" in the game. I just find that user to be VERY rare, while catering to him in this article will confuse and maybe frustrate the regular user. --Karlos 19:07, 2 Sep 2005 (EST)
- "Shall we contemplate on the possible meanings of "in"? :)"<- Yes, indeed we should, because that's the key point here! As I said, in my book being talked about in the game counts as being in the game. Even if the number of users looking for lore locations may be small, that's no reason not to list them. There are many many pieces of information in this wiki that are of interest only for a small portion of users. Nevertheless we don't remove such info. It should be our goal to provide information as complete as possible, even if it's just for reference. And as long as we list them under a separate paragraph clearly labeled "Lore Locations" or simular I don't see much of a risk of confusion or frustration for regular users. --Tetris L 20:19, 2 Sep 2005 (EST)
- Find me where I said delete the info. That's right! I didn't. The entire discussion is whether the "Historical Locations" list should be listed here. I say NO it is confusing for the 99% of users who want to use this list. For the 1% who want this info, they will STILL find it in another article. They won't come browse "Locations" to find obscure non-existent fantasy places. They would come search for "Arah" and read about it in historical locations. I just don't picture a user thinking "Hmm, let me see what non-existent fictional places are mentioned in this game world. Let's check the Wiki.. Oh! Darn! They don't have it!!" :) I picture them looking for info on "Arah" and finding it, because we have it. Hmph. :) --Karlos 08:56, 3 Sep 2005 (EST)
- "Shall we contemplate on the possible meanings of "in"? :)"<- Yes, indeed we should, because that's the key point here! As I said, in my book being talked about in the game counts as being in the game. Even if the number of users looking for lore locations may be small, that's no reason not to list them. There are many many pieces of information in this wiki that are of interest only for a small portion of users. Nevertheless we don't remove such info. It should be our goal to provide information as complete as possible, even if it's just for reference. And as long as we list them under a separate paragraph clearly labeled "Lore Locations" or simular I don't see much of a risk of confusion or frustration for regular users. --Tetris L 20:19, 2 Sep 2005 (EST)
- :D You just said "This article is a list of all locations in the game!!" Shall we contemplate on the possible meanings of "in"? :) So, the Gods are in the "Rift" should we list that as a location? My idea for this article (which is not necessarily the standard) is that this is a list of all places players can GO to so that they make sure they are not missing out on any place. That is how I use the list. Now, perhaps there exists a user out there who wants to find out about all the locations "talked about" in the game. I just find that user to be VERY rare, while catering to him in this article will confuse and maybe frustrate the regular user. --Karlos 19:07, 2 Sep 2005 (EST)
- Because this is a list of locations IN the game. Orr and Arah are NOT in the game right now. They are labels in the backstory and history of the game. Not locations IN the game that anyone can go to or near or around. You are free to make a "Historical Locations" section under the "Lore" category. But to list unreachable non-existent locations under the "master" locations list is very misleading to users in my opinion. What are we going to do? Put an asterisk next to them and say "these locations are not actual locations in the game right now"? --Karlos 04:54, 2 Sep 2005 (EST)
- And who stipulated that this list is only for places that players can GO to? To me it is a master list of all locations that make an appearance in the game, one way or another, in present or lore. --Tetris L 21:36, 1 Sep 2005 (EST)
- Until players can actualy GO to Orr and Arah, they should remain in the Lore category. Drascir is at the top of the Ruins of Surmia Mission and Rin is at the bottom of the Nolani Academy mission, they are actual sites in the game. --Karlos 09:13, 23 Aug 2005 (EST)
- Those could go under something like "Historical Locations". --Tetris L 22:57, 22 Aug 2005 (EST)
- There's also articles like Orr and Arah currently in locations. --Fyren 22:02, 22 Aug 2005 (EST)
- Ummmm, aren't these all "obscure, non-existant locations" being as this is a game? (Sorry I just had to throw that in there to be an @$$.) That being said, IMO these location do belong in this article as this is an article for locations not in-game locations. Again, only my $0.02. --Rainith 09:02, 3 Sep 2005 (EST)
any template 4 explorable areas?[]
i just had had the urge to check if all bosses in all areas have that cute mini-icon, and.... there are several quite different designs 4 maps...
compare Perdition Rock with The Arid Sea --HJT 13:55, 17 October 2005 (EST)
- I am full aware of that one. I was hoping to gradually convert them all to The Arid Sea style without anyone noticing! >:)
- I prefer the Arid Sea one for many tiny reasons, the two templates are quite similar actually, but I would vote for the Arid Sea. --Karlos 21:20, 17 October 2005 (EST)
- I'd vote for Arid Sea too. I've been working on the Old Ascalon article a lot over the last few days, which uses the Arid Sea format, with a few minor changes:
- Renamed "Cities & Outposts" to "Towns"
- Added section "Locations / Objects of Interest"
- Added section "Pets"
- Added section "Quests" (as module)
- Other changes have to do with the maps that I'm creating. I'd hope that we stick to that format, because that would allow me to minimize the work when I add the map for the area. --Tetris L 22:54, 17 October 2005 (EST)
- I'd vote for Arid Sea too. I've been working on the Old Ascalon article a lot over the last few days, which uses the Arid Sea format, with a few minor changes:
- A probable final layout
- 1 General Information
- 1.1 Exits / Neighbour Areas
- 2 Quests (only quest u get in this aera?)
- 3 Bestiary
- 3.1 Monsters
- 3.2 Bosses
- 3.3 NPCs
- Collectors (in tripple ' ' ') if needed also armor collector
- Pets (in tripple ' ' ')
- 4 Statues / objects of interest
- 1 General Information
- A probable final layout
- With this format i think u have a place 4 all stuff Tetris L provides on his maps, and a clear structure
- --HJT 22:46, 19 October 2005 (EST)
- minor edit: changed 3.4 statues to 4 Statues / Object of interst / whatever --HJT 23:02, 19 October 2005 (EST)
Northern/southern shiverpeaks[]
on every explorable we have a region (in general infos) and we have the category:regionname. as in category:regionnname only N-shever and S-shiver exists i chose that, but the regin in infos, only shoiverpeak mountains? --HJT 00:19, 20 October 2005 (EST)
- They all point to the same page. Who cares? :P Umm, I would say also list the region as northern and southern. I have no idea why, the idea just popped into my mind. --Karlos 02:14, 20 October 2005 (EST)
New Locations layout[]
I suggest we wait till after this PvP weekend stuff is gone, and then update this list. I am expecting the new layout (i.e. everything PvP moved to Battle Isles) to stay even after the sneak peak is taken out. So, let's wait till Monday/tuesday morning and if it stays, this article will need an overhaul. --Karlos 11:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, according to the CGW article all arenas will be moved to the Battle Isles. I guess the Ascalon Arena, Shiverpeak Arena, ... will eventually be closed and only the Battle Isles will remain open. --
11:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Misplaced Locations[]
Noticed Piken Square was in Pre-Sear Ascalon. That can't be right. And in the Northern Lands too. There's a bridge, some ruins, and a crap load of Charr bosses and Charr, but nothing to resemble Piken Square. Wanted to say something before I edit it out. --Gares Redstorm 04:19, 15 March 2006 (CST)
- Piken Square is indeed :) it can be found at the top of the northlands, and it looks a lot nicer than post sear version — Skuld 04:24, 15 March 2006 (CST)
- Should it still be the link to the Post Sear Piken Square. That could confuse a lot of new players. --Gares Redstorm 04:27, 15 March 2006 (CST)
- There is a note at the bottom of the Piken Square article saying that it is available in pre-searing. To be honest, most new players do not even know what post-searing means and probably thing that pre-searing ascalon is the whole Guild Wars "world" (after all, even that is pretty big). There is not enough to say about pre-searing Piken Square to warrant an entire separate article. Kidburla 06:22, 15 March 2006 (CST)
- Should it still be the link to the Post Sear Piken Square. That could confuse a lot of new players. --Gares Redstorm 04:27, 15 March 2006 (CST)
The time for action is upon us[]
Ok, if we wait any longer we will soon have noodle soup instead of a wiki so the time to act is now. We NEED to start separating content of Factions and Prophecies that is not related. This means Quests, Locations, Mission Overviews and probably NPCs.
I suggest we start with one thing, Locations (since they seem to be the least intimidating) and divide them and then if all goes well, quickly apply this to quests, missions, NPCs and anything else that needs it.
Proposals[]
Karlos:
- Regarding the article:
- We no longer have a Locations article, instead a Factions Locations article and a Prophecies Locations article. the main Locations article can then be a simple disambig page.
- The issue of Factions Locations or Locations (Factions) is NOT being discussed here. If you want to discuss it go find that talk page where it was being discussed. Assume it is which ever one you think it should be.
- Regarding the category:
- We then sift through Category:Locations and move places into Category:Prophecies locations and Category:Factions locations. (In case it's not clear, Category:Locatiosn will remain as the root of the two.)
- Locations common to both campaigns (mainly Battle Isles) are simply listed in both articles and categorized in both categories.
Xeeron:
- Regarding the article:
- Regarding the category:
- Category:Prophecies locations, Category:Factions locations and Category:Core become sub-categories of Category:Locations.
- Battle Isles go under heading/sub-category "Core".
Vote[]
We need to move quickly on this. There will be 3 days for proposals and then a simple plurality vote for 2 days. People can alter their proposals as they wish until the 3 days are over then the proposals cannot be altered during the voting period.
Vote tally:
- Karlos' proposal:
- Karlos
(but with a separate article and category for "core" locations)- LordKestrel (but with a separate article and category for "core" locations)
- Xeeron's proposal:
- Karlos' proposal for article, but Xeeron's proposal for category
Discussion[]
Main reason for my proposal differing from Karlos: I feel that we should avoid double categories for articles if possible. --Xeeron 21:06, 30 March 2006 (CST)
- I like Karlos' proposal, except I think Core should be split out. Not going to vote yet, but likely will go with 1 even if it doesn't get split out. LordKestrel 10:01, 31 March 2006 (CST)
- Just a note: Karlos and my proposal are similar, except the fact that I separate Core from Prophecies and Factions and keep everything in one article. What you might be thinking about is separating Core, but not keeping everything in one article. --Xeeron 18:57, 31 March 2006 (CST)
- Exactly. I like what Karlos listed, but I also want a different article for Location (Core) (Or however they end up getting named). LordKestrel 19:33, 31 March 2006 (CST)
- Just a note: Karlos and my proposal are similar, except the fact that I separate Core from Prophecies and Factions and keep everything in one article. What you might be thinking about is separating Core, but not keeping everything in one article. --Xeeron 18:57, 31 March 2006 (CST)
- I do not mind a separate article for Locations (Core) and Category:Core locations as long as we still list Battle Isles in all chapters. It is simply accessible in the chapter. I am thinking from an end user point of view. Let's say Joe Shmoe buys the game tomorrow, and he uses our wiki, he is exploring and questing through Ascalon, Shiverpeaks, and is looking in our site for places he should uncover. And we do not mention to him at all in the list of Prophecies locations that he can travel to Battle Isles... I think that's bad. --Karlos 16:07, 3 April 2006 (CDT)
- I would suggest either a link at the top of the article to core, or use {{:Locations (Core)}} -SolaPan 17:14, 3 April 2006 (CDT)
- I do not mind a separate article for Locations (Core) and Category:Core locations as long as we still list Battle Isles in all chapters. It is simply accessible in the chapter. I am thinking from an end user point of view. Let's say Joe Shmoe buys the game tomorrow, and he uses our wiki, he is exploring and questing through Ascalon, Shiverpeaks, and is looking in our site for places he should uncover. And we do not mention to him at all in the list of Prophecies locations that he can travel to Battle Isles... I think that's bad. --Karlos 16:07, 3 April 2006 (CDT)
Decision Time[]
Ok, time to decide on this matter. I am fine with the category structure that Xeeron wants and I believe PanSola misstated Xeeron's suggestion with regards to the Locations article. So, if no one has any problems, I suggest we:
- a) Split this article
- b) Start recategorizing the locations the locations
Report here on what has been done. And move fast before other users like Life Infusion start making up their own solutions. --Karlos 13:11, 4 April 2006 (CDT)
- Hmm, how have I mistated his suggestion? I simply splitted the bullet points up I thought... o_O""" -SolaPan 19:23, 4 April 2006 (CDT)
- My apologies. I misread what Xeeron said before and what he said in the discussion (he seemed to not want to split the main article in the discussion). So, I thought you rewrote his suggestion. Sorry about that. --Karlos 02:07, 11 April 2006 (CDT)
Category Tree Structure[]
Not quite related to the current vote, which is about campaign tagging. But I'm proposing a category tree restructure over at Category Talk:Locations#Restructuring of the category tree so it becomes a tree. Whenever this gets passed and peole are running a crusade to update stuff, please do teh update for that proposal at the same time. -SolaPan 17:09, 3 April 2006 (CDT)
Vote Status?[]
Is this vote still open, or completed? If completed, the vote tag should be removed and the vote results archived to GuildWiki:Old votes. I would move it myself; but with the various wiki downtimes and no clear declaration of a result, I was uncertain as to the current status of this vote. --Barek 00:27, 18 April 2006 (CDT)
- Nearly a week and no reply? I'm guessing that means the vote is either over or abandoned. I'll remove the tag and archive the results later tonight unless someone objects. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:33, 24 April 2006 (CDT)
FoW/UW[]
Fissure of Woe and Underworld should be considered for all campaigns. You can enter FoW/UW from Factions--Life Infusion 10:11, 30 April 2006 (CDT)
Deletion[]
Note: This article currently is copied via an inclusion to the Location article (which, as a result, shows the delete tag over there as well). I have no problem with deleting and changing to a redirect; but where this content is included needs to be cleaned up before it's deleted. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, I knew it was an inclusion but forgot that the delete tag would show up too. I was just going to replace the inclusion with the actual content. I just couldn't see a reason for this to have been done like this in the first place. So if anyone knows a reason or has a use for this, now's the time to let me know. —♥Jedi♥Rogue♥ 04:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)