Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive49

Template:Pittsburgh Penguins

Yet another editor is trying to add retired number easter eggs and championship season links to the Penguins navboxes that I find redundant to the seasons templates that exist for all teams. They are insistent on reverting to their preferred version, and rather than perpetuate an edit war myself, might as well bring it here for discussion. It is also relevant to a string of templates for CHL teams that include similar links. I would prefer to remove them all myself and retain the current format that is pretty much consistent across all teams, but how do others feel? Resolute 00:07, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted that editor's recent reversion. GoodDay (talk) 01:10, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

List of Boston Bruins seasons

I have an IP hopping editor attempting to reinvent the standings on this article based on their personal belief that the GF/GA the league credits teams with for shootout wins/losses should not be included (and in spite of the NHL's official statistics). It would be appreciated if others could keep an eye out on this article, as I'm at 3RR already. Resolute 19:35, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

• Just added it to my watchlist. Ravenswing 20:22, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Please help ID this person.

Can someone identify the person in File:Picture 054.jpg. It appears to be a Florida Panthers player, but I was unable to identify which one based off of his number and the rosters. Maybe someone who's better versed in the sport could help. If you can identify him, please file a {{Rename media}} request using his new name. Putting any identifying information you have in the file description page would also be appreciated. Thanks, Sven Manguard Wha? 13:51, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

That's Roberto Luongo. Added a request to change the name.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 13:57, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

 Done moved to File:Roberto Luongo Panthers 2006.jpg — Moe ε 15:20, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. --Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 16:14, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Ghost towns

Does anybody remember these WP:HOCKEY branches? Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Player pages format and Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Team pages format. Anyways, I've tagged them as semi-active. GoodDay (talk) 09:28, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

• (scratches his head) They're not "branches," they're format pages. Of course there's no activity on them, nor generally much reason to be. Ravenswing 13:59, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 15:44, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Retired numbers navboxes

User:Chamberlain 234 created Template:Montreal Canadiens retired numbers and User:Lnhbm created Template:Boston Bruins retired numbers. I know for a fact (per WP:DUCK) that Lnhbm is a sockpuppet of Chamberlain. I thought I would mention those two navboxes' existence since you don't actually use those and consider them template clutter. Please feel free to TfD them both. Also worth mentioning is that Lnhbm already knew you don't use navboxes because of this message placed on his talk page in August. Looks like we might have an editor who doesn't want to hear it and will need to have his edits checked. Jrcla2 (talk) 18:23, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I just realized that Lnhbm also created Template:Canadiens retired numbers (why? who the f knows) as well as Template:Detroit Red Wings retired numbers. The creation of the Red Wings navbox made uninvolved User:MrDolomite create Category:National Hockey League retired numbers navigational boxes, which IMO is just asking for more of these to be made. CfD that one too maybe? Anyhow, good luck trying to get Lnhbm to respond. He refuses to acknowledge anybody and edits as he sees fit. I don't think he'll have a long career on Wikipedia. Jrcla2 (talk) 18:29, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

They have been redirected to the team templates. They were only used on the team pages so weren't much of a navigational aid. And in the case of the Red Wings and Bruins they were already listed in the team templates. -DJSasso (talk) 18:38, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Ugh... which I hate. Especially that remarkably stupid [[Hidden Easter Egg|apparently random number]] format. Resolute 19:17, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of retired numbers

I propose that we remove the listing for Gretzky from each team's main and record article, on the simple basis that other than Edmonton, LA and New York, the teams themselves have not retired the number. That the league itself did belongs on the league article, just not the teams. Resolute 19:19, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

In agreement. PS: The Rangers didn't retire Gretzky's number. GoodDay (talk) 19:25, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Technically if the league did it then it is retired on all the teams in the league. I would leave it with the note it has saying it was retired league wide. -DJSasso (talk) 19:31, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

It's a number that's not eligible for use by any team; it's pertinent to mention it with those teams. I agree that the current phrasing should be left as-is. Ravenswing 19:35, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Neither is 0 or 00, should we mention that too? Resolute 19:40, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

The difference is those numbers are not eligible per the rules, they aren't retired numbers. When talking about a teams retired numbers it is relevant to mention all retired numbers. -DJSasso (talk) 19:47, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

It should just be a footnote with a link to National Hockey League. -- GoodDay (talk) 19:49, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I can already see this is going to go the way of my objection to claiming the Calgary Flames existed in 1972, but in the same vein, I doubt one could ever show that the Nashville Predators or Winnipeg Jets retired the number 99. My point is exactly what you say: the team never retired the number. Resolute 19:52, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

You can delete them from the 28 team articles, I shant protest. GoodDay (talk) 19:54, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

A request to all editors involved

I think it would help if nobody unilaterally moved pages to & from diacritics. Instead, we should go the RM route (as Dolovis has been doing). Yes, it'll take time, but it's the right way to do this - thanks. GoodDay (talk) 02:07, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Yea, Dolovis is a true inspiration for us all. —KRM ^{(Communicate!)} 21:31, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Is anyone just moving pages without warning? Ravenswing 03:42, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Not at the moment, but it happened alot years ago. GoodDay (talk) 03:45, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Djsasso was moving articles in July, such as Miroslav Blatak to Miroslav Blaťák and many others.Dolovis (talk) 16:20, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted that unilatteral move by Djsasso. There was no consensus for it & no RM was held. GoodDay (talk) 17:13, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Please do a little research before accusing someone of making a unilatteral move. What actually happened was someone else made a copy paste move and I corrected that move to fix the edit history. I never move articles to diacritics unless it is reverting someone elses move. Not to mention it was actually Dolovis who moved it from diacrtics to non-diacritics first as the page was created with diacritics. -DJSasso (talk) 13:14, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I stand corrected (and properly reverted), there was indeed an RM held & it favoured the diacritics title 'not' being reverted. Note: The article was moved to diacritics on July 14, without an RM, something that we can avoid in future. GoodDay (talk) 18:58, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually it was moved by Dolovis on June 21st without a RM. -DJSasso (talk) 13:22, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

• Who R you? (talk · contribs) well and truly broke the moratorium with his 'WP:ENGLISH'. How do we move back into stand-off? My suggestion is for both sides to support removing of his clearly divisive project. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:55, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Nicknames in Infobox

Looks like the ice hockey infobox has been changed to display nicknames. I thought that at one point the consensus was to remove them from the infoboxes. Has that changed? It seems like it would be opening a can of worms as to what is an actual nickname and lead to a lot of OR and unreferenced issues. --Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 22:27, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Somebody must've changed the infobox setup, without consensus. The 'nickname' section isn't required. GoodDay (talk) 22:34, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

It appears that MSGJ added 'Nickname' into the Infobox template on Novemeber 9th. [1] It should be removed. Dolovis (talk) 01:59, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Yep, there's no consensus for adding the nicknames. However, the template is locked. GoodDay (talk) 02:10, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

• That was me; done in this discussion on the Infobox's talk page.  Sorry, I thought that was a minor oversight that made sense to fix while proposing other changes to the template.  Given that 3 have commented thus far, are there two !votes for me to request a Revert of this part of the changes?  If so, I'll assume that there's consensus to undo and request the appropriate changes; or does WP:Hockey have a specific set of rules that I should be following for wider consensus on this (since I'd rather not turn one blunder into two).  Sincere apologies again for any distress caused. — Who R you? Talk 20:23, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh is it called nickname, I didn't realize that is what the change was. Yes we stripped out the nickname field in the past per consensus. I thought it was just an alternative spelling field when I said it was cool. I guess I didn't read close enough. Yes I would revert that part. -DJSasso (talk) 13:12, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I have reverted just the nickname/alt name field. If people think the alt name is a good field to put in then that part can easily be readded minus the nickname switch I would assume. But for now I have taken both out. -DJSasso (talk) 13:29, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough; I just added it in when I saw it used in one of the articles as I was reviewing/testing.  Sorry to end up creating a hassle.  I'll leave it to you, and obviously LMK if there's anything I can help with in the template (but you seem to know your way around them just as well).  Cheers — Who R you? Talk 14:19, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

RFC ar Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English)

There has been a brewing issue at WP:RM over WP:HOCKEY recommendations and how they should be applied over WP:COMMONNAME and WP:UE. Basically the hockey recommendation is that Diacritics shall be applied to all player pages, where appropriate as for the languages of the nationalities of the players in question. This is in fact a mandate that does not allow consideration of any other policy on naming. I think we need to resolve the issue of which naming convention we use for ice hockey players. Is it the one for the names of everyone else based on existing policy and guidelines, or do we have a blanket exception for one project? Please go to Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(use_English)#RFC_on_hockey_names Vegaswikian (talk) 00:53, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Mass page move request

A mass nomination to move articles about sportsmen based on diacritics in their name has been filed at Talk:Dominik_Halmosi#Requested_Move --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:51, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Anybody know how to fix up these articles?

Red Hamill, Ty Arbour & Helge Bostrom. -- GoodDay (talk) 21:22, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Convert them to a standard table format. Those articles are using a raw text dump from hockeydb, I believe. Resolute 21:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

That's beyond my know-how. GoodDay (talk) 21:33, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Easiest way is to copy the format of another article, replacing the numbers as needed. But yeah, tables can be annoying. Resolute 21:36, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

BTW, should we eliminate the Minnesota Mr. Hockey nav succession boxes? GoodDay (talk) 21:38, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Team First Round Picks nav succession boxes, should also be deleted. GoodDay (talk) 22:58, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Err, are you referring to succession boxes? If so, I definitely prefer succession boxes to navboxes. Resolute 00:46, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, the succession boxes. GoodDay (talk) 00:58, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

If that is the case then no, the project has long agreed that succession boxes are preferred to navboxes for awards. And I believe the draft picks were specifically switched over fairly recently...but I might be thinking about a different set like coaches or something. -DJSasso (talk) 01:10, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Clarification. I mean should we delete these: examples New York Islanders First Round Draft Pick & Minnesota Mr. Hockey. GoodDay (talk) 01:22, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

The succession boxes for those? The articles? You aren't giving enough information. -DJSasso (talk) 01:29, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

See here & here for examples of Team Frist Round Draft Picks. GoodDay (talk) 01:32, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes the project has a consensus to use those where applicable instead of nav boxes. Why do you want to delete them? -DJSasso (talk) 01:33, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I meant succession box. Also, here's an example of the Minnesota Mr. Hockey award here. I weren't sure if WP:HOCKEY had approved them. IMHO, they too trivial. GoodDay (talk) 01:38, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

PS- I'm not asking us to change succession boxes with navigation boxes. GoodDay (talk) 01:39, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Which is odd since you have been in many of the discussions to do the opposite. We have been trying slowly but surely as a project to switch over as many navboxes as appropriate over to succession boxes per WP:NAVBOX which indicates that titles/positions and award winners should be done with succession boxes instead of navboxes. -DJSasso (talk) 01:42, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Let's try this again: Are Minnesota Mr. Hockey & NHL team First Round Draft Pick appropiate for the succession boxes? GoodDay (talk) 01:48, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

lol I have answered you a few times now. Yes those are appropriate for succession boxes. Those are the perfect examples of when they should be used. -DJSasso (talk) 01:54, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. I've only had about 4-hrs sleep in these last 3 days (insomnia) & it shows. GoodDay (talk) 01:56, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

The first round draft pick one is especially useful as in most cases, it is the only link to the relevant List of foo draft picks article. Consider it akin to a a see also entry, but placed in context. Resolute 03:02, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 03:09, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Rivalry template

I've taken a shot at creating a generic infobox for college sports rivalries: {{Infobox college rivalry}}. Comments appreciated at Template talk:Infobox college rivalry. Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 22:27, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Conference champs on NHL team template

Given how often the rules have changed for who gets these trophies, and the ambiguous nature of the regular season conference champ vs. the post season one, I suggest removing this parameter, and replacing it with two others - one for the Wales Trophy, and one for the Campbell - with a specific limitation on "since 1967". This, I think, would retain the intended purpose of the field(s) while eliminating the consistent confusion over who was the conference champ in any given year. Resolute 20:33, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

In agreement. PS: We have the same problem with the Division champions. GoodDay (talk) 20:46, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Division champs are an entirely different issue given several teams seemed to have their own rules in the 80s. Resolute 20:50, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I getcha now. The PoW trophy & CC bowl, were awarded to the Conference regular season winners, 1974-75 to 1981-82. GoodDay (talk) 16:50, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Hod Stuart to be on Main Page November 24

Just a heads up that Hod Stuart will be on the Main Page for the 24th. If anyone else wants to help keep an eye on it, it would be a great help. Kaiser matias (talk) 02:54, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I saw, Grats. And for the record, that means a go-live of 7PM ET tomorrow, for anyone wondering. That'll be our project's 14th TFA as well! Resolute 03:49, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

NHL team infoboxes

Should we add the team Presidents? since we've already got the owners & general managers. GoodDay (talk) 14:47, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I would say no. The team president is rarely talked about, even within the local market. It is not something I would consider of vital importance. Resolute 17:45, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

In general that's true, but what about in cases like Cam Neely with the Bruins? Hot Stop talk-contribs 17:53, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Still not really something that would go in the infobox. Mentioned in the article or on season articles is fine but not the main infobox. -DJSasso (talk) 19:17, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I just figured, since the owner (who's above the prez) & the gm (who's below the prez) were included, that would be a reason to include the prez. But, if it's 'no' - okie dokie. GoodDay (talk) 19:35, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Martin Höhener

First of all, I'm sorry about my English, because I'm a French native speaker. So the page of Martin Hohener should be renaming to Martin Höhener. More over, there is a picture of him (File:Fribourg Gottéron vs. Genève Servette, 6th March 2010 - Höhener Martin.jpg). Thanks. --Chollux (talk) 19:06, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

The picture and fix of name have been done per your request. -DJSasso (talk) 20:08, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

And it's been reverted. If you want to move that page from its creation, then go the RM route. GoodDay (talk) 21:36, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks GoodDay you proved my point below. I will start putting them in NHL articles now then when I see you removing them. :P -DJSasso (talk) 12:46, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

If you wanna breach WP:BATTLE (which isn't a good for an administrator to do), that's your choice. GoodDay (talk) 16:51, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

GM & Head coach succession boxes in hockey bio articles

I've been creating succession boxes for the GMs & Coaches. However, I believe some of them may have been perviously deleted these past few months (not certain). What's WP:HOCKEY view on these succession boxes? have we decided to replace them with the navboxes? If we have, I'll begin some major deleting (including un-doing my own mass edits). GoodDay (talk) 22:19, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

You were just explained this above, we have been replacing navboxes with succession boxes. -DJSasso (talk) 14:00, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Alright, I'll begin 'deletions'. GoodDay (talk) 16:01, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

(sigh) GoodDay...as I said we have been replacing the navboxes with succession boxes...not the other way around...no need to delete you were doing it right. -DJSasso (talk) 16:10, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Noted, I've continued with creating them. GoodDay (talk) 18:16, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Uniform templates

Anyone know where to find a blank template such as was used to create File:ECN-Uniform-BUF.PNG or File:AHA-Uniform-RIT.png? Powers ^T 23:53, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Template talk:NHLPlayoffs

With the NHL changing its conference and playoff structure for the next season, I have started as discussion at the playoff template page to see if some redesigning for the future should be done. 142.207.79.101 (talk) 08:18, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Did you mean {{NHLBracket}}? If so, the easiest fix is to simply create a new template going forward. I'm not sure if it can be done, but it would be pretty useful to modify the existing to add a parameter that changes the look by year. That might be more trouble than it's worth, though we are inconsistent in how we use the templates over time. The current NHL specific one is only useful from 1993-2012. Prior to that, the standard 16, 12, 8, etc. team bracket templates were used. Resolute 23:30, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

You could make all the brackets as subtemplates by playoff era {{NHLBracket/1993-2012}} , {{NHLBracket/2013-}} , etc and then the main template calls the subtemplate choosing by the param given. 70.24.248.23 (talk) 07:21, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

NHL players' height & weight

Just a heads up. IP 206.116.227.168 has messed up some infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 00:01, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

NHL based articles

Antti29's additions of diacritics on Selanne's name, at NHL based articles, isn't helping the situation. GoodDay (talk) 20:22, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Neither is your removing them.....if you don't want to respect the compromise why should anyone else? -DJSasso (talk) 20:26, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I you suggesting it's alright if I remove dios from non-NHL team articles? GoodDay (talk) 20:29, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

No I am suggesting that you have been voting to remove them from article names pretty much non stop for the last couple months....so if you are going to do that, why shouldn't others feel like they can add them to articles. You can't have it both ways. You either respect the compromise or you don't. If you want others to enforce their removal on the nhl pages you should also be putting them on the pages where they belong as well when they are removed. What I am suggesting is that you want a double standard. -DJSasso (talk) 20:31, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I haven't been removing diacritics from non-NHL team & template articles. That's a sign that I still respect the WP:HOCKEY compromise. GoodDay (talk) 20:36, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh you haven't? Or my personal recent favourite where you removed them from an actual french version of the name. -DJSasso (talk) 20:41, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Perreault is North American, not European. GoodDay (talk) 20:44, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Perreault is a player not a team. -DJSasso (talk) 20:44, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Cool. As for the Habs infobox heading, I've explained. GoodDay (talk) 20:45, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

PS: Would you PLEASE stop moving player articles to diacritics form, without RM? One Darwinek, is enough. GoodDay (talk) 20:59, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Another double standard. In your communication with Dolovis and the lot, you've been encouraging such relentless move behavior. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 22:17, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Use RMs. GoodDay (talk) 22:22, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

This is what I am talking about, the compromise is that player articles have them. So you don't respect that? If that is the case maybe they should start getting put in NHL articles too then. So maybe you should revert yourself if you do respect it like you claim you do. -DJSasso (talk) 12:45, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm just gonna continue keeping them off the NHL based articles. I don't have the time or energy to waste, arguing about it anymore. GoodDay (talk) 16:49, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

WTF? So GoodDay has unilaterally decided to remove them from all NHL articles? He and a few others have selectively started to edit 2011 Stanley Cup playoffs to remove the diacritics from David Krejčí. Why? Seems petty and xeonophobic, and those are the nice words I can use. The standard on other articles is that if they look similar to English characters then we leave them however if they're a foreign alphabet (Cyrillic, Icelandic, etc.) then we transliterate to the most commonly used English equivalent. Leave the diacritics alone as [[WP:DIACRITICS|Tthe use of modified letters (such as accents or other diacritics) in article titles is neither encouraged nor discouraged]]. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:33, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

PS: I don't watch here so I suggest that when you aggregate your fecal matter and realize that this is nonsense that someone will explain it on the talk page of article in question. I plan on reverting before the end of the weekend unless a reasonable explanation can be made for this foolish imposition. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:37, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Trust me Walter, it's best to leave things as they are. The pro & anti dios crowds, don't feel like going another round. GoodDay (talk) 07:41, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Aside from assuming good faith, you have given me no reason to trust you. You have made a complete mess of the Whitecaps articles. You're starting to impose what you admit yourself is not a consensus opinion on an article haphazardly. In short, you should go undo that last edit and stay out of editing if you don't have the ability to explain yourself. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:57, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Might want to back off that tone a bit, Walter. I know you've been warned about that in the past and we certainly don't take too kindly to it at the ice hockey project. GoodDay is perfectly warranted in his work. I have left a detailed explanation regarding out project's compromise on the diacritics debate at the article. My original edit that you undid was perfectly warranted under that compromise. If you want to enter the diacritics debate, and I warn you, it is a fierce debate, it's been ongoing for quite come time at a much higher level than just WP:HOCKEY. It's far too big of a debate for one project, thus why we created our own compromise. And FYI, I am on the pro-diacritics side of the fence. Just following established usages at WP:HOCKEY by piping Krejčí. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 18:11, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Vancouver Millionaires

I really think that old vintage photos add a lot to hockey articles that deal with early hockey history. I try to add some whenever I chance upon a good photo. Can someone help me out with File:Vancouver Millionaires 1915.jpg? This picture's been here for a while, but I found a much better team picture here (source). It seems to be the complete team, whereas the first picture seems to be missing a few players. I believe both are from the 1914-15 Cup-winning season. Can this be replaced with the new photo? Jmj713 (talk) 05:42, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

The original seems to be on Flickr, and is in even better quality. Jmj713 (talk) 05:47, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

2011 Stanley Cup Playoffs

A discussion on diacritics usage, has been opened. GoodDay (talk) 07:31, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Just when things had settled back down, here we go again. Ugh. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 18:12, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Article with a false name

The article Flavein Conne should be removed to Flavien Conne. Thanks.--Chollux (talk) 22:22, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Whoops. It has been fixed, thanks for making note of this. Resolute 00:03, 17 December 2011 (UTC)