![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Wow. Are people really attached to this template? I think it's really unattractive. The images are big and gaudy, and it just basically looks completely unprofessional. If there are no good objections, I'm going to try to come up with something better. — Cleared as filed. 14:30, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
Member has reverted this template to the image-heavy version that was objected to in #Aesthetics above with the cryptic comment, "a few problems but its better". I am going to restore the image-free version in a moment. If you believe that the image-heavy version is better, please explain why here.
— DLJessup ( talk) 01:51, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Um, when you write "that is ugly", are you referring to the image-heavy version or the image-free version?
— DLJessup ( talk) 14:21, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
I noticed there was some challenge to the Socialist Party signficance so I thought I should add why the Peace and Freedom is signficant enough. There are two good reasons. First it is the next largest party after the Greens in terms of the last election. Secondly and most importantly it is known for running highly controversial figures as its candidate. Two I know for sure were convicted of a major crime.( Leonard Peltier was convicted of murder of two CIA officers, and even more controversial(at one time supporting Republic of Vietnam) was Eldridge Cleaver their first candidate and a former leader of the Black Panther Party. Finally their speaker was Bob Avakian who is in charge of a radical Maoist Party in the U.S. finally they ran famous pediatrician Benjamin Spock. 12.220.47.145 01:11, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
We can't include every minor political party (there are hundreds of them). Constitution, Reform, Libertarian, and Green are the four biggest, and have a national presence. To address Revolución's edit summary ("The Socialist Party USA is significant because it is the descendant of the Socialist Party of America, one of the most successful third parties in American history"): I question the accuracy of that statement, but even if it were true, it is irrelevant. This template isn't for historical political parties. A party that currently has only 1500 members is insignificant. -- JW1805 (Talk) 01:37, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
JW1805, what use do you think this template has with only five political parties on it? -- Revolución ( talk) 02:10, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
How about this? -- Revolución ( talk) 23:15, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Political Parties of the United States | |
---|---|
Major Parties | Democratic | Republican |
Third parties | Constitution | Green | Libertarian |
Other* | Socialist Party USA | Socialist Workers Party | Peace & Freedom Party | Reform Party |
See
List of political parties in the United States for a complete list.
*Parties with at least 10,000 votes in a recent presidential election |
I really think this template should use colors to represent the parties. I like the way this template is color coded:
Can we use a similar scheme for the US Party template? Unfortunately, I am not that good with wikicode, so can someone do it? Andros 1337 22:57, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Well the problem would be is that the color of the Socialist Party USA is red, but Republicans also (for the moment) claim the color red. So I don't think colors would make things better. -- Revolución ( talk) 23:18, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
There's no reason for this template to be so big. It's huge.....it looks like we're drifting back to this version. The eariler version was fine. What is the point of all these colored lines and blank space? -- JW1805 (Talk) 01:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Political Parties of the United States | ||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Major Parties:
| ||||||||||||
Third parties:
| ||||||||||||
Minor Parties with at least 10,000 votes in a recent presidential election
| ||||||||||||
See List of political parties in the United States for a complete list. |
I've removed the asterisk and the note stating that the "minor parties" received at least 10k votes in a recent election. I fail to see how that's relevant at all to the template, so I simply removed it. (I left a hidden note--you know, one of the <!-- note --> things to discourage people from putting on Uncle Dick's Fringe Party or anything, though.)
Objections? Matt Yeager 03:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
I had added a section called State-Specific Parties for major parties that campaign only in one state for the offices in that state. I added the Vermont Progressive Party. What do you think? -- Revolución ( talk) 02:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Of course it's an official third party in Vermont. It's the most successful state-specific party. The criteria for 10,000 votes in a recent Presidential election (which I originally suggested) doesn't really apply here, since the Vermont Progressive Party doesn't run Presidential candidates. -- Revolución ( talk) 21:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't it be inside the template considering its historical significance?-- Jersey Devil 03:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
I've just changed this template so that it links to the individual historical Progressive Parties rather than the disambiguation page for them. There are two reasons for this:
— DLJessup ( talk) 14:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Seems to me the Teddy Roosevelt one (1912) is the one most people are expecting to be transferred to. The other Progressive parties seem rather minor and should be OK just being in the List of Political Parties. I went ahead and changed the template, but I also put a note at the top of the 1912 page linking to the disambig page. Feel free to revert.-- 207.230.48.5 04:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I am the same user as 207.230.48.5. If all 3 Progressive Parties are of the same significance, which I can only deduce is what is meant by "were all significant in their years", then why is there even a need for the disambiguation? Why not just put all 3 Progressive Paties on the template since each one is of equal importance, as is claimed?
The average surfer is not going to "know" which Progesssive Party to click on from the disambig page. For one thing, you refer ro the "three historic Progessive Parties", but there are five on the disambig page. Also, when you goto the disambig page (as well as the other Progessive Party pages, excluding the 1912 page), you lose the navigational tool box. And lastly, I was under the impressing that is was discouraged to link to disambig pages.
If the intention is to guide the surfer to a specific page, such as the purpsoe of the navigational tool, then the tool itself should list the specific pages; i.e., an indivdiual link for each Progressive Party of historical significance (1912, 1924, 1948). One cannot give significance to all 5 parties just because they piggy backed on the name of Teddy Roosevelt's party. Seems to me like this is done for aesthetic reasons to make the template look nice without regard to user-friendliness.
I don't care about the Progessive Party, anyway. I am looking at this from a navigational standpoint. When I click on a link in an infobox, I do not expect to be taken to a disambig page which forces me to hope I choose the right one; when I reach a disambig page, I assume the link is broken and needs to be corrected. There has to be a better way than linking to the disambig page.-- 167.80.244.204 22:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I've added a link to the late-19th Century People's (aka Populist) Party. The party elected a dozen U.S. Senators or state governors and controlled several state legislatures. DJ Silverfish 17:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
I changed the link so it would go directly to Populist Party (United States) - People's Party (United States) redirected there anyway. Besides, I've almost always heard mentioned as the Populist Party and Populist movement. Octavian X 07:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
In an earlier post, I asked:
…what are the criteria by which you choose to have one historical party be on this template but not another? For example, why do you have the Anti-Masonic Party but not the Know-Nothings or the National Republican Party, each of which is arguably more important?
Now I've already added the National Republicans, on the basis that they were a legitimate Second Party (in the sense that the runner-up in a presidential election identified himself with that party), but I've never really received an answer to my question.
One criterion which definitely should put a party on this template is that of having elected a president. This gives us three indispensible links:
But what other criteria, if any, justifies the inclusion or exclusion of the remaining parties? Should a party need to elect so many members to Congress? Or win so many electors in a presidential election?
— DLJessup ( talk) 17:59, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Okay, so the VT Progressive Party gets a spot. Shouldn't then also the Independence Party of Minnesota, which is recognized as a "major" party within Minnesota, also be on this template? — Cuivi é nen 21:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Candidates running on the Working Families Party ticket have received over 50k+ ballots in New York alone. Perhaps I misunderstand the criteria? Please explain what would be needed to demonstrate that the working families party is a notable third party. Jerimee 18:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Some historical parties have held Governorships and House or Senate seats, which would also make them significant. These include the Farmer-Labor Party, Independence Party of Minnesota, Alaskan Independence Party, Non-Partisan League and Conservative Party of New York. — Cuivi é nen 22:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I have added the Socialist Party USA back to this box and I'm not sure why it was deleted. The Socialist Party is at least five times the size of the Socialist Workers Party and runs more candidates each year as well. If the SWP is going to be in the box, the Socialist Party certainly should as well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.93.4.113 ( talk) 01:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC).
The National Union party elected a president vice-president and congressmen in 1864. No room for them? Eschoir 18:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I reverted the major code change to this template. If someone wants to standardize the code format, or the "v.d.e." thing without discussion, that's fine. But please discuss any proposed major changes to the look/feel of the template before actually making them. Thank you. -- Tim4christ17 talk 22:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
The present layout
Political Parties of the United States | |
---|---|
Major Parties | Democratic | Republican |
Third Parties | Constitution | Green | Libertarian |
Smaller Parties | Reform | Socialist | Socialist Workers | VT Progressive |
Historical Parties |
Anti-Masonic |
Democratic-Republican |
Farmer-Labor |
Federalist |
National Republican National Union Party | Non-Partisan League | Populist (People's) Party | Progressive | Whig | Dixiecrat |
See List of political parties in the United States for a complete list. |
The proposed layout (changed it a little bit on 30-6)
Electionworld Talk? 07:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Alright, since you requested new input, I really dislike the new template (the blue one) and much preferred the old one. (Maybe we could stretch the old one out wo that it's not so cramped, but I still think it's better than the newer one.) I think standardization for standardization's sake alone is a really rotten reason to do anything. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 21:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I can't find any explanation for the recent removal of the Peace and Freedom Party. What happened that suddenly made it no longer "notable" enough for inclusion? I realize that it's much stronger in California than elsewhere, but has there been a recent change in it's overall status? Cgingold 14:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with deciding to keep or remove a smaller party based upon how much of a percentage of the vote that they receive in elections. The Libertarian, Green and Constitution parties, for example, usually don't win a significant percentage of the vote either. If we use election results as the only way of determining which parties should be listed, then we might as well only have the Democratic and Republican parties listed.
Regarding parties like the Peace and Freedom Party, perhaps it would be good to have a new section for regional parties. Cmrdm 20:44, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
To me the current criteria of only including smaller parties that received over a certain number of votes in a presidential election is inappropriate. This excludes parties that take the strategy of not fielding candidates at the national level until they achieve state level victories. Also, there are only a few more national parties that could be added. Tim Long 00:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
It would be best if we had fixed guidelines for the template (and put them in a template documentation page once they were completed). Once the guidelines are agreed on, then each party proposed for inclusion in the template would be discussed to ensure it met the guidelines. Otherwise, we just end up with either a bloated template or an arbitrary list of parties. My proposal follows:
Done--
Old Hoss
00:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Well done at that. Thanks!-- JayJasper 21:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Something like half a dozen parties were just added that may be worth debating. The Centrist Party (United States) appears to have run a candidate once, but I'm not sure if it is significant enough to include at this point. I feel similarly about LaRouche's Labor Party. For the moment I'm just going to remove Democratic Socialists of America and Social Democrats USA. Although both of these groups have historical connections to the Socialist Party of America, neither have ever to my knowledge run candidates in elections or shown any interest in doing so, nor do they seem to consider themselves political parties. The former operates primarily (though apparently not exclusively) as a caucus within the Democratic Party, while the latter is a defunct think tank. - David Schaich Talk/ Cont 00:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't know why we have the Natural Law Party or the New Alliance Party listed in historical parties. As far as I'm aware (but correct me if I'm wrong), neither of them were very significant to the fate of the country.
So here's what I suggest as a policy: a political party should not be listed in the "National political parties in the United States" box unless they've either (1) won any significant political offices (state senator, mayor, etc.), or (2) they pulled at least one state in a presidential election, or (3) they were historically significant even though they wielded no political power (i.e. the American Communist Party and McCarthyism). Does this sound acceptable? -- LightSpectra ( talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 23:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC).
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Wow. Are people really attached to this template? I think it's really unattractive. The images are big and gaudy, and it just basically looks completely unprofessional. If there are no good objections, I'm going to try to come up with something better. — Cleared as filed. 14:30, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
Member has reverted this template to the image-heavy version that was objected to in #Aesthetics above with the cryptic comment, "a few problems but its better". I am going to restore the image-free version in a moment. If you believe that the image-heavy version is better, please explain why here.
— DLJessup ( talk) 01:51, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Um, when you write "that is ugly", are you referring to the image-heavy version or the image-free version?
— DLJessup ( talk) 14:21, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
I noticed there was some challenge to the Socialist Party signficance so I thought I should add why the Peace and Freedom is signficant enough. There are two good reasons. First it is the next largest party after the Greens in terms of the last election. Secondly and most importantly it is known for running highly controversial figures as its candidate. Two I know for sure were convicted of a major crime.( Leonard Peltier was convicted of murder of two CIA officers, and even more controversial(at one time supporting Republic of Vietnam) was Eldridge Cleaver their first candidate and a former leader of the Black Panther Party. Finally their speaker was Bob Avakian who is in charge of a radical Maoist Party in the U.S. finally they ran famous pediatrician Benjamin Spock. 12.220.47.145 01:11, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
We can't include every minor political party (there are hundreds of them). Constitution, Reform, Libertarian, and Green are the four biggest, and have a national presence. To address Revolución's edit summary ("The Socialist Party USA is significant because it is the descendant of the Socialist Party of America, one of the most successful third parties in American history"): I question the accuracy of that statement, but even if it were true, it is irrelevant. This template isn't for historical political parties. A party that currently has only 1500 members is insignificant. -- JW1805 (Talk) 01:37, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
JW1805, what use do you think this template has with only five political parties on it? -- Revolución ( talk) 02:10, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
How about this? -- Revolución ( talk) 23:15, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Political Parties of the United States | |
---|---|
Major Parties | Democratic | Republican |
Third parties | Constitution | Green | Libertarian |
Other* | Socialist Party USA | Socialist Workers Party | Peace & Freedom Party | Reform Party |
See
List of political parties in the United States for a complete list.
*Parties with at least 10,000 votes in a recent presidential election |
I really think this template should use colors to represent the parties. I like the way this template is color coded:
Can we use a similar scheme for the US Party template? Unfortunately, I am not that good with wikicode, so can someone do it? Andros 1337 22:57, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Well the problem would be is that the color of the Socialist Party USA is red, but Republicans also (for the moment) claim the color red. So I don't think colors would make things better. -- Revolución ( talk) 23:18, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
There's no reason for this template to be so big. It's huge.....it looks like we're drifting back to this version. The eariler version was fine. What is the point of all these colored lines and blank space? -- JW1805 (Talk) 01:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Political Parties of the United States | ||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Major Parties:
| ||||||||||||
Third parties:
| ||||||||||||
Minor Parties with at least 10,000 votes in a recent presidential election
| ||||||||||||
See List of political parties in the United States for a complete list. |
I've removed the asterisk and the note stating that the "minor parties" received at least 10k votes in a recent election. I fail to see how that's relevant at all to the template, so I simply removed it. (I left a hidden note--you know, one of the <!-- note --> things to discourage people from putting on Uncle Dick's Fringe Party or anything, though.)
Objections? Matt Yeager 03:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
I had added a section called State-Specific Parties for major parties that campaign only in one state for the offices in that state. I added the Vermont Progressive Party. What do you think? -- Revolución ( talk) 02:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Of course it's an official third party in Vermont. It's the most successful state-specific party. The criteria for 10,000 votes in a recent Presidential election (which I originally suggested) doesn't really apply here, since the Vermont Progressive Party doesn't run Presidential candidates. -- Revolución ( talk) 21:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't it be inside the template considering its historical significance?-- Jersey Devil 03:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
I've just changed this template so that it links to the individual historical Progressive Parties rather than the disambiguation page for them. There are two reasons for this:
— DLJessup ( talk) 14:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Seems to me the Teddy Roosevelt one (1912) is the one most people are expecting to be transferred to. The other Progressive parties seem rather minor and should be OK just being in the List of Political Parties. I went ahead and changed the template, but I also put a note at the top of the 1912 page linking to the disambig page. Feel free to revert.-- 207.230.48.5 04:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I am the same user as 207.230.48.5. If all 3 Progressive Parties are of the same significance, which I can only deduce is what is meant by "were all significant in their years", then why is there even a need for the disambiguation? Why not just put all 3 Progressive Paties on the template since each one is of equal importance, as is claimed?
The average surfer is not going to "know" which Progesssive Party to click on from the disambig page. For one thing, you refer ro the "three historic Progessive Parties", but there are five on the disambig page. Also, when you goto the disambig page (as well as the other Progessive Party pages, excluding the 1912 page), you lose the navigational tool box. And lastly, I was under the impressing that is was discouraged to link to disambig pages.
If the intention is to guide the surfer to a specific page, such as the purpsoe of the navigational tool, then the tool itself should list the specific pages; i.e., an indivdiual link for each Progressive Party of historical significance (1912, 1924, 1948). One cannot give significance to all 5 parties just because they piggy backed on the name of Teddy Roosevelt's party. Seems to me like this is done for aesthetic reasons to make the template look nice without regard to user-friendliness.
I don't care about the Progessive Party, anyway. I am looking at this from a navigational standpoint. When I click on a link in an infobox, I do not expect to be taken to a disambig page which forces me to hope I choose the right one; when I reach a disambig page, I assume the link is broken and needs to be corrected. There has to be a better way than linking to the disambig page.-- 167.80.244.204 22:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I've added a link to the late-19th Century People's (aka Populist) Party. The party elected a dozen U.S. Senators or state governors and controlled several state legislatures. DJ Silverfish 17:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
I changed the link so it would go directly to Populist Party (United States) - People's Party (United States) redirected there anyway. Besides, I've almost always heard mentioned as the Populist Party and Populist movement. Octavian X 07:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
In an earlier post, I asked:
…what are the criteria by which you choose to have one historical party be on this template but not another? For example, why do you have the Anti-Masonic Party but not the Know-Nothings or the National Republican Party, each of which is arguably more important?
Now I've already added the National Republicans, on the basis that they were a legitimate Second Party (in the sense that the runner-up in a presidential election identified himself with that party), but I've never really received an answer to my question.
One criterion which definitely should put a party on this template is that of having elected a president. This gives us three indispensible links:
But what other criteria, if any, justifies the inclusion or exclusion of the remaining parties? Should a party need to elect so many members to Congress? Or win so many electors in a presidential election?
— DLJessup ( talk) 17:59, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Okay, so the VT Progressive Party gets a spot. Shouldn't then also the Independence Party of Minnesota, which is recognized as a "major" party within Minnesota, also be on this template? — Cuivi é nen 21:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Candidates running on the Working Families Party ticket have received over 50k+ ballots in New York alone. Perhaps I misunderstand the criteria? Please explain what would be needed to demonstrate that the working families party is a notable third party. Jerimee 18:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Some historical parties have held Governorships and House or Senate seats, which would also make them significant. These include the Farmer-Labor Party, Independence Party of Minnesota, Alaskan Independence Party, Non-Partisan League and Conservative Party of New York. — Cuivi é nen 22:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I have added the Socialist Party USA back to this box and I'm not sure why it was deleted. The Socialist Party is at least five times the size of the Socialist Workers Party and runs more candidates each year as well. If the SWP is going to be in the box, the Socialist Party certainly should as well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.93.4.113 ( talk) 01:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC).
The National Union party elected a president vice-president and congressmen in 1864. No room for them? Eschoir 18:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I reverted the major code change to this template. If someone wants to standardize the code format, or the "v.d.e." thing without discussion, that's fine. But please discuss any proposed major changes to the look/feel of the template before actually making them. Thank you. -- Tim4christ17 talk 22:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
The present layout
Political Parties of the United States | |
---|---|
Major Parties | Democratic | Republican |
Third Parties | Constitution | Green | Libertarian |
Smaller Parties | Reform | Socialist | Socialist Workers | VT Progressive |
Historical Parties |
Anti-Masonic |
Democratic-Republican |
Farmer-Labor |
Federalist |
National Republican National Union Party | Non-Partisan League | Populist (People's) Party | Progressive | Whig | Dixiecrat |
See List of political parties in the United States for a complete list. |
The proposed layout (changed it a little bit on 30-6)
Electionworld Talk? 07:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Alright, since you requested new input, I really dislike the new template (the blue one) and much preferred the old one. (Maybe we could stretch the old one out wo that it's not so cramped, but I still think it's better than the newer one.) I think standardization for standardization's sake alone is a really rotten reason to do anything. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 21:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I can't find any explanation for the recent removal of the Peace and Freedom Party. What happened that suddenly made it no longer "notable" enough for inclusion? I realize that it's much stronger in California than elsewhere, but has there been a recent change in it's overall status? Cgingold 14:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with deciding to keep or remove a smaller party based upon how much of a percentage of the vote that they receive in elections. The Libertarian, Green and Constitution parties, for example, usually don't win a significant percentage of the vote either. If we use election results as the only way of determining which parties should be listed, then we might as well only have the Democratic and Republican parties listed.
Regarding parties like the Peace and Freedom Party, perhaps it would be good to have a new section for regional parties. Cmrdm 20:44, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
To me the current criteria of only including smaller parties that received over a certain number of votes in a presidential election is inappropriate. This excludes parties that take the strategy of not fielding candidates at the national level until they achieve state level victories. Also, there are only a few more national parties that could be added. Tim Long 00:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
It would be best if we had fixed guidelines for the template (and put them in a template documentation page once they were completed). Once the guidelines are agreed on, then each party proposed for inclusion in the template would be discussed to ensure it met the guidelines. Otherwise, we just end up with either a bloated template or an arbitrary list of parties. My proposal follows:
Done--
Old Hoss
00:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Well done at that. Thanks!-- JayJasper 21:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Something like half a dozen parties were just added that may be worth debating. The Centrist Party (United States) appears to have run a candidate once, but I'm not sure if it is significant enough to include at this point. I feel similarly about LaRouche's Labor Party. For the moment I'm just going to remove Democratic Socialists of America and Social Democrats USA. Although both of these groups have historical connections to the Socialist Party of America, neither have ever to my knowledge run candidates in elections or shown any interest in doing so, nor do they seem to consider themselves political parties. The former operates primarily (though apparently not exclusively) as a caucus within the Democratic Party, while the latter is a defunct think tank. - David Schaich Talk/ Cont 00:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't know why we have the Natural Law Party or the New Alliance Party listed in historical parties. As far as I'm aware (but correct me if I'm wrong), neither of them were very significant to the fate of the country.
So here's what I suggest as a policy: a political party should not be listed in the "National political parties in the United States" box unless they've either (1) won any significant political offices (state senator, mayor, etc.), or (2) they pulled at least one state in a presidential election, or (3) they were historically significant even though they wielded no political power (i.e. the American Communist Party and McCarthyism). Does this sound acceptable? -- LightSpectra ( talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 23:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC).