Talk:Tabitha and Napoleon D'umo/Archive 1

Merger of "NappyTabs"

I'll agree, a merger would be a good idea, especially since they are constantly referenced in joint works AND both of their individual articles are virtually identical. Porfirio Landeros (talk) 19:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a logical move and would look a lot cleaner if merged and then sectioned, which I would be more than happy to attack. However, getting the material from both before the merge happens would be helpful! Tahutton (talk) 04:25, 23 October 2008 (UTC) Tahutton

Yep, I think it would be a good idea to merge these - Anonymous browser.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.102.119.171 (talk) 04:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I just updated the hell out of Tabitha's page and I'm about to do the same to Napoleon's. At first I thought putting their pages together would be a great idea since they can't stand to be apart personally or professionally speaking; however, after doing a bunch of research to update Tabitha's page I found two dance jobs that they did separately from each other. In addition, their backgrounds are different (prior to when they met and got married) so now I feel like having two pages is appropriate. I left the "merge" message at the top of Tabitha's page just in case anyone else wants to contribute to this discussion. I'll also leave the same message on Napoleon's. Gbern3 (talk) 18:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I changed my mind: last month user:Altenmann placed a redirect/link in the marriage section on Tabitha's page to the marriage section on Napoleon's page (click here to view his edit). In the edit summary he/she typed "to avoid divergence of content". This made me start to feel differently. The marriage section, the lead, and almost all of the career section on both pages are identical. They only section that's vastly different is early life. So I recreated Napoleon and Tabitha D'umo (this article) and decrease their individual pages to stubs. The stubs only have the early life sections and a very small introductory career section accompanied by a {{main}} template at the top. This newly created article has everything related to their career and marriage. Gbern3 (talk) 21:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Merging all prose from individual pages; leaving categories and persondata. 66.213.50.2 (talk) 16:11, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

I just got done updating this page and I think it should be moved back from it's current title Napoleon and Tabitha D'umo to it's original title Napoleon D'umo. This is due to the fact that their backgrounds are different (prior to meeting each other), Tabitha has her own page, and although very rare, they have worked separately from each other. Tabitha did a fitness video and Napoleon went scouting for America's Best Dance Crew. By scouting, I mean he traveled across the country looking for dance crews. They would audition for him and he would choose who made it to the show and who didn't. To be fair, I left the "merge" message at the top of this article and Tabitha's so that just in case anyone else wants to contribute to either discussion they can. Gbern3 (talk) 19:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

 Administrator note Since no one's objected, I've moved the page.--Aervanath (talk) 06:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Copy-and-pasted back. See response above. Gbern3 (talk) 21:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Copyedit request

I was asked by Gbern3 to copyedit this article. I have now completed a preliminary read-through and found few glaring issues. I have made minor edits, removing unsourced claims. If there is one general criticism I have, it is that much of the text in this otherwise well-rounded article reads as if it were copied from or slightly rewritten off of a glossy magazine, but I have not yet followed source links to verify my suspicion. There's nothing wrong with magazine writing, but it is different from Wikiwriting.  / Per Edman 08:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I did most of the writing of this article and I can assure you that I did not copy it from a magazine. The inline citations should prove this. It shows that I've pulled the information from different sources. // Gbern3 (talk) 19:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Article Title

The merger is all well and good (though I have to think eventually some content is going to be added that will force a split again), but the title is completely inappropriate. 'Napppytabs' is an affectionate nickname used by some of the cast of So You Think You Can Dance to refer to the duo, but even in that venue they are referred to by their proper names somewhere in the order of five to ten times more often. There's no evidence the couple has ever chosen to promote themselves under the name, I've never seen it used outside the context of the show (though candidly the vast majority of their fame does derive from SYTYCD), nor even by the show itself in any official manner - the pair are referred to by their full names in every introductory segment to one of their routines and "Nappytabs' is only used by host Cat or the Judges in more familiar contexts. Even the Fox website refers to the pair exclusively as "Tabitha and Napoleon D'umo". Taking all of this together, I really think the title of the article ought to reflect the name by which the two are most broadly known, both personally and professionally, rather than an unofficial nickname by which they are referred to in a much narrower context, with 'Nappytabs' redirecting, of course. 69.106.180.58 (talk) 00:58, 24 June 2011 (UTC) -Snow

Totally agree with the above. When I saw the article title, I felt the title was entirely inappropriate. As pointed out above, the nickname "Nappytabs" is entirely an affectionate nickname among the SYTYCD show, and titling the article by such a name is not too much differently from titling a biography by the affectionate nickname a mother called the person when he was still a baby (for example, an article on George Clooney should be titled "George Clooney" not "Jerj-jerj" and an article on Rush Limbaugh should be titled "Rush Limbaugh" not "Rusty"). — al-Shimoni (talk) 08:35, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Wait a minute, this is interesting. From the comments above concerning the merger, it seems the original article was in fact named the more appropriate "Tabitha and Napoleon D'umo". I completely missed that before. Someone just took it upon themselves to change it, apparently. This needs to be remedied.67.126.206.150 (talk) 12:23, 4 July 2011 (UTC) -Snow

I disagree. I moved the page to its current title last year. Click here for the revision. I'm sorry for my tone. I can tell by your comments that you did not read the article because if you did you would not list those reasons as reasons to move the page. For this reason, I'm annoyed. I'm all about constructive criticism but this is just criticism. Let me explain:

1. The name Nappytabs is not like an "affectionate nickname a mother called the person when he was still a baby". It's simply a combination of their names just like Brangelina, Ashford & Simpson, Nicci French, and TomKat are. As you can see, three of the listed couples/examples have articles. If it's not inappropriate for those other couples, I don't see how it can be inappropriate here.
2. There is plenty of evidence they've promoted themselves under the name 'Nappytabs'. Not only is their official Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, and YouTube account under this name but also—as noted below—so is their official website/online clothing store. Speaking of their clothing line, they established it 2005—three years before they became regular choreographers on SYTYCD. So the name 'Nappytabs' is also not "entirely an affectionate nickname among the SYTYCD show" and just "used by some of the cast of So You Think You can Dance". The show did not give them this nickname. They've been called Nappytabs since before then.
3. The name "Nappytabs" has been used several times outside the context of SYTYCD to refer to them: this Russian dance magazine calls them Nappytabs (there is no SYTYCD franchise in Russia), MTV (article about America's Best Dance Crew) calls them Nappytabs, this Russian dance company/studio that they taught at calls them Nappytabs, Pacific Rim Video (video about a dance union/association) calls them Nappytabs, DanceTrack Magazine (article about Jabbawockeez) calls them Nappytabs, UnrealityTV (article about American Idol) calls them Nappytabs, and HollywoodJunket (article about MOBBED) calls them Nappytabs. All these links I got from the references section. Even some of the sources that say "Tabitha and Napoleon" in the title mention their nickname. If you click on the links and read those articles, a lot of them state somewhere in the body "also know as 'Nappytabs'...". Here's an example. It's the first reference used in the article.

Again, I'm sorry for the tone but everything I told you above you could have found out by just reading the article. Please read articles in their entirety prior to criticizing them. //Gbern3 (talk) 22:54, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

To start with, you seem to be confusing the comments of two different contributors here, you might want to be more specific with where you direct your comments if you're going to adopt such a chastising tone. Second, I most certainly did read the full article and you're going to have to be more specific if you want to imply that my position is inconsistent with the content contained within it. Now, as to the more relevant points, I'll address each of your three categories in turn.

?? I'm lost. After reading your entire response, I really think you've misunderstood where I was coming from and took my comments out of context. I am not against the page's former title. As I stated in my first response, my qualms were with the reasons used for moving the page. They are all reasons that have to do with SYTYCD and these reasons are not good reasons at all. You said you read the entire article but if you read the article, why would you question in the section below whether or not they designed the clothes themselves. This was answered in the article. I'm sorry if you were offended that I accused you of not reading but if you read it, there would have been no need for you to pose the question about who designs their dancewear. For this reason, you having read the article was not obvious to me. Further explanation and specific responses to the rest of your responses are below.

As to 1), all three of the examples you use for similar naming conventions are false analogies with regard to this scenario. Brangelina refers to (and the article focuses on) the couple, rather than the individuals, their personalities or their professional accomplishments. If anything, this example argues more strongly for the majority position than it does for your own seeing as both individuals also have their own pages (under their actual names) which more directly concern them as individuals and the 'Brangelina' page clearly exists specifically to note the nickname and media fixation with the couple. Next, as to Ashford & Simpson, this is not a pseudonym but rather a band name, a band being it's own commercial entity. Furthermore, it's formed not from a nickname but rather from their full last names, in a form that is an established convention for band names. Not at all the same situation as we're debating here. The last example is a pen name, also an established convention and and quite frankly, if there were more than a few sentences of biography for each of the two people involved and the focus was not on their work as collective entity, then I would say the name of that article should be changed as well.

I don't understand your reasoning. Nappytabs refers to a couple and the article focuses on both of them together as a couple/team and not as individuals just like the Brangelina article. Since they don't have children and since they're not celebrities there is no mention of kids or the media. If fame was the litmus test I would not have compared them to TomKat and Ashford & Simpson. Speaking of, just like Ashford & Simpson they work in the entertainment industry and they do everything together so how can this be a false analogy. Because they're always together there's no need for them to have separate articles which is why they were merged in the first place. There is no established naming convention for dancer names or dancer duos. However, all of their professional accomplishments they've achieved together and this article is about their work as a collective entity. So if you're for a joint article, titled with a joint name, about a collective entity concerning two singers and two writers, it doesn't make sense for you not to keep the same stance concerning two dancers.

Now, on to 2): First, using social media and video clip sites to bolster your claim that the nickname should be considered the default name is ridiculous since these sites by and large encourage nicknames and default handles (they couldn't use their full names as the title for their Twitter or Youtube accounts if they wanted to and the Facebook and Myspace pages are for their company, they are not personal pages). Regardless, these are not acceptable sources for determining the format for the page unless they are Their clothing store is just that - a store, a commercial entity - of course it is not called "Tabitha and Napoleon D'umo." Come on, these arguments are pure non-sequiturs and as the person who has developed this article to this stage, you have to know it. Regardless, these sources are unacceptable for establishing essential content or format unless they are themselves independently sourced, as per wikipedia's no original research policy. As to the other issue of their actually having acquired the nickname previous to SYTYCD, I actually discovered that myself and recognized it on this discussion page (how you missed that when you respond to the comment in which I made the statement, I don't know). Nonetheless, it remains clear that the nickname is useful only in a much narrower context than their actual names and that it should not be the lead title for this article.

You're taking my comments out of context. I wasn't using their social networking pages to argue about default names. I was showing that there is evidence that they've promoted themselves under the name Nappytabs outside of SYTYCD because in your first comment you stated that there wasn't any evidence this name had been used outside of SYTYCD. I have read your comments three times over and I still don't see where you acknowledged that they had this nickname prior to SYTYCD. I do see where you stated you hadn't seen their nickname used outside the context of the show so if you did acknowledge that you had also heard of their name used previous to the show you would have been contradicting yourself. I also saw your comment later about finding the website for their dancewear line and I responded to this comment. But even then you did not imply or state that this meant the name had been used previous to SYTYCD. I don't understand why you feel I should have been able to extract that or make that assumption from your comment.

And finally, 3). Once again, I feel the examples you use argue more strongly against your position than for it. You wrote the words yourself "Also known as 'Nappytabs.'" Think about that -- the very wording itself clearly delineates their proper names as the default and the nickname/tradename as a parenthetical. Every single one of the online articles that you site either uses a recursive structure like this, putting 'Nappytabs' in the subordinate position, or uses the duo's full names in the text first and only references them as Nappytabs later. Here, allow me to illustrate:

• "...and choreographed by “So You Think You Can Dance” husband and wife team Napoleon and Tabitha (NAPPYTABS)"

• "LAist caught up with Emmy nominated Tabitha and Napoleon (AKA Nappytabs)."

• "We caught up with celeb choreographers Tabitha and Napoleon at the Monte Carlo Resort & Casino in Las Vegas, Nev. to talk about..."

• "Working as choreographers for So You Think You Can Dance (SYTYCD), America's Best Dance Crew (ABDC), and countless other projects keeps Tabitha and Napoleon D'umo extremely busy...."

• "пожалуйста - дождались Дуэт «Nappytabs»"

• http://www.project818.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/mc-napoleon-tabitha-a3.jpg - and this promotional poster from one of the sites you reference uses their names with no mention of Nappytabs, even though other performers listed on the flyer do use stage names.

Sorry, but even when you are picking all the links yourself, the trend is obviously to treat "Tabitha and Napoleon D'umo" as the dominant and default name, except for a few social media pages which A) are almost all promotional pages for their clothing line and not the couple and thus completely irrelevant to determining the matter at hand B)are unofficial and prone to the shortest and most informal language anyway, and C) are in any event sources disallowed by Wikipedia policy for verifying your claim in any event. In every valid secondary source you supply the full names are emphasized over the nickname, which people are prone to do unless the artist themselves makes a monumental effort to be known solely by their stage name, which is exactly the reason I proposed reverting the title in the first place. And again, it bears noting that this is with selective sourcing. You certainly would not have forwarded links that use their proper names exclusively, though I've seen for myself that plenty of these exist. I'm afraid what you've mostly done here is dig up more evidence which contradicts your position rather than that which provides justification for it, at least as far as I'm concerned. And we have to remember that, even to the extent that those magazine's do use Nappytabs as a secondary title, they do so as magazines, they are addressing an audience which they expect to be familiar with the subject matter -- as has been noted elsewhere on this talk page, Wikipedia requires a very different approach, one which does not assume familiarity.

That's my point. You took me out of context again and just restated what I was trying to prove in my first response. In short, your argument above stated that this article should be moved from Nappytabs because they're not called Nappytabs outside of the context of STYTCD. My point was to show you that they are in fact called Nappytabs elsewhere and because of this, using reasoning based on SYTYCD as your sole argument to move the page is not a good reason to move the page at all. You say that I pick links that bolster my stance but you do the same. You mention Facebook and MySpace to state that it's almost all about their dancewear line rather than their choreography (when actually the opposite is true; Google their Flickr and you'll see what I mean--it's nothing but dancewear advertisement and as promotional as it gets) but you didn't mention their YouTube or Twitter. YouTube is nothing but videos of their choreography work and dancing. Why do you say these pages are unofficial? On all of them, they refer to themselves in the first person.

And lastly, I did not criticize the article at large, as you imply; I simply judged the title to be inappropriate. The only person who has made broader critiques is....the guy you requested to copyedit the page. I actually think the page is fairly well written and formatted and commend your dedication to it, though I share some of ParEdman's sentiments regarding the tone and I think you might consider the possibility that you are perhaps letting yourself get too close to the subject matter and losing some adherence to NPOV. Regardless, I continue to believe the current title is inappropriate in it's too-familiar tone and is, in any event, clearly a secondary name for the couple, both personally and professionally. And I think the consensus is with me. Nonetheless, in deference to the amount of work you've put into the page and the fact that we only have a handful of people commenting here so far, I am content to wait until we have further input from more voices before affecting any changes to the article itself. 67.117.27.49 (talk) 22:52, 24 July 2011 (UTC)Snow

When reading your initial comments I always understood that you were not criticizing the article but just the title instead. So I apologize for the way I worded that because I didn't mean to come off that way and I can see from the way I worded it why it was interpreted as such. I should have been clearer. I am not against the page's former title. As I stated in my first response, my qualms were with the reasons used for why the page should be moved. What I was trying to say all along is I don't feel like reasons along the lines of they're-not-called-Nappytabs-outside-of-SYTYCD are good reasons which is why all my rebuttals listed why that argument wasn't valid. The arguments made in your second post, this one, are much better arguments to use to move any article (why didn't you just use these the first time?). As stated in the revision the reason why I moved the page in the first place was because "Nappytabs" gets more hits on Google than "Napoleon and Tabitha D'umo". So at the time, since "Nappytabs" is used more and to help people find the page easier.I thought it would be best to move it. Not because I'm getting too close to the subject (I live in Europe and I don't know even know them). //Gbern3 (talk) 20:07, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

UPDATE - So while updating the article I came across WP:GOOG#Neutrality. Probably should have read this section before moving the page. I knew about WP:GOOG before which is why I moved the page in the first place ('Nappytabs' gets more hits) but I only read the beginning and not all the way through to that section. Even the haters call them Nappytabs so I thought this title was neutral but apparently popularity is different from neutrality. Oh well. Since policy supports the use of their real names for the title, I will move the page myself... //Gbern3 (talk) 15:23, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I got an error message saying that an administrator had to do it so I put in a request here. Now just waiting. //Gbern3 (talk) 15:59, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Store Website Link

Not to seem to be hating further on the Nappytabs phrase, but the site link in the info box www.nappytabs.com seems to forward to their store front for a business selling clothing (apparently designed by the couple?) I guess if it turns out that the two really are branching out in this direction professionally then I can see an argument for keeping it in (though the site itself does not really concern itself much with them or with their other more well-known pursuits as much as it does with the clothes and any publicity they've had. If it turns out they aren't designing the clothes themselves but are just leasing their identity to the brand, then I think it should go, or at least be moved from the info box. Honestly, it seems to me more advertisement than anything and I'm beginning to wonder if the changing of the article title perhaps didn't coincide with the date that link was put up.... At the same time, though, I have to admit this does give some credence to the idea that the couple could be credited as 'Nappytabs' (that is to say, it seems they have promoted at least a product line under the name. I still think the original title of the article is the appropriate one, though.67.126.206.150 (talk) 12:48, 4 July 2011 (UTC) - Snow

To answer your question, yes, they do design the clothes themselves (this is stated in the article here) and that link was put up before the article was moved to its current title. Note: the website does concern itself with them considering the main page list news updates about their career and their clothing line is a well-known pursuit (in the dance community that is, after all it is a line of dancewear). Through their dancewear line, they sponsored a dance convention and it's not even the one they teach at. This is also in the article here, second paragraph. Further comments above. //Gbern3 (talk) 22:54, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Some suggestions

Hi there. Looks like a while back you made a request for peer review, and I thought I'd try to add onto that for anyone who's interested in improving the article. As I am working over an article myself, I understand how reviews can greatly accelerate the improvement process, so here are my suggestions:

• Lead: I don't think the dates of birth need to be listed twice. Perhaps it would be best to just have them in that template on the right hand side of the page, like "Napolean: October 17, 1968 (age 43)" and the same idea for Tabitha, except that Tabitha should go first since that's the order in the title.

• Lead: The first sentence is followed by five citations. See Wikipedia:Citation overkill. Also, be really careful with citations in the lead, since the lead is supposed to summarize the body of the article, which is more detailed and more cited. So for that first sentence, use only the best citations that you can, or place the citations elsewhere. Three citations following a statement should be the maximum, two is preferable.

• Lead: Criticism should not be wikilinked. If you want to make sure that the reader understands a particular aspect of the word, choose a more precise word.

• 1968-1996: Growing up and going to college: Very dense both in information and in citations. Citations should be used to provide backup for a statement, but you must be careful using them as they detract from readability. With a citation every couple of words, its not an easy read for me. Consider using the best/fewest citations, and perhaps only using them after a comma or a period. Consider placing two of them together if each supports part of a sentence. Of course it would be better to find a single reliable source that backs up the entire sentence, but if you are unable to find this doubling up citations might be the best idea. A citation could cover a sentence or two, so use them less frequently if you can, unless you make a bold statement that someone might call into question, in which case you need to ensure there is a citation there. You also want to maximize readability, since I for one have no previous knowledge of these people. Consider being more explanatory, and work on inserting transitions so that the mind can easily flow from one sentence to the next. Also, renaming the section to simply "Education" might be better. "Growing up and going to college" does not sound encyclopedic, you need to make sure your writing is concise, clear, and readable.

• 1996-2005: Relationship growth and career move to Los Angeles: Consider renaming it to something like "Marriage and Early Career". Remove redundant statement such as "they auditioned for" which should be obvious if they were accepted into the dance company. This section also seems to contain lists of things or people; try to introduce these things using more of a paragraph form. In the "They also performed as back-up dancers for ..." statement, a bit more information would be helpful, such as the order into the backing-up (aka sorted by year), and the relevance, which again should be prose-based. I recommend you include information indicating how each of these people were important to the subjects, and even how it influenced them later. Here's a sort of a template of what I was expecting: "X was inspired by Y's unique dance style (describe), which X then incorporated into their own routine" or something like that.

• 2005-2007: Dancewear, creative directing, and fitness: Consider renaming to "Dancewear and Fitness", as the "Although Tabitha and Napoleon began creative directing" should belong in another section, such as the one above. You should organize the article more by subject than by a period of time, although information should be in cronological order within a section. I don't like the "They claim" statement. Consider changing it to "... first line of hip-hop dance apparel, as appropriate dancewear for the urban hip-hop dance community was at the time very limited." or something like that. Again, this brings up my previous readability point: try to make sentences and ideas link and flow together well.

• 2008-2009: Dance shows, lyrical hip-hop, and international exposure: Probably rename to "Dances and International Exposure". Compared to the previous sections, this has much better writing. I'd recommend that you ensure the citations come after commas, and preferably after periods. For example, "... from the judges[45]" should just be " from the judges" with that citation placed at the end of the sentence or removed outright since the same citation is used soon after. "in Moscow, Russia[47]" should just be "in Moscow, Russia" with that citation right before the other citation at the end of the sentence. These changes will help readability.

• 2010-2011: Cirque Du Soleil, brand expansion, MÜS.I.C, and MOBBED: I like the title "Stage Productions" better, but a similar short and concise title would work as well if "Stage Productions" isn't entirely appropriate. There's a paragraph about the Nappytabs store, which seems redundant considering that you described it (in less detail) previously in the article. Thus merge that information into the above Nappytabs description. Please apply my above citation advice, and work on making the ideas flow together better.

• Choreography style and teaching: Good title, although "Influence" may be better, and "influence" also offers opportunities for further information. There seems to be some informal language here, so here are some recommendations into how to make it more encyclopedic: The first paragraph could be compressed into a more consise form. For example, your first sentence could be "... is primarily hip-hop; however, they have also orchestrated other dances such as hip-hop, breaking, lyrical hip-hop, and pop-jazz routines[citation to So You Think You Can Dance reference]." Also, avoid using contractions, so write out "they've" and others. "and/or having fun" doesn't sound encylcopedic, consider removing it or choosing better words. In fact that whole second paragraph seems informal, so consider ways in which to hone it. Look at examples of how other articles introduce concepts. A quick example I found is Einstein. The last paragraph is citation dense, and doesn't read very easily. Also, "a lot of time" could be said better, since "a lot" is rather informal.

• MÜS.I.C.: Pretty good, no real problems that I see at this point. Consider though removing " -- gasp! --" from the quote. That shouldn't detract from what the quote is trying to say IMO.

• So You Think You Can Dance: No citations, and rather short. You should have a paragraph or so, and perhaps provide a citation for the summary.

• Seasons four, five, and six: Well done there. Citation placement is just right I think.

• Seasons seven and eight: No big issues here either. You have three citation following the "'Bad Boys for Life' as 'contrived'" statement. Are all of those relevant? If one is more reliable and better, use that one instead.

• Charity work: "money and/or their time" should just be "money and effort". The following sentence "Most of the charity work they've done has been related to dance in some way from raising money for a charitable cause through dance or doing work to support the Arts" could be said like this: "The majority of their charity work is related to dance or the Arts". This is a much more concise form that says pretty much the same thing. The second paragraph could use some more information or should be merged into another paragraph, as three sentences is not enough to be a full paragraph. Also, expand the contractions in this section.

Well that's basically it for now. If your goal is to get this to a Good Article, consider examining other GAs such as Google. Also, look at the Good Article criteria as well as Featured Article criteria as goals you should strive for. Your citations and whatnot are looking pretty good, but the text is not there just yet. You need to work on condensing and honing the article, and I hope that my suggestions have helped with that. As I said at the beginning, I'm working on an article myself and am striving to get it to Good Article status. I'm sure that for both of us, if we have the drive and put in the effort, I'm sure we can attain that. I'll be watching this page if you have any further questions. Jessemv (talk) 06:51, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Jessie. Sorry for the incredibly late reply; I've been taking a wikibreak. It looks like most of your suggestions have already been implemented so there's not much for me to do, but please know that I do appreciate you taking the time to write them. Good luck with the article you're working on. //Gbern3 (talk) 00:11, 13 February 2012 (UTC)