Talk:List of characters in the Animal Crossing series

This article was nominated for deletion on June 17th 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

Saharah

I think Saharah should have her own page (like Tom Nook, K.K. Slider, & all the other special villagers) instead of being grouped with some random villager on this page. In fact looking at the histories, that's the way it was before "A Link to the Past" decided to make this article & turn the Saharah article into a redirect to this one. SNS 16:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

- I agree. Plus, it only has one neighbour and one visitor. Not all people have Anicotti living in their town. I say Saharah gets her own article and this one is deleted. Shadoman 18:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to restore the Saharah article & remove that section from this article. I supposed this article could be turned into a place where all the regular villagers are talked about (since they have too little info for their own pages). SNS 18:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

What happened to the K.K. Slider page with the list of all the songs he plays (AC Game Cube and ACWW)? Was it merged with this page? K.K. Slider was a good free-standing entry and should be restored. little otik 01:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, every single character on this page used to have a page of their own. Then "Link to the Past" decided to make them all into redirects here. Now even the future of this page is uncertain... SNS 02:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• Well, it was more readable when they had their own pages, IMHO. I don't see a justification for melding them all into one, overly long entry. You could easily link the individual entries together by doing what they do on band pages, where there are links in the 'see also/related articles/categories' box at the bottom of the entry. I'm sure it was well-meant, but let's change it back, please?little otik 02:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

When "A Link to the Past" changed them into redirects, I felt like changing them back but I figured he would just undo that again so I just waited to see how Shadoman (someone who created & helped a lot with the seperate articles) would react to this. When he didn't complain here & instead just made edits to this article, I decided to just focus on making this article better instead of starting an agruement with "A Link to the Past". Now that someone wants to delete this article there's even more problems then that (if he considers this long article to be worthless, then he would see the seperate articles as even more worthless). SNS 03:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• I reverted K.K. Slider entry back to the version just previous to the redirect edit. I'm sorry if this bugs anyone, and I think we should definitely have further discussion on the form the character pages should take, but I feel strongly that the "flagship character" (not my words) of the Animal Crossing series should have an individual entry. -little otik 08:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The characters should all remain on one page. Each entry is far too small by itself. (Let's face it - the characters aren't THAT deep...) -LN —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.86.188.215 (talk • contribs) .

Moving page

This page should be moved to List of Animal Crossing characters, per policy. If nobody complains, I will be moving the article there. -- ReyBrujo 03:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure this idea makes sense since the other articles that start with "List of" are only lists, not articles with descriptions like this. At least that's what I got the impression of when I did a quick search SNS 04:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Redirected

No sources, multiple clean up tags, better dealt with in parent article, unencyclopedic tone. Not much else to say really.
brenneman ^{L} 12:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

This article talks about characters in two games of a series (that will get more instalments in the future, a Wii sequel was announced for instance). How does a redirect to one of the games make any sense? Yeah the article needed work but it was slowly being improved by many users. Eventually all of the tags would no longer apply. SNS 17:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree the article was pretty poor, but I'm not sure this is the answer. For example, how is redirecting to Animal Crossing going to help with giving sources? The Animal Crossing article is huge already, and people are now going to be more likely to add information to the character list in that article. The section will then grow to big and need its own article anyway, coming full circle. Out of curiosity, what if the article on Link was unsourced and written poorly. Would it just be turned into a redirect to The Legend of Zelda series? I am willing to listen to any counter-arguments - what does policy have to say about this? Hammer Raccoon 22:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The policy that trumps all the others is that on verification and through it the guideline on third party sources. Articles can only exist if they comply with these. That being said, the concerns about validity of the redirect have to do with what we expect people to type into a search as well as "what links here." (I was remiss in that I failed to looked at and repair any redirects, which I will corrent following this.) I'd think that the string "Characters in the Animal Crossing series" is an unlikely search term.
brenneman ^{L} 02:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

This article survived an AfD debate less than a month before this article was changed to a redirect (without having its content merged into the destination article). That debate clearly showed support for the content of this article, as well as its continued existence. In light of this, I have reverted this redirection.

If someone is going to go to the trouble of merging its content fully into the Animal Crossing article (which has a very short list of characters), then reinstating the redirect would probably be okay. But to say that merging is not necessary because there is nothing encyclopedic in this article worth transferring over to the other article is presumptuous and assumes that the person making the statement has some sort of authority to decide on their own what constitutes "encyclopedic" content. - Mark 09:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Were you planning to improve it to encyclopedic quality, then? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Note: For what it's worth, I think this article is crufty and should be deleted. But that's just my opinion. - Mark 09:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Then why undo a redirect to an article that already covered the subject in a more-encyclopedic fashion? All you've done is create a mess that will need to be cleaned up and which will end in a redirect anyway. :/ - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I've redirected it again. Nothing has changed, this article still has more problems than I have hot dinners, and a redirectr is still the best option. I don't understand why this is even an issue. - brenneman ^{L} 12:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not even going to sugar coat this; that is one of the stupidest things I have ever heard! It is an issue when you ignore a majority of people! How the Hell can you say there is no issue with you ignoring everyone else?! - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Please do remain civil, both in your comments and your edit summaries.

• "Everyone else" here is a very small cadré, you may have noticed. At least one of the users whom you appear to think is being "ignored" is saying about two centimeters up that this article should be deleted.
• A deletion discussion is not binding, and attempting to pull the very long bow didn't work at Saugeen Stripper and won't work here.
• A redirect is a normal edit, and when roughly 50% of the involved editors are supporting it, it's a fairly uncontroversial one.

All that being said, I look forward to this article having some sources inserted, and perhaps the plethora of problems indicated by the tags solved as well. I'll check back in a couple of weeks.

brenneman ^{L} 07:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah, why don't I go redirect every single article that ever survived an AfD? I mean, if the fact that people clearly want this article to remain here doesn't actually have anything to do with Wikipedia, then all articles that have ever been AfD'd should just be redirected. - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

A Man in Black's edits look like cleaning the article up for the time being, although I might reinsert some of the more relevant information if I have some spare time. With regards to the whole redirect situation, the only niggle that remains with me is whether you're allowed to delete information because it's poorly written. That would seem to be what's going on here, despite the AfD result, as the information isn't being merged. It just seems a covert way of deleting is all. Anyway, I'm happy to lend my services to keep this cruft free and adhering to the manual of style as long it's here. Hammer Raccoon 07:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't be fooled. My edits are to remove the worst of the unsourced garbage so that I can merge this into the game articles and re-redirect it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 12:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Which was why I was gonna reinsert some of the more pertinent information. Mixed up amongst all that rubbish was some relevant description of character, just poorly written. Give me some time, and hopefully you'll see that there's just too much to merge. Hammer Raccoon 18:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I sure can see why you made admin, what with your stone-cold civility.

Additionally, was that so hard, AMIB? Giving somebody a chance to fix the article before deciding that you shouldn't have to respect the wants of other Wikipedians and do what you want? - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

When you're done attacking me, I'd appreciate it if you could help me remove unsourced and game-guide content from this list so that it can be merged, or else explain why it shouldn't. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The problem with this article is not that people have failed to add "relevant descriptions" but that there are no third party sources, a requirement for verifiability. - brenneman ^{L} 02:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean; either you mean that there is not currently third party sources, or there will never be. Both are laughably... laughable! The lack of third party sources is an argument for it to not be featured, NOT TO DELETE/REDIRECT. And if you mean that there will never be, prove it! We don't have to immediately jump to our keyboards and find a source to prove to you that this can be sourced. You're arguing that there are no sources so it should be a redirect. In most other cases, WE have to show the sources, but in this case, where you're trying to show that no sources would mean the article shouldn't exist, you're making an argument and you have to back it up. - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

As nicely as possible, that statement is grotesquely misinformed about Wikipedia policy. I won't link Wikipedia:Verifiability again, I've done so numerous times above. I'll simply ask that everyone actually go and read the policy. It's one of the most important policies that we've got, so it's important that we all understand it. To put lie to the statements above, I'll preface them with quotes from the policy:

1. "Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources."

   Thus lack of third party souces is a reason for deletion.

2. "The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it."

   Thus I don't actually have to do anything.

I'm not trying to come the raw prawn here, but we've already got a magic pudding producing popular culture/internet "meme"/video game articles, and unsourced material is actually the biggest single problem that Wikipedia faces.  ::::: brenneman ^{L} 01:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

So, what you're saying is, this article should exist - if it weren't for the fact that it's unsourced - as per WP:FICT regarding long lists of minor characters. But I think you're being unrealistic with sourcing. No major/reputable/reliable organistaions are going to be writing about this subject matter so it's going to be very slim pickings, other than the primary source material itself. Even an example article on WP:FICT, Horses of Middle-earth, had no other sources than the Lord of the Rings books and films themselves - and I very much doubt you'd get far trying to merge that article anywhere. So, we either clean up the article and leave it as it is, or we allow in sources like this: [1]. The website is devoted to Animal Crossing, so you'd assume it's factually correct, and although the character descriptions aren't great...hell, it's a start, it confirms some of the basic info about the characters. I dunno guys, we either delete every single article about fictional characters because they rely strongly on their primary source, or we keep them because we're realistic. Or we delete this one, because it's poorly written... Anyway, I'm away for a week. I'll be interested to see how this pans out. Hammer Raccoon 11:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Brenneman, have you ever deleted every unsourced statement instead of putting a citation-needed tag (which is what you're supposed to do)?

No?

Well, come back when you apply the same logic to all of Wikipedia, and THEN I'll let you figuratvely piss all over everyone who want this article to remain. Hell, I'll even let you continue to pretend that the AfD doesn't matter one bit and shouldn't be considered when it goes against what you want. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:23, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

You may want to read WP:V#Burden of proof. If you admit that it's unsourcable, as opposed to unsourced, then it does indeed need to be removed. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

So basically, what you're saying is that you, who is making the argument, does not need to show any evidence that what you are saying is true? Well, according to logic, you kind of do have to. We may have to provide sources, but if you say that there are no sources in existence, why should we have to disprove what you say, which you yourself have not proven? - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Go read WP:V#Burden of evidence. Right now. Right now, there's no evidence whatsoever that a single word in this article is true. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

And so you say because we haven't presented evidence that everything in this article is true, you have the right to assume that everything in the article is wrong and delete the content? Do you make it a point to give reason to assume bad faith? We have the burden of proof in this article to show that it is a good article and the content is real. Does it say that the content can be assumed as bad content based on absolutely nothing and be deleted? Read that and tell me exactly where it says the content cannot exist without a source. By the way - they invented for a reason.

So, how long will it take you to give up your vindictive, childish crusade to have you instated as the ruler of Wikipedia? - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Too many headers, not enough filling

This is a rather minor suggestion compared to everything else that's going on with this article right now, but instead of having 26 seperate headers, why not combine some of the characters that are commonly associated with each other? Mabel and Sable and the Resetti Brothers are examples of pairs that have already been done. Other characters that can be put together are Blathers and Celeste, Copper and Booker, and Phyllis, Pelly and Pete.

Currently, Blathers' article is only one paragraph long, and Celeste's is two lines, causing both sub-articles to look "empty." Combining the two would give it a more "full" appearence, which could be a solution to the emptiness of the list that some users are complaining about.

In addition, some images of the characters would not hurt. I'm surprised that certain characters, especially Tom Nook and K.K. Slider, don't have their own pics right beneath their headers. 64.175.36.108 22:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The problem is not that the list is empty, but that there's no referenced information that isn't sourced purely to observation of the games. What you're suggesting doesn't really solve this problem. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Article reworking

I have significantly reworked the article to reduce fluff, fix the tone (now contains no second person voice), and even add a couple references, with hopefully more to come. If you people would please stop arguing and aid me in my effort to add more references to printed, published, verifiable materials, I would appreciate it. --tjstrf 23:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Not to bang the same old drum, but it's still mostly unsourced. To illustrate the practical problems associated with using primary sources in this manner, let's look at two examples chosen at random.

1. In Pete the phrase appears "Sometimes, when Pete is shot down, he hints at a crush on Phyllis (he says, "There's just something about Phyllis that makes me feel dizzy!" and at the same time a 'heart' icon appears above his head)."
2. In Tom Nook the phrase appears "In both games, after Nookington's, the final store upgrade, is opened, Tom's twin nephews Timmy and Tommy Nook are hired to work at the second floor of Nookington's."

How is it proposed that I may verify these?

brenneman ^{L} 04:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree the article is somewhat crufty, and stuff like that maybe needs to be trimmed. However, deleting this article is really not advisable. There are plenty of sources for a lot of this information -- instruction booklets, strategy guides, gaming magazines, websites, even The New York Times. Just because we don't know what all the sources are yet, doesn't mean the article is irredeemable. Andre (talk) 05:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, much of the information in this revision of the K.K. Slider article is salvageable and should not have been redirected without discussion. If nobody goes through the trouble to add it into this article, I'll do it myself at a later date. Andre (talk) 06:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

And the answer comes forth:

1. While that specific quote from Pete is unsourceable from the resources I personally possess, a far more direct quote on Pete's romantic interest in Phyllis, "I should ask Phyllis out on a date tonight.", is verifiable from the Nintendo Player's Guide for Animal Crossing, page 155 (bottom).
2. Similarly, Tommy and Timmy's presence as workers in Nook's department store is noted on page 14.

The potential verifiability of this article is in no way questionable. If someone who owns the Animal Crossing Wild World player's guide would take the trouble to go through it, I am sure they would be able to provide sources for the information specific to that game, but I regretably do not personally possess that guide.

Nintendo Player's Guides are published by Nintendo of America Inc., and meet WP:RS. (The irony of gratuitously citing a game guide as verification for facts which do not in most cases directly relate to gameplay is not lost on me either.) --tjstrf 06:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Able Sisters

Believe me, I live in the UK, and they ain't hedgehogs. Sabel even refers to a porcupine soap opera, in which one of the characters is involved in a 'de-quilling' procedure. Clearly, they're porcupines. Although they look like Sonic, Sonic is very, very far removed from the appearance of a real hedgehog - the creature was picked by Sega because they thought that no one in Japan or the US would have heard of it. Makron1n 16:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, the guide disagrees with you (page 20, "She's a cheery, chatty hedgehog..."), and trumps your personal opinion. They're hedgehogs. Bipedal, anthropomorphic, apron-clad tailor hedgehogs. --tjstrf 19:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Ahhhh...

Someone deleted the Residents page, but that could have been merged with this one. That had a lot of good info on it that I'm sure took a while to make. Is there any way of getting it back? --Stormtrooper88888 17:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

No. It did not contain "large amounts of helpful info" it contained a giant table of uselessness. It should not be merged here, since it failed notability, was written like a faq, and there's nothing to say about the generic residents of Animal Crossing, since they are simply interchangable skins of each other with no personality or unique contributing feature to the village. One of the few valid "cruft" deletions I've ever seen. --tjstrf 17:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced edit

I'm still concerned about sources here. I'd like to remove any unsourced edit.
brenneman ^{L} 02:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

You missed some good fights there, then. :-) Sorry, couldn't resist :-) -- ReyBrujo 02:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Lyle Scam Not Junk

He dosen't seem to help me much at all. Type in "Lyle Animal Crossing Scam" and you can get many results [2]. Frankyboy5 21:40, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Even the villagers suggest it. He gives very little money compared to how much you originally got for the painting, fortune(fall from bad fortune), if you catch a bee you can sell it for 4500 bells or something like that and same with spiders and scorpions. He always partners up with Redd, who does illegal things(black market). Frankyboy5 05:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

If you wish to include the game manual reference, do so, but please use the same referencing format as the rest of the article. However, including your personal opinion or weasel-worded masked accusations of uselessness is against policy. --tjstrf 05:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Merge

Stop redirecting it, AMIB. In any universe could you ever acknowledge that any single person who disagrees with you has any value whatsoever in this discussion? Because in this universe, it appears that you think less of them than you do yourself and anyone who agrees with you, since you decided that their opinion isn't worth much. AMIB talks about it lacking sources and lacking prose, when it's significantly better in both than it once was and it's better than a lot of articles allowed to have articles. There has clearly been improvement and drive to improve this article, so at what point do you try to null all of their effort? - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I must comment in saying that i find it quite amusing to see you accuse AMIB for disregarding what other people say and just doing what he wants to do when he wasn't even the person who performed the merge.

I ran into this page when i was cleaning out categories of articles tagged with old merge proposals. The article's been tagged for 3 months, the talk page turned into a mess of personal attack accusations and guildline quotes that never got anywhere. Reading the talk page, you seemed to be the only person against a merge. There were other people who agreed with the merge, or just wanted a redirect, or even wanted the article just deleted. A few other people were against a redirect, but said nothing about a merge. However, most of the people agreed the article was crufty.

So i merged it. It looks fine on the main animal crossing article. This article is on the boarderline of notability anyway, so i don't see why we should bother with the fuss when it's perfectly fine merged. As for the writing quality, well, I don't play these games, but i've played enough video games in my life to recognise game trivia and speculation when i see it. And yes, a lot of it had to be cut out when i was condensing the article for the merge.

It's not like the information's gone. as AMIB said, people are still welcome to expand the character section on the main animal crossing article. And if it grows into a decent character section, then it can just be split out again. --`/aksha 03:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

You're very good at twisting reality. Guess why no one objected to a merge? Because the merge didn't exist. The user that started the dispute redirected it, deleting all content, not bothering to merge. We weren't even talking about a merge, so how can you say that no one objected to this nonexistant merge and say that's logic to merge it? We have an AfD with seven people who want it to stay, two who want it deleted and none who want it redirected OR merged. Are you saying that when a majority of people want to keep it, not delete, redirect or merge, that does not show a consensus to keep? I see. I guess I should go off and redirect an article which survived an AfD, because clearly, keep doesn't have to actually mean what it's supposed to mean. - A Link to the Past (talk) 08:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Stop flinging around accusations. Do you not think i did my research when i decided to go ahead with the merge?

The AfD for this article was closed on June 22nd. The merge to tag was first added onto the article on August 15th. Aside from vandalism, the tag was only removed for 14 minutes on September 18th.

this is what the talk page looked like in its last revision before the merge tag was put on.

Which means ever single edit after that revision was made by someone in full knowledge that the article was being proposed for merging. here is a diff showing all new additions onto the talk page since that time.

merging isn't like an AfD. Once an article is tagged - the assumption is that anyone who sees the article and objects will say so. The article was tagged for a long time, during that time, a lot of discussion happened on the talk page. The assumption is that the discussion which took place after the tagging was done with everyone aware of the merge tag. Therefore, if people didn't oppose, it's because they didn't care or because they support the merge.

AfD is binding only for deletion/keep. Keep means "not delete", NOT "not merge". Any article that survives a AfD is still fair game for being merged. "Fair" just means the article gets tagged with a merge proposal tag for a decent length of time so people can object if they wish to. Two month is more than the "decent length of time" needed for an article to be tagged with "merge" to actually be merged. --`/aksha 13:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

That's not an accurate understanding of how the merge process works. Having the tag there doesn't make the merge supported by all those who saw it and didn't respond to it. Andre (talk) 23:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, for a start, i'm changing the this topic title into "merge" because "redirect" is plain misleading.

Now, if you say that's not a correct understanding of how merge works, then perhaps you should explain to me why it is not correct, and what the correct understanding is. I suggest you take a close look at this Wikipedia:Merging_and_moving_pages#Merging. It explains how a proposed merge can go ahead with either consensus or silence. Meaning silence is taken to mean no opposition. The instructions there say at least 5 days. This article had about 2 months.

As i pointed out above, there was only one person against the merge. Despite the fact that anyone could have commented on the merge tag. I should also point out that huge long "redirected" debate at the end of auguest (here is a diff of all changes made to the talk page since August 31st.)

In other words, in the entire months of september and october, the merge tag stayed on the article. "After sufficient time has elapsed to generate consensus or silence (at least 5 days), you may perform the merger or request that someone else do so." That's more than the recommended 5 days. Consensus was clearly not generated, since if there was consensus to not merge, the tag should have been removed. Silence was generated, since for two month the tag was on the article, but no one commented or oppossed. Therefore i merged it. --`/aksha 03:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Yaksha, all your policy citing evidences is that it was permissable for the merge to be conducted. As such, we cannot fault you for the initial merging, and I am not doing so. It does not in any way mean an objection cannot be mounted at this time, or that your action is sacrosanct and unrevertable. In case if you weren't aware yet, consensus can change. The talk page clearly evidences that the merge is disputed, and the WP:MOS states that article splits for characters are allowed if it stylisticly damages the parent article. --tjstrf Now on editor review! 03:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The earlier discussion was about whether to redirect or not, it's not disputing this merge or possible future merge. There was two months of silence between the end of that discusison and now.

This current discussion has people objecting to the merge, but so far, the only reason put forth for not merging has been your "stylistically damanges the parent article".

ALtoP's first objectiong was a complaint against AMIBs redirecting. The way he wrote it makes me think he didn't even realize the article content still existed. No reasons where provided for not merging.

ALtoP's second response said the only reason that there was no objections was because it didn't exist. I proved this wrong by showing how long the merge tag had been on the article. He also said that the AfD result was keep. This is true, but it's not a reason against merging, since a keep on the AfD doesn't mean future merges are not possible. So no reasons against merging was provided.

Andre then responded to tell me that i had misinterpreted how a merge works, because a lack of response doesn't mean support. However, as i pointed out, a lack of response (silence) towards a merge tag is taken as support, at least according to the merge instructions. And there was a two months silence towards this merge. Once again, no reasons where provided against the merge.

So far, the only actual reason provided to object the merge is your MOS quote. Which i'm going to ask you to elaborate, since I'm not sure how the characters are "stylistically damanging the parent article". They look fine to me. --`/aksha 04:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I removed the tag once, but was not willing to argue over it any further, since I knew that there were some rather incivil arguments over this in the past and did not wish to start another one. --tjstrf Now on editor review! 00:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)