Talk:Chinese astrology/Archive 2

---

Archive 1

Archive 2

The Symbols?

Why do the charts in this article use the normal animal symbols (鼠,牛,虎,兔,龍,蛇,馬,羊,猿,鶏,狗,猪) instead of the zodiac symbols (子,丑,寅,卯,辰,午,未,申,酉,戌,亥)?--Sotaru 05:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Why have you only used 11 zodiac symbols when there are 12 animals?

Disrepency between elements and animals.

The lunar year beginning Feb 18, 2007 is the year of the golden Pig. The page however current lists it as the year of the fire Pig. There is something wrong with the element-animal chart. Do a search for gold Pig 2007 in chinese to find sources. Also, it is possible to search the news for a disproportionate amount of people taking maternity leave in China because it is considered lucky to have a child in the year of the gold Pig. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.95.123.6 (talk) 18:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC).<! -- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->

Response I think I understand what you are saying, as well as the part of the article deemed "confusing." see the elements, as listed, are only the Heaven elements. In China, the heaven elements must be mixed with the earth element to find the true element being used. The heaven element is determined using a cyclical pattern (every element goes two years in a row in the heavens, and note that this whole theory is just an educated guess, but ive seen this pattern) and the earth element is designated by the governing element of the animal whose year it is. somehow, certain element combinations yield completely different elements (as the person who wrote the "confusing" part tried to point out, in the year 1960, the heaven element was metal, while the earth element was water, the governing element of the Rat, so somehow, metal+water=earth, I dont understand how all this would work, since all my calculations are merely speculative, but i believe they hold some credence, at least). So 2007 is not the year of the fire Pig because fire is the heaven element, and metal is probably the earth element, since fire+metal=gold maybe? Note, all of this is purely speclative, dont quote me as a knowledgable source.

there is also thigs called the Four trines

Animated Chinese zodiac Zone

Would it be OK to put a link to this resource about the Chinese zodiac on the main page of this article?
[1]
It has been designed for users of English as Second Language and has an interactive Zodiac sign finder, Chinese zodiac Magic game and Zodiac English idiom quiz, as well as free posters.
My company designed it, that's why I'm putting it to you to find out if it's possible.

Thanks
Ady1234 Feb 12.07

Your site is real cute. But I'd like to point out Wikipedia is not a web directory. (See Wikipedia:Five pillars). I know, a lot of people ignore that fact. No one can't tell you what to do. Just be aware that it can be removed at any time at the whim of anybody. tess 21:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Trogdor? Bunni Wabbit?!!?

Come on - shurely shome mistake! The Months section has some very dubious text in there - Oxi-Clean for the 12th month? Can someone with more knowledge please check this! Thanks :)

StuartCarter 16:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Secretive Animal

Is your secretive animal decided by the hour you're born in in local time or chinese time? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.140.73.113 (talk) 18:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC).

Heaven vs Combo elements?

Could we expand/clarify the info on Heaven and Combination elements? I couldn't find out (here or elsewhere on the web) what the two terms mean. If both are listed for each year, which one is predominant? Thanks! SvetaOhio 03:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The Heavenly Stems elements are well documented in another artile. However, can someone quote some references (Chinese source is fine too) to this Combination elements? What is it called in Chinese? Google search didn't come up with much info. 75.31.100.140 01:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Table of the lunar calendar and zodiac

This section is confusing, specifically the paragraph after the first table. That paragraph is difficult to understand due to poor grammar (probably because the author's first language isn't English). Also, if the paragraph is true and the first table does have some "misunderstanding of concepts", then surely that means that table is wrong and needs to be adjusted accordingly? Wolf ODonnell 21:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Bozilla 23:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the section attempts to explain why Feb 18 2007 - Feb 6 2008 is the year of the FIRE Pig but at the same time is widely regarded as the golden Pig.

Actually it IS the year of the fire Pig. In fact Fire and Gold are used interchangeably as deemed necessary in Chinese culture. I grabbed this snippet from the following source

http://www.seoulselection.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=3897&sid=9bf86fdad404edd19abcd3cdf5d26e36

"Fire is red or yellow, and this is associated with gold; in China, for example, red is considered a lucky color, and money is traditionally given in red envelopes. Accordingly, the Year of the Fire Pig becomes the Year of the Golden Pig. This occurs only one every 60 years, and is considered a particularly auspicious time to have children."

I'd like to find out if there is a more scientific (?) method of determining when fire is just fire and when fire is gold? There is extensive literature about this period of time (Feb 18 2007 - Feb 6 2008) being a yin fire year meaning the "fire" is more muted an in harmony with the other elements. Fire over water is often mentioned.

We still haven't addressed the issue mentioned by Wolf ODonnell above — the two tables contradict each other. We need a better explanation on the whole thing, not just about fire Pig vs. golden Pig. --tess 20:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, first off, the second table is definitely right. Secondly, I think i understand the combinations, although im working purely on an educated guess (i posted previously up above on my theory.) See, the heaven element combines with the earth element, the heaven element derived from a cyclical pattern (yang element 1, yin element 1, yang element 2, etc.) while the earth element derives from the animal. I believe that the phenomenon of "Gold" comes in when water and fire are the combo elements, but only if water is the yin element or fire is the yang. More on this as I look at the work presented here. As an addendum, this site [2] is helpful

Perhaps its best if the first table is removed. --tess 19:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

see main article for years 1804 - 1923

(where is this data table?) It would be nice if we could go as far back as possible; e.g.,

Animals: Rat, Ox, Tiger, Rabbit, Dragon, Snake, Horse, Goat, Monkey, Rooster, Dog and Pig.

Please note: these are not accurate, just to give you an idea. 1645-1899 and Calendars (Discussion of Stem/Branch or Element/Animal)

--MonteShaffer 16:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Chinese characters for the signs of the Zodiac

The characters used in the article are those of the actual animal in question. There are distinct characters used for the zodiac signs that are in general quite different from those of the animals:

1. Rat: 子
2. Ox: 丑
3. Tiger: 寅
4. Rabbit: 卯
5. Dragon: 辰
6. Snake: 巳
7. Horse: 午
8. Goat: 未
9. Monkey: 申
10. Rooster: 酉
11. Dog: 戌
12. Pig: 亥

I have never seen the actual animals' characters used in any Chinese or Japanese calendar that incorporates astrological information or any book on the Chinese zodiac for that matter: only these characters ever seem to be used. This article is the only source I've ever seen that uses the animal characters. I am not sure why this is so; I'll do some further research and make the appropriate changes once I know the reason. Stormwyrm 17:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

South Hemisphere

Here in the south hemisphere the seasons of the animals and the elements that governs the animals are the same of the north? For example, the article of Rabbit says the month is March and the season is Spring (as a result, wood governs Rabbit), but here march is Autumn. So Rabbit is governed by metal in the south?

External links

I've replaced the spammy linkfarm with an Open Directory link...anyone who disagrees or who thinks the article needs additional links should discuss them here per WP:SPAM, thanks. RJASE1 ^Talk 21:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I've got no objections. — Sam 22:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

--71.111.109.225 07:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC) I disagree that he should replace all links.

Please read RJASE1's talk page about Chinese astrology near the button of the page and please comment.

RJASE1 has removed all those links that were there before April 5. Those links have been through a long period of SPAM inspections from users and through many SPAM weedings. They are the survivals!

I suggest RJASE1 left them alone and put his other link, which is the same as link to another LINK FARM, to the bottom of the legitimate list.

I'll say the Same as your talk page; There are no binding decisions on Wikipedia, especially when the decision was never discussed here on the talk page. Just because nobody noticed this spam a long time ago does not mean you now have a "right" to keep reinserting it. Your contributions ( 71.111.109.225,134.134.136.2,71.111.59.247} to wikipedia consist mainly of adding external links and is considered WP:Spam. Looking through your Multiple IP contributions as a whole, the majority seem to be external link related only. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a link farm. I assume you're here to improve Wikipedia -- not just to funnel readers off Wikipedia and onto some other site, right?--Hu12 07:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

--71.111.109.225 07:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC) External links serve a particular purpose that a wiki page does not serve. For example, there is no way we could copy sites based on databased calculation on to the wiki page without violating copyright rule. So a legitimate link would help enrich a WIKI's user experience by adding more value to the wiki page. I do not want link farm, I want legitmate sites that IMPROVES Wikipedia.

You said: Just because nobody noticed this spam a long time ago does not mean you now have a "right" to keep reinserting it.

Again, this shows that you did not even do any history research on this wiki page. The call for SPAM removal already went on for months on this page. Users did responded and they have been removing links that did not fit. All those links were looked at and they survived.

I have looked at the history, did you?

At least look at one month change history, please? please?

Because those spamlinks managed to remain for some time in the article without being removed does not automatically validate them.--Hu12 08:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why it's so critical that THESE PARTICULAR sites must be linked directly from this Wikipedia page...why can't be they be submitted to DMOZ and linked from there? RJASE1 ^Talk 12:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

--71.111.57.242 13:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC) Again, Hu12, so all the users efforts in wedding does not matter? Please don't tell me that you are so lazy that you did not even look at the history? Would someone at least confirm to me that they have at least glanced at the page change history? Please!

RJASE1, that is because I do not agree with your abuse of this so call linkfarm "cure". Use a little common sense please? This so called CURE is simply a user suggestion in a SPAM page, no the GOD law or even a Police law. I repeat, it is a suggestion! Also, the user who suggested it recommended it when the situation is right like:

1. The site have hugh links number that it is very hard to manage and weed through. 2. The site have high SPAM acitivities.

If you care to check carefully about the change history, at least look at one day of a month for a few months, you will know that the Chinese astrology site does not fit any of the two criteria. The community has been helping with weeding through the links and it does not need drastic CURE.

Using the garden analogy, the linkfarm cure might be use when a lawn that has been maintain by a community have been heavily infected by weeds. May be it make sense to replace the ugly lawn with bark dusk (the DMOZ) due to high maintainance issue. However, when a community lawn have been well maintained and occational weeds have been pull (for example, the Chinese astrology page), why not just pull the occational new weeds instead of going around and replace a well maintain lawn with bark dusk?

What you did was this: no matter tha lawn has 1 weed or full of weed, you are replacing all infected lawns with bark dusk. That is why I do not agree with you.

I have been saying this to you: You made a mistake since April 4, fine. All I ask is that you put back what have been there before April 4. Those links have been weeded thourgh by the community and cumminty voice should be respected. Those links are the survivals and deserved to be there ALONG with your CURE.

I don't see anything on this talk page about consensus on the old links - can you offer some evidence that they were discussed and approved? RJASE1 ^Talk 14:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

--71.111.78.214 15:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC) Well, I for one do not know there is a Talk page for Chinese astrology until last couple days. I have been user for wikipedia for years. I do see the History tab is obviouse, but there is no obviouse link for Talk page.

However, I do know that a very obvious SPAM Alert icon has been posted on the page for months. Users did response to the request. Just a few example, check these dates in History:

1. 12:50 27 March 2007 2. 11:50 7 March 2007 3 16:43 18 Feb 2007.

These are the obviouse ones since they commented why they edited. There are more that are less obvious and I would find them for you if you insist. But I am sure you would find out that users did make a consessue on the old links. Could you at least imagine that the DISCUSSION has been done by users by their action? Not by not discussing on the not so obvious talk page?

Why don't you post an OBVIOSE ICON on the page, with link to this discussion, to request that users sound their opinions?

Please feel free to start a discussion of your own concerning replacement of the DMOZ template with a linkfarm that only attracts additional spam. If you can get consensus, that's fine (but so far I don't see anyone agreeing with you). Until then, please leave the links off the main page, thanks. RJASE1 ^Talk 15:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

--208.196.23.191 16:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
How about I make an American Idol analogy to get through to you?

1. Viewers were asked to votes for their favorite. (SPAM Alert put on the Chinese astrology page a few months ago, asking users to weed out the pretenders from the contenders.)
2. Viewers select their favorite over the months. (Users removed link SPAMs from Chinese astrology page over months. Leaving the contenders in.)
3. After viewers have selected their top 6 favorites, Simon decides that all the users votes, all the viewing over the months do not count. He decides to put his own favorite outcasts as the favorite. (RJASE1 decides to replace all the validated links with his own link to another so called acceptable link, which I believe is another form of link farm).
Now, would any viewers still response to call for the Idol votes if Simon ends up with selecting his own favorite anyway?
By the way, when did DMOZ become THE OFFICIAL WP'S LINKFARM? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.196.23.191 (talk • contribs) 16:21, April 13, 2007 (UTC)

This discussion has become circular and unproductive so far as I am concerned. Like I said, you are free to gain consensus for your position. Until then, please do not re-add the links. RJASE1 ^Talk 16:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree. Please respect Wikipedia guidelines and consensus – do not re-add the links. -- Satori Son 16:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

--71.111.99.85 02:29, 14 April 2007 (UTC) Thanks! If I understood your correctly, RJASE1, you meant I could place a request for consensus on Chinese astrology page, under the External Links section?

By the way, these are the three questions I would ask the community:

1. Do you want this to happen to your favorite subjects:

In response to SPAM alert request, the community spend months removing spam links. Once the links are pronounced spam free, RJASE1 comes in and remove all links, without even looking at the links, and replace them with DMOZ link.

2. Do you agree with this RJESE1 policy:

Only DMOZ link is allowed. No other links, no matter how relevent or how long it has been there, are allowed to coexist.

3. Do you want the community to decide which links to include for a subject, or let a selected few in DMOZ decides which links are best for Wikipedia?

The DMOZ link links to all the relevant links you would ever want and more. If you feel the removal is so unjustified, please list the links you want reincluded and reasoning for each, because the majority of editors here don't feel reincluding them is the best decision. — Sam 21:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

--71.111.107.61 00:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC) Didn't RJESE1 already said I could ask for consensus with the community? Please list the name of editors who actually voiced their opinion. A few SPAM POLICE buddies of RJESE1 is hardly representative of a community.

If you're trying to imply this is some plot against you you're quite mistaken. I had never even met RJESE1until this ordeal.

The only reasoning you have given for reincluding the links is that they survived a spam weeding before. That, however, means nothing. What matters is that there are quite a few editors now who disagree with their inclusion. As far as I'm concerned consensus has already been reached. The copious amount of text here is testament to that. — Sam 00:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

--71.111.107.61 01:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC) By the way, the copious amount of text hear is mine.  : )

Like I said, RJASE1 did agreed to let me ask for consensus. I intend to ask for consensus from more people instead of the "FEW" you just failed to list.

Do whatever you want to do, but petty disputes like this are only wasting editors' and administrators' time and adding more frivolous conversation which will force the talk page into earlier archival, spreading more important discussion across multiple pages. — Sam 02:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

--71.111.107.61 03:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC) OK. I guess you would answers YES to all three questions I plan to ask the community. Would you please be so kind, go to the DMOZ's Wiki page, and replace all external links with a single DMOZ's link, please?

Getting Consensus for External Links

Hi RJASE1,

I want to point out that although I disagree with you in the external links issue, I appreciate your contribution to WP in other areas. This is a thankless job and I applaud your effort.

As you can see, Chinese astrology is my favorite subject. Due to my profession, I want to remain unidentified for now. You may call me "Wayne" if you like.

Having said that, I still do not agree with your action. You did agree that I am free to seek consensus. So, this is what I plan to do:

1. I have seen an oversight of yours in the Astrology page. There are external links coexist along with DMOZ link. So, I will start my consensus process in the Astrology page.
2. Instead of playing myself, I am going to act like you by removing all other links, leaving just DMOZ.
3. Then, we will both wait for reaction in about four weeks or so?
4. If no one complain, then you are right. I am just a over passionate nut case.
5. If many people complain, please reconsider your action and relist the old links?

Deal?
If I get no objection from you, HU12, or Satori Son, I plan to start my consensus gathering process tomorrow night. Thank! --71.111.63.11 14:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

You have badly mischaracterized the situation. No one said you were "free to seek consensus". We said consensus has already been reached. Please respect it.

And removing all external links from another article, whether or not they meet the inclusion criteria of WP:External links, would be a violation of Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. I suspect that doing so will eventually get you blocked for disruptive editing.

As you have been told again and again, this issue is resolved (unless, of course, completely new information is brought forward). -- Satori Son 15:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Satori Son and all Editors:
I will address all of your questions and concerns properly:
1. About register for account:
I have signed up for an account so all of you do not think I am sockpuppet. I promise to continue login as Wayne888 from now on. I did not intentionally using many IP, it happens because my ISP does not provide static IP.
2. About "free to seek consensus"
Satori, RJASE1 actually said that I am free to seek consensus twice. Please read the last article in the archived talk page. 1. Right after I showed him that user did weed the links, he said, quote, "Please feel free to start a discussion of your own...". 2. Right after I wrote the American Idol analogy, he said, quote, "Like I said, you are free to gain consensus for your position". Your comment is just right after that. I honestly do believe he meant I could start a discussion. What do you think?
3. About starting consensus on the Astrology page.
Normally, I got a response from one of the editors within minutes or hours. So, having not hearing any disagreement from any of you for 36 hours, I really thought that I got the permission to seek consensus. Actually, I did went ahead to start my consensus on the Astrology page. But, I did talk about that with SAM in his talk page before I start the edit. He already reverted my edit. I hope I did show that I actually show constraint and being reasonable.
4. About the issues.
I believe we have been focusing on slightly different issues.
a. All links should be reverted.
I believe all of you have been focusing on my request to revert all links. I do agree with all of you that not all link should be revert just because they were there for a long time. Your reasonings were fine. I actually know full well from the beginning that I do not want all of them back. In fact, I would remove three of them as SPAM. So, why am I being so unreasonable, asking RJASE1 to revert all links? Well, see issue b.
b. All links are SPAM.
What I have been focusing on all along was that RJASE1 think all links are SPAM before looking at them or talk about them in the TALK page. When RJASE1 finally offered to talk about the links in the TALK page, I already in heated argument with him for 7 hours. I have become hard-headed myself and unwilling to talk. I demanded all links to be reverted, knowing full well that some are SPAM. I apologize if I insulted anyone, for I have become unreasonable myself when dealing with an action that I think is unreasonable.
5. Where do we go from here?
SAM has advised that I make my case by explaining why not ALL links are SPAM. So, I will agree with SAM and Satori to discuss the edit, not the person. I will start another consensus section on this page and state my reasons why I think some links should be relisted. I sincerely want all editors to comment. If I did not make a valid point, please let me know. I am willing to learn.

By the way, would any one of the editor please help start a consensus section named: Consensus: Are all old links SPAM?
I promise to state my case logically and would not resort to using unapproved behaviors/comments. Thanks! --Wayne888 13:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree with you that the issues have become somewhat muddled, and I also appreciate your choosing a stable user name and logging in. And, yes, you may have some points that merit further discussion.

I think the best option at this point is for you to start a new section at the bottom that proposes the addition of a single external link. Please provide the actual hyperlink, a brief description, and, most importantly, why you think it meets the inclusion criteria of WP:External links. That way, editors can evaluate and discuss that single issue and we can avoid getting sidetracked on tangential subjects. (And please sign your posts at the end of your comments.) Thanks, Satori Son 14:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Personal attack removed

I have removed a personal attack against User:RJASE1 that was posted below. I am not sure who posted it, because many anonymous IP's have been used to edit this page (but it was not the account used above at 71.111.63.11 (talk · contribs) by "Wayne"). If you are the new contributor and would like to repost your questions, please do the following:

1. Refrain from making any personal attacks or uncivil remarks. Discuss the edits, not the editor.
2. Register for an account and log in. Otherwise, your comments are likely to be disregarded as a sockpuppet and/or single purpose account.

Thank you, Satori Son 15:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Why this old link is not SPAM and should be relisted (Discussion #1)

This is part of the list that was declaired not SPAM at the end of March. Please see any link before April 4, such as http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chinese_astrology&diff=120073653&oldid=11953662 for details. All editors, I appreciate all your input and comments.

1. The link: http://students.ou.edu/L/Brian.G.Lewis-1/Episode%20II-Chinese%20Astrology.html
2. Description: A short research article about the Chinese astrology History

Why NOT SPAM (using criteria from WP: External Links):

1. It offers unique resource beyond the article.
2. It contains verifiable research.
3. It does not promote a website.
4. It does not sell products or services.
5. It does not has advertising.
6. It does not require registration and payment to view content.
7. It is accessible from both IE and Firefox.
8. It does not require external applications to view material.
9. It does not link to search engine.
10. It does not link to social network service.
11. It does not link to blog or personal web page.
12. It does not link to open wikis.
13. It is related to the artible's subject.
14. It does not violate copyrighted works.
15. It is not blacklisted.

Why it should be relisted:
It offers meaningful, relevant content, but cannot be integrated into the Wikipeida article due to the amount of details. --Wayne888 11:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Why this old link is not SPAM and should be relisted (Discussion #2)

This is part of the list that was declaired not SPAM at the end of March. Please see any link before April 4, such as http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chinese_astrology&diff=120073653&oldid=11953662 for details. All editors, I appreciate all your input and comments.

1. The link: http://destinyandluck.com
2. Description: A site provide free calculators to calculate animal sign, lunar birth date, Zi Wei Dou Shu birth chart, and Zi Wei Dou Shu Luck Chart.

Why NOT SPAM (using criteria from WP: External Links):

1. It offers unique resource beyond the article.
2. It contains verifiable research. I could verify its accuracy by comparing the results to the books I have.
3. It does not promote a website.
4. It does not sell products or services.
5. It does has advertising, but no excessive advertising and they are clearly separated.
6. It does not require registration and payment to view content.
7. It is accessible from both IE and Firefox.
8. It does not require external applications to view material.
9. It does not link to search engine.
10. It does not link to social network service.
11. It does not link to blog or personal web page.
12. It does not link to open wikis.
13. It is related to the artible's subject.
14. It does not violate copyrighted works.
15. It is not blacklisted.

Why it should be relisted:
1. It contains neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail. I have verified the calculator accuracy by running boundary tests, random checks and using my family birthdates. It was easy to verified since I do have books in this subjects.

2. It offers meaningful, relevant content (for example, it clearly show readers what a Zi Wei Dou Shu chart looks like and why Zi Wei Dou Shu chart is a laborious system of computing one's fate and destiny , as described at the Background section of the main article, futher enhancing readers' understanding of a branch of popular Chinese astrology), but not really suitable to include all data for all users in the main article.

3. Also, a personla note, it is the only English free and correct calculator for Zi Wei Dou Shu I could find on the Web over the years. --Wayne888 11:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Why this old link is not SPAM and should be relisted (Discussion #3)

This is part of the list that was declaired not SPAM at the end of March. Please see any link before April 4, such as http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chinese_astrology&diff=120073653&oldid=11953662 for details. All editors, I appreciate all your input and comments.

1. The link: http://www.hall-of-man.com
2. Description: Features an online calculator. A lesser known medieval synthesis of the Chinese calendrical concepts with the I Ching symbolism (aka The Astrology of I Ching)

Why NOT SPAM (using criteria from WP: External Links):

1. It offers unique resource beyond the article.
2. Not sure about the accuracy part as it is a lesser known system and I have no background in this area.
3. It does not promote a website.
4. It does not sell products or services.
5. It does not has advertising.
6. It does not require registration and payment to view content.
7. It is accessible from both IE and Firefox.
8. It does not require external applications to view material.
9. It does not link to search engine.
10. It does not link to social network service.
11. It does not link to blog or personal web page.
12. It does not link to open wikis.
13. It is related to the artible's subject.
14. It does not violate copyrighted works.
15. It is not blacklisted.

Why it should be relisted:
It offers meaningful, relevant content but not really suitable to include since it is relatively new concepts and also due to copyright issues and amount of detail. --Wayne888 11:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

---

The above discussions are preserved as an archive. Please do not modify them. Further comments or new discussion should be started on the current talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.