Talk:Mystery

Mystery (song)

Hi, I am by no means an expert Wikipedian! As the Mystery (song) article has been deleted, should the link to Mystery (song) be deleted from the Mystery article? Or should it stay, to encourage someone to rewrite it? LewPot 17:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I see that Mystery (song) has reappeared as an article about the song by Dio, so my previous questions are now redundant! LewPot 20:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)A Mystery is Something that is unknow

Requested move

Catneven believes this article should be redirected to mystery fiction and this article's contents be on mystery (disambiguation) but I disagree. "Mystery" is the umbrella/root term for mystery fiction and other mystery-related terms. There's no need for a separate "(disambiguation)" page. ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 12:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

First of all; the article is tagged as a disambiguation page. Secondly; there should just not be links to (or truly meaningful content for that matter on) a disambiguation page. I just do not see why the articles about certain 'mysteries' (of the earth) should point here, when there is no useful information about that in this location. Thirdly; while repairing all links to this DAB page the vast majority of them (say 80%) should be directed to mystery fiction. This is the reason for the intented move. Maybe I did not go about it the right way, but both the removal of the mentioned mystery links to this page and the move really make sense. See Wikipedia:Disambiguation forfor example: 'Of course, the whole point of making a disambiguation page is that accidental links made to it will make sense. These Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links are periodically checked and repaired.' -Catneven 20:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

You may also want to check the final paragraph on that page, for guidelines about linking tot DAB's -Catneven 20:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Regardless, that page is a GUIDELINE, not a policy. I prefer to have disamb pages list all possible combinations of terms and let ME decide where to go from there. I don't appreciate pages assuming I mean one thing when I may mean another. What's common to one person may not be common to another person. "Mystery" is NOT just about "mystery fiction"; hence, mystery shouldn't redirect to mystery fiction--that simple. ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 03:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I think we should work towards application of the guidelines in this article / DAB page. it really is not so much about what you or I prefer, right? See below.-Catneven 15:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Eep², I believe what you should work toward, based on your edits, is a Mystery article that covers the concept of mystery in an encyclopedic fashion, with a hatnote to Mystery (disambiguation) for other uses. This would allow you to link other articles to Mystery while still allowing the disambiguation guidelines to be followed for the disambiguation page. -- JHunterJ 17:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't want such an article; I want a disamb page that links to mystery-related articles as it should be--THAT'S WHAT DISAMBIGUATION MEANS! God damn... ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 09:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't shout.

It is not what disambiguation means. Disambiguation means removing ambiguity. If we take term1 meaning either foo or bar to disambiguate between them is to make it clear which meaning is intended. What you are wanting is not really possible. I hope you are not claiming that machine (disambiguation) should link to every wikipedia article that is related to machines. Also, machine-related or mystery-related is not clearly defined, it would tend to snowball. (I am sure machines are used in London, should we link it? Write Machines in London? Machines in whatever? Where does the line go?) Taemyr 05:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The new links

Please. The links in the heading are two more links to DAB's and one of the links points to something that is absolutely not an article that explains the word in the context here. I will remove all three of them. Again; without being rude: do you have any idea how much timepeople put into removing these erroneous links? -Catneven

Do you have any idea how much time people (2 words, incidentally) put into ADDING these "erroneous" (subjective term, by the way) links? ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 03:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I am really sorry, but I fail to see what information about the tv show 'inconceivable' has got to do with explaining what a mystery is. And please stop being angry and commenting on a forgotten space, ok (especially since readding is written with two d's). See below. -Catneven 15:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

RFC

Can anyone mediate here? We cannot reach consensus. -Catneven 15:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• Issue 1: The links to this DAB page should/shouldn't be removed. My point: they should, in accordance with guidelines. Eep's view: they should not, beacuase mystery is a 'umbrella' term. Secondly; if they are to be removed. The issue remains whether or not it should be moved to (disambiguation). My point: yes, because approx. 80% intends to link to 1 certain subject (mystery_fiction). Eep's view: it should not because of forementioned reason.
• issue 2: the links on this DAB page to other DAB pages (unknown, unexplainable) and the link to inconceivable should/shouldn't be removed. My point: they should, because there should not be links to DAB pages and the inconceivable link does not explain what inconceivable is but is about a television show. Eep's view: they shouldn't because they explain what a mystery is.

Your comments please. -Catneven 16:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Inconceivable should be changed into a DAB page as well, with the TV series at Inconceivable (TV series). Vague definitions require links to other terms to flesh out the meaning of something. The DAB pages have the links to Wikitionary but DAB pages should still be link-to-able in order to move up the branching tree of knowledge. This isn't theoretical physics, you know...it's really not that hard a concept to grasp if you just attempt to try... See Talk:Editing#Links_to_disambiguation_pages and Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation#disagreement_about_linking_to_dictionary_DABs (which should be the main place) for further discussion with others on this matter. ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 17:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with the Wikipedia guidelines, which Catneven has stated above. I made another edit of this page, along with some title formatting fixes and other cleanup tasks. -- JHunterJ 17:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

You can't just remove relevant links like that. Reverting your edits. History's Mysteries has every right to be on this page since it has "Mystery" in the damn title! Duh! ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 09:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

"Do not add links that merely contain part of the page title (where there is no significant risk of confusion)." -- WP:D. -- JHunterJ 10:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

See set index article. ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 11:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Before reverting you (again) go through the third point of the mentioned paragraph with me; first of all if there is both a difference in concept (which there is) and a list of instances with the same name (see point 2) there should be a DAB page and a SIA where the latter is to be called list of xxx with name yyy (except where there is dominance, which is not the case (80%-->fiction)). Secondly, the articles you mention do not qualify for different instances of ONE concept with the same name, because they a) do not carry the same name and b) are not the same concept. This is (or maybe even you are) getting pretty annoying. Cool down please, do not curse, do not insult other editors and please consider the option that your opinion is not the way to go here even though you are obviously majorly invested in this.

Maybe, what you really want is a template about ancient/earth mysteries to put underneath all the mentioned articles. This template can include all the articles about that single subject...-Catneven 12:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Eep has a point though. A user typing in mystery could occasionally be expected to want to arive at a specific mystery. Or perhaps List_of_unsolved_problems, (which I would be prepared to argue is an example of a set index article(despite beeing tagged as a dab)). Or perhaps a similar page for problems of a more spiritual nature. That said, this is a Dab page and should be treated as such. I am also having trouble swallowing the claim that mystery (fiction) is the primary topic for mystery, see the wiktionary entry wikt:mystery. Taemyr 04:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

(reindenting, and trying to address the issues directly) 2nd point first, a Dab page should not explain what anything is. It should offer differing possibilities for meanings of search term with the minimum of information needed to send the reader on to the correct article. Said in a different way; DAB pages should be free of content unless said content helps the reader get the correct article. This means that a link to a different DAB should not in any way help define mystery, nor is it the purpose of this DAB to define the meaning of mystery. If a DAB has a primary topic, ie. it makes sense to talk about defining it, the DAB page should be at topic (disambiguation) while an article on the topic should be written on the topic. In this case I feel that there is a strong candidate for a primary topic, that is mystery in the sense of something unexplainable. This concept have had a profound effect on human history, as witnessed by faiths such as the gnostic, zen and the new age movement. Or indeed the emergence of science. For this reason I find it rather mysterious that such an article have not been written, and believe that it is the lack of this article that is causing Eeps frustration with this dab.

The first point really is already covered, you should not link to a dab because a dab is merely an intermediary step to help you get to the relevant article. I don't feel I need to expound further on my thoughts on the move. Taemyr 04:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you on the point of the user typing in mystery would not necessarily expect to arrive at mystery fiction. But this goes for a rather long list of primary topics. For example queen redirecting to the queen of england is a rather dubious primary topic for there are many more queens in the world, set apart from the fact that a lot of people probably want to go to queen (band). I chose this option as I discovered in disambiguation links repair that approx. 90% of the links leading there intended to link to mystery fiction. Basically all book pages/ anime pages/ detective or police tv shows / writers linked to that page in their genre description. In fact; the only links that did not intend to link to mystery fiction were the links about ancient mysteries for which there is not even an intended article. So practically, one could claim that 100% of the wiki-editors expect mystery to link to mystery fiction.Thanks for participating in the discussion.-Catneven 07:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

queen? Sure looks like a dab. Besider this is just

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Selecting primary topic based on convenience of fixing links seems wrong to me. Taemyr 08:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, you make a good point. You're right about that not being a good reason for claiming a primary topic. Still, without the mentioned reason, I think we should consider fiction to be the primary target. The best userpoll there is of what people expect to find at a certain location, is that of what wikipedians expect to be there. It is clear that they expect the 'genre' to be the primary topic. And honestly, people searching for 'mystery' from the start are, in my opinion, looking for a dictionary explanation for the word, also, because it would be a strange way to start searching for the mystery of the pyramids/atlantis/etc (you would probably search by using that term itself).-Catneven 08:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Except that it's not a userpoll. It's you deciding what the users in question have meant. Although after going through the list I would tend to agree with your assessment. The exceptions being:

1. The Complete Idiot's Guide to...
2. Esoteric history
3. Lyonesse
4. Legend
5. Matter_of_Britain
6. Rosslyn_Chapel
7. Fortean_Times
8. Randall_and_Hopkirk_(Deceased)
9. Is It Real?
10. The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc.
11. Melinoe
12. Mystical philosophy of antiquity
13. Jeff Randall
14. 48 Hours (TV series) (very weak, link to mystery should just be removed)
15. The Unexplained
16. Law & Order should link to Mystery (TV channel) and is fixed.
17. Marc Paul should perhaps link to Mystery!, but I am not sure so I'll leave it.

With the exception of the last two, these articles should link to the non existent article mentioned earlier. I do not belive that Mystery should be a set index article, but it should link to relevant ones. Taemyr 16:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The see also section.

My thoughts on the entries;

1. Anomalous phenomenon

This article is perhaps badly named and deals specifically with falsifying and refining hypothesis as part of the scientific method. So it's not an appropriate entry.

1. Earth mysteries

This article is a small enough stub that I have trouble deciding if it is relevant. I would nominate this article for deletion as being primarily a link repository. But it's less than two months since it was decided to keep so I didn't.

1. Sacred Mysteries

I see no reason to delete this entry, and fail to see the need to put it in a see also section.

1. Esoteric history

I see no reason to delete this entry, and fail to see the need to put it in a see also section.

Taemyr 06:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I see no reason to delete any of them but then I consider myself to be an inclusionist wikipedian... The DAB policy about not including links to articles that use the article name in them is just ridiculous--especially for articles that describe an aspect of the title (of which many DAB pages do anyway)! Consensus needs to change about this... ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 09:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Editing the dab pages is a poor way of changing consensus on a policy or guideline. See WP:Point. According to WP:CCC the way to change consensus is to take it up on the relevant talk page, the Village Pump, or through a Request for Comment. Note that the relevant talk page is Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation, because you are disagreeing with the guideline in general. If I have misunderstood you, and you have no problem with the guideline in general, but only to the application to this article then please argue why this article warrants a departure from it. Also, I believe the inclusionist creed pertains to the inclusion of articles on the project, not to what should be included in the dab's.Taemyr 10:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The policy does not need to change: if you want word search instead of a disambiguation page, you already know where to find it. --Piet Delport 23:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems clear from this discussion that the see also section should go. Except for Eep, who is inserting new entries by now. Both policy and consensus seems to indicate the desction should go. If no new opinions appear here. I will delete the section.-Catneven 09:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Uh, per the Manual of Style: Disambiguation™, the see also section is for titles where the article name is a part of, similar-named titles that can be confused with the article's title, and likely misspellings. Don't delete the section. ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 13:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see how the third three entries comply with those demands. The fourth is also not likely to generate confusion, but at least the first three should go.-Catneven 16:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Um, think about it, Cat: what does "mystery" mean? Esoteric, so Esoteric history (which used to be "ancient mysteries", incidentally) is obvious, but I'll succumb and just link to "esoteric". "Mystery" also means "arcanum", so the link to that is obvious. Previously deleted entries, which should be restored, are Ancient Mysteries, History's Mysteries, Sacred Mysteries, and Earth mysteries since "mystery" is part of the article name (well, the plural form is). "Myst" is short for "mystery", so that's worthy of inclusion to (as is a likely misspelling, mist). Anomalous phenomenon probably doesn't need to be linked, but anomaly does. I really don't see what the big deal is in linking to these mystery-related articles (or do I need to create yet another article for them too, List of mystery-related articles?) Gimme a freakin' break--THIS IS WHAT DAB PAGES ARE FOR! ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 03:52, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Dabs are not dictionary entries, and dabs are not thesauruses, and dabs are not lists of pages that include a word. Dabs are disambiguation pages that disambiguate articles that might otherwise have had the same title. The article at History's Mysteries was never in any danger of being titled "Mystery" or "Mysteries". ("Myst" is not short for "Mystery".) List of mystery-related articles would be fine from a dab guideline point of view, but would probably also end up deleted through the AfD process. -- JHunterJ 11:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

(dropping indent)Eep, you are under a misapprehension. DAB pages are not intended to clarify the meaning of a word. They are intended as a collection of targets for when a user types for example mystery into the search box and presses go. I would differ with JHunter on the criteria, mine would be title or possible redirect.

The title contains the word; There are about 800 pages on wikipedia that have Mystery in the title, lets assume about 75% of those are redirects. That leaves 200 pages of something mystery. A listing of these is not useful, because it takes too long time to browse and wikipedia have a search function.

The article is related to the word; I don't have any good criteria for mystery-related but, there are almost 50000 article that contains the word mystery. So 40000 articles should be a conservative estimate.

On some specific articles; There are enough TV shows devoted to mysteries that the inclusion of these is unhelpful. I have no opinion on a link to a list of these. anomaly is a list of scientific anomalities, most of which is not presently considered mysterious. Arcanum (disambiguation) is a dab page, and I see no relevant links out. Sacred Mysteries which I previously considered as something that should be included is a christian specific article of Mystery religion, so the latter is a better target. Esoteric history, could be included as it is currently written, but this article should be rewritten. Taemyr 15:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's search function doesn't give a brief description of the article, however. Wikipedia needs proper categorization and organizational structure with branching and partial and concatenated word-based linking. DAB pages are perfect for this. By all of this fallacious logic (from all 3 of you), you'd have to also remove "mystery fiction" (and not redirect "mystery" to "mystery fiction") since it's a combined form of "mystery" and "fiction"--oops; try again... ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 21:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a neural net. Dab pages are perfect for disambiguating articles that might otherwise have had the same title. Some things that have "Title" in them might also be dab targets -- Mount Fuji rightly belongs (at the top even) on Fuji. Some things, like Histories Mysteries, don't. You can't take one statement out of the guidelines out of context. -- JHunterJ 21:43, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Says who? Why should "Mount Fuji" take any more precedence--just because it's a mountain, or maybe cuz it's really big? Puhleaze...that's called bias, JHunter. ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 17:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Because the mountain is the most well-known entry by far (most of the others are named after it). See the Manual of Style about the order of entries. --Piet Delport 04:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Most well-known relative to who? Just because it's big doesn't mean it's well-known to people who don't even live near it. I've heard more about the Fuji Islands, for example, than the mountain. See? Those islands don't even exist (unless you call all of Japan an island...) Now, the Fiji Islands exist--and that's what a dab page is for--differentiating between misspellings, compound words (Mt. Fuji, Fujifilm, etc)--so if you're going to say no to linking to articles with the dab page's root word in them, you better be prepared to delete a LOT of content from dab pages! It's a stupid idea and consensus needs to change about this. ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 06:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Neural net? I fail to see the relevance. I personally feel it's a shame that topic maps is still in technological infancy.Taemyr 21:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

To Eep. Perhaps Wikipedia needs such an indexing scheme. However dab's are not perfect for it, because dab's serve a different purpose. "Mystery fiction" is included here and on the redirect since a lot of users use the word "mystery" when they refer to "mystery fiction". As in the phrase "Sarah Morton, a middle-aged English mystery writer" from Swimming Pool (film). Taemyr 22:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Appeal to majority fallacy... ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 17:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

What makes you think it's any fallacy? The intended purpose of disambiguation pages is exactly to disambiguate majority usage. --Piet Delport 04:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

It's a fallacy because it is (like that statement). You figure it out...(hint: I made the fallacy link more direct--click it this time). ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 06:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

You are missing the point. If people use the word "mystery" to refer to "mystery fiction", then the latter belongs on the disambiguation page by definition. There is no argument (and thus no question over its degree of fallaciousness) to begin with.

(For exactly the same reason, things like History's Mysteries don't belong on this page: people don't use the word "mystery" to refer to them. This is basic and uncontroversial disambiguation practice, and you're wasting everybody's time by arguing about it.) --Piet Delport 09:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Basic, relative to who, Piet? You? The majority (so you fallaciously presume)? Bah. How do you know people wouldn't refer to History's Mysteries as "mystery"? How do you know they wouldn't refer to the show as "History"--should a link to the show be on History (disambiguation)? You just can't speak/type for everyone--PERIOD. My proposal is to simply make it easier for people who think more relatively (in relationships). Wikipedia's navigation system needs a serious overhaul--and its dab pages are a good place to start, I feel. ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 00:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Then you'll need to build consensus, which you haven't been doing. For the particular example, can you cite a source that refers to History's Mysteries as "mystery"? -- JHunterJ 00:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Trying, but I can only build consensus so much with people who don't (or can't) see the light... ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 05:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

(unindenting)To Eep; We do not know this. We believe this. We are everyone that have commented on this page, except you. Something should be drawn from this empirical fact. There is no reason to belive that anyone would refer to History's Mysteries as either History or as Mystery. I have trouble imagining that you would. Wikipedia's navigation system might need to be improved, maintaining reachability in a site with millions of pages is non-trivial. But dab pages perform a needed function, that of resolving namespace conflicts. Almost regardless of restructuring this function will still be needed. Furthermore dab pages performs this function fairly good. The fact that this function is not the function you want them to perform is irrelevant. Taemyr 01:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

<chuckle> Oh what "logic"! Then, by that "logic", you better remove EVERY entry on EVERY dab page that includes links to pages that use the dab page's single word in them! "Mystery" doesn't make up part of "History's Mysteries" but "Mysteries" (plural of "mystery", in case you don't know), does. Duh! (I guess a separate "Mysteries" page needs to be created for people who don't know proper English, eh?) Just because you people don't know how to correctly, properly, and efficiently design a navigation system doesn't mean what I am proposing is wrong. I've had over 10 years of webpage navigation design experience. I created a website that used extensive interal linking (with multiple navigation systems) long before there even was a Wikipedia... ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 05:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

No one suggested any such removal, Eep²: you're creating a straw man. It also unfortunately does not matter how effective your navigation system is: you cannot single-handedly implement it on Wikipedia without consensus. --Piet Delport 06:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Uh, did you even bother reading what I and Taemyr wrote, Piet? Re-read it--carefully this time. Note how Taemyr is arguing against having "History's Mysteries" (and other TV shows/articles with "Mysteries" in them) for inclusion on the "Mystery (disambiguation)" article (which this talk page is for, in case you forgot). JHunter and others have repeatedly removed these entries from the dab page; that's not a straw man--that's the fact! If you remove such entries from this dab page, you have to remove all compound word entries from all dab pages--PERIOD! Are you prepared to do that? Good luck--it's the wrong move anyway. ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 12:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Removing entries that don't get referred to by "Mystery" does not imply removing entries that do. No one ever suggested removing all compound entries (such as Mystery play and Mystery Strange).

The fact that disambiguation pages are not indiscriminate lists of titles has been repeatedly explained to you, and is spelled out very clearly in the official guidelines. --Piet Delport 15:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The fact that dab guidelines are inconsistent, contradictory, and hypocritical doesn't seem to sink into you, despite being repeatedly shown to you and others. See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Contradictory statements in WP:MOSDP and WP:D for more info. ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 00:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I would just like to comment that this discussion is getting off-topic for an article talk page. Eep²: if you want to propose a better disambiguation system, that's great, but you should pursue it further through the relevant channels; here is not the place. --Piet Delport 05:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Um, I have, but no one is participating there so this is the place for the discussion. ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 05:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

No, this isn't.

If no one participates there, you have to try harder (there). --Piet Delport 06:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm continuing here since the discussion is directly relevant to this dab page. Yes, it can apply to other dab pages but, for now, it applies to this one only. Deal with it. ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 12:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Mystery may also refer to: / Mystery may also be used for:

I find the presence of two headers that mean essentially the same as difficult read. Taemyr 10:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

They are meant to separate entries of "X (qualifier)" and "Adjective X" from entries of "Y", synonym of X and "Z", mentioned in some subsection of another article; according to WP:MOSDAB. I put three entries in the wrong place anyway, and the list is (currently) short enough that it could be collapsed without any real problem. -- JHunterJ 12:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Compromise

(continuing from the "see also" discussion above)

I would like to propose keeping Anomalous phenomenon under "see also": it covers several subjects which are colloquially referred to as "mysteries" (e.g. Fortean mysteries, "... Nature's Greatest Mysteries").

Does this sound acceptable? --Piet Delport 06:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• support -Catneven 09:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

You choose the least-relevant entry of the lot--good going! <eyeroll> ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 12:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure about least relevant, some of the articles that Eep have dug up have been a pretty far reach. But Anomalous phenomenon is one of the poorer candidates for inclusion. Taemyr 13:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)