Talk:Tokyo Mew Mew

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Featured articleTokyo Mew Mew is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Featured topic starTokyo Mew Mew is the main article in the Tokyo Mew Mew series, a featured topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 9, 2010.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 6, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
July 22, 2008Featured article candidateNot promoted
August 19, 2008Good article nomineeListed
October 16, 2008Featured article candidatePromoted
October 3, 2009Featured topic candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article

Non-English adaptations[edit]

Message revoked, because it's use-less to argue. - 212.235.186.231 (talk) 16:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC) (original message)[reply]

There is nothing to discuss. Your fake letter is irrelevant and in the ANI the "letter" you posted said they wanted Wikipedia's guidelines followed, not you harrasing people and continuing to try to get your way. This topic has already been discussed ad nausem. You can try socking with IPs all you want, that is not going to change anything. This is not a fansite. The non-English adaptations are minor and have already received all the attention they will get per Wikipedia policy. If you want to go into minute detail about character names and voice actors for other versions, go to THOSE language Wikipedias or Wikia. Consensus has long agreed that such stuff is not appropriate for inclusion in these articles. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS on an unrelated topic is not a valid reason to complain here. And, in fact, that article on the Simpsons has been deleted multiple times before, and is going back to AfD again. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Message revoked, because it's use-less to argue. - 212.235.186.231 (talk) 16:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC) (original message)[reply]
You have, in fact, not proven that the letter was real and no one has any reason to believe you. And your continued threats to take me or anyone else to ANI are really not going to get your anywhere (FYI, threatening is also against WP:CIVIL and a far graver offense than pointing out that you are not acting appropriately and have done nothing to make your case. As for the Simpsons, go read the new AfD which points to multiple previous AfDs it was deleted under, that were not mentioned in the 2007 AfD. There are also only two such articles in all of the television articles on Wikipedia, which shows a far greater consensus AGAINST such articles than anything else, as does the deletion of a lot of the fancruft you and others had made for Tokyo Mew Mew previous for non-Japanese and non-English versions. The consensus here is clear and you throwing tantrums and making threats will not change that at all. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Message revoked, because it's use-less to argue. - 212.235.186.231 (talk) 17:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC) (original message)[reply]
For anyone reading from outside - ANI's resulting in warnings to Obraislo to stop harassing and drop it already, and his "apologizing" and promising to stop bringing this up and that he was going to make his own site instead. Previous discussion on this editor (who is the 212 IP):
And here is his original post to this talk page (which was removed for being an attack on other editors)[1]-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 07:23, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Message revoked, because it's use-less to argue. - OBrasilo (talk) 05:40, 30 January 2010 (UTC) (original message)[reply]
There is nothing left to discuss and there is not getting "back on topic" when you clearly can not "remember" your promises to stop harassing people and bring up this topic every other week just because consensus is firmly against you (which is why you are mostly being ignored). This is the English wikipedia, period. If you want to go make your own wiki, feel free, but the overwhelming consensus of THIS Wikipedia is that no, we will not give excessive, undue coverage to minor foreign variations with no actual reliable sourcing. The community has already decided that this article appropriately covers the foreign releases by nature of its being a featured article - completely/comprehensiveness is a featured criteria. We have already reached a proper consensus, only you continue to reject it purely based on your personal beliefs. And some random FAQ has nothing to do with this discussion or any actual policy, discussion, nor consensus. Now seriously, why don't you actually keep your promise for one and leave this article, and me, alone and go do like you once agreed to avoid getting blocked and go start your own fansite where you can yammer about every foreign language version in pages of details all you want. You have no valid points at all, just your personal preference to have YOUR language version highlighted, and a history of incivility and harassment to go with it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 07:06, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Message revoked, because it's use-less to argue. - OBrasilo (talk) 16:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC) (original message)[reply]

Oppose Coverage of non-English versions is currently adequate. Non biased view required to acknowledge existence of non-English versions not the make a lavish and extensive writing about them. Beside i find focusing on how the work was adapted around the world in an over detailed way instead of the fictional work itself is distracting at best and completely unbalancing the whole article at the worst. If some persons want that kind of information please feel free to do so on Wikia or on a personal website but not on Wikipedia. As for the Non-English versions of The Simpsons, you will notice that it's a spin-out article not inside the very Simpsons article where i don't think it would be well received it best. --KrebMarkt 08:05, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Message revoked, because it's use-less to argue. - OBrasilo (talk) 16:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC) (original message)[reply]
Just to make it clear, I'm no longer interested in discussing anything here. I clearly have no way to convince anyone here of the pro's of my side, so I'm officially dropping it. Have a nice day, everyone. :) - OBrasilo (talk) 16:56, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you are "dropping it", then why are you restarting it somewhere else? —Farix (t | c) 17:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hardly restarting, I'm just seeking counselling to see, what can be done about this issue about Anime, and Manga, in general. I only mentioned the Tokyo Mew Mew article displute there as an example of what I'm talking about there. I AM dropping this about Tokyo Mew Mew, but I'm still seeking counselling on how to behave, if I ever get involved in such an issue again in the future. - OBrasilo (talk) 17:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is no issue, except to you. If you want to get counsel on how to behave, go back and read the ANI, WP:CIVIL, WP:CONSENUS, and WP:GAME. Better yet, learn some basic honesty, keep the "promises" you make, and go away already. You want to be upset because the TMM articles were actually improved per Wikipedia standards, which includes removing all the fancruft you and a certain blocked editor added, putting in real sources, rewriting it, and actually doing a ton of expansion of valid content so that it is featured quality, then that's your problem. If you object to articles being improved, you really have no place at Wikipedia, because that should be the goal of ALL editors here: improving articles to meet Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and try to get to the highest quality possible. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:42, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I shall remember you that there are articles for anime series never licensed in English and also articles for manga never published in English. On that basis you can't say that animanga hate stuff not in English.
Second i shall point you that trying to insert a fact without providing any reliable source to assert it in a Featured Article is bound to be reverted on sight like here. --KrebMarkt 18:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't claim animanga hate stuff not in English, what I mean is, that animanga (and some other WikiProjects as well), have an issue of Anglo-centric systemic bias.
And I never inserted anything into this article after it became FA, I only ever touched the talk page. - OBrasilo (talk) 20:42, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, let's truly drop it this time. Someone please delete this section from here. - OBrasilo (talk) 20:42, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bring reliable sources (independant ones if they are commentary) that verify the information from non-English sources and then we can talk about systemic bias.陣内Jinnai 06:38, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sectioning EL[edit]

Shall we divide up the sections in EL? wp:mos says not to use bold.174.3.110.108 (talk) 07:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The EL section looks fine, and there is no such language limiting boldface in WP:MOS or WP:EL. If this was a real style issue, then it would have came up during the Featured Article nomination. —Farix (t | c) 11:23, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bold is fine for the sectioning in this case and ELs are minor sections that should not have multiple subsections. The only reason this one has so many ELs at all is that most of its official sites have remained up long after the show itself was gone. However, another one has finally gone down, and as we have changed how we do the ANN links, I'm not cleaning that out some. Even your "advocate" has told you the changes were not good and that the EL should not be sectioned. How many more opposes do you need before you stop this? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:07, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kodansha USA Version[edit]

Since Tokyopop is no longer the official English version as Kodansha is now publishing the English version, I would suggest redoing the TMM pages to reflect the new official English version. --24.125.18.239 (talk) 19:21, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Tokyo Mew Mew. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:23, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Tokyo Mew Mew. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:17, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Tokyo Mew Mew. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:54, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tokyo_Mew_Mew&oldid=1209142964"