User talk:AnmaFinotera/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Still Doll and Suna no Oshiro?

These articles are barely necessary, what do you think we should do with them? moocowsrule^{(Talk to Moo)} 01:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Redirected both to the artist page. They fail WP:MUSIC. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:13, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Kanon wakeshima promo picture.jpg and all it's duplicates don't appear to have fair use tags. What should we do with them? moocowsrule^{(Talk to Moo)} 01:16, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Its been tagged before, he keeps removing them. I've retagged, and tagged all of its duplicates, along with the dupes and most of the other images he's uploaded. I swear it looks like he's socking as well...*sigh* -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:22, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

:D We're going to my grandma's for hors d'oeuvres moocowsrule^{(Talk to Moo)} 02:06, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

XD It turns out the party was tomorrow... モーモー^?_{talk to moo} 04:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

LOL -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Extreme Makeover fails

I was reading some thing on ICv2 about Santa Inoue's appearance on Extreme Makeover: Home Edition painting a whole mural on a boy's wall and Tokyopop contributing over 300 manga volumes. I'm hoping the "boy" was at least 16, because Santa Inoue is not a kid's mangaka and i'mza hoping that all those 300 manga were kid appropriate, becuase the chances are, they were not. I also doubt that Extreme Makeover knows anything about manga. – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 23:06, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

LOL...if not, it should be interesting when the episode airs :D -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

No, that was back in 2004. : ) Here's the article at ICv2. I've been treying to look for at least the part of the episode with Santa in it on YouTube, but nothing. I guess i'll just wait and see when the episode comes on, because I really like that show. :-D – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 23:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Ahhh...I'd guess it probably was age appropriate, or the show wouldn't have aired :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Can you be a bit more specific. What was probobly age appropriate? Tokyo Tribes of Extreme Makeover? – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 23:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

XD Santa... And that's really his name... I WISH MY NAME WAS SANTA... ;D モーモー^?_{talk to moo} 23:45, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

The resulting mural. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Well yeah, that was kid appropriate. If he sees Santa Inoue on his wall and probobly got his Explicit Stickered Tokyo Tribes, no dought, he's going to get into his stuff. Plus, what about the 300 manga volumes Tokyopop gave him? : P – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 23:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Probably all age appropriate. TP wouldn't risk giving him something rated M or the like if he's a kid. They have a huge enough library...probably a bunch of old out of print stuff :-P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:47, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

He's probobly older because how would they know about Santa Inoue? They probobly looked in his collection. The wierd thing is they reffered to him as "a boy", which normally means like 6 or younger. If he was 6 years old and he had Tokyo Tribes, then he must have some pretty stupid parents. – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 01:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Most of the time, the media refers to any male child under 16 as a boy. :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

		The "Holy snap, I've Got a Lot of Barnstars and Jump Guru doesn't even know why he gave you a similar barnstar like this one to you back when you only had like 10 barnstars and the reason he's giving you this very special barnstar is becuase you have exactly 30 which is three 10's instead of one barnstar" Barnstar
		You've got 30 barnstars, yay. – J U M P G U R U ■ask㋐㋜㋗■ 02:33, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

ROFLOL. And thanks, totally forgot to move over my most recent ones to my accomplishments page. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:41, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Blood: The Last Vampire

See 5 Centimeters Per Second. It uses "5" in the Japanese title (秒速５センチメートル) but the "5" is pronounced "Go" (the Japanese word for 5). Tons of other examples but I can't think of any others... D: モーモー^?_{talk to moo} 05:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Neither a GA nor FA level article, not even B. I meant please point to an actual policy or guideline saying to write obviously roman letters in Japanese when the Japanese itself has 2000. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

There's no policy on something as insignificant as that. The romaji section provides the reading in Latin characters to the Kanji/Japanese title. If the Japanese title uses "ブラッド ザ・ラストヴァンパイア２０００" then the romaji title is "Buraddo Za Rasuto Vanpaia Nisen". You can leave it as "...2000" but the pronunciation is "Nisen" in Japanese. モーモー^?_{talk to moo} 05:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but its still written as 2000 :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

DDDD: This is hard. I'm trying to write out the lyrics to Still Alive in Japanese and it's really hard D: モーモー^?_{talk to moo} 05:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I mean it's hard because Hatsune Miku speaks really weird Japanese... モーモー^?_{talk to moo} 05:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

And I've had to use the Radical lookup extensively... モーモー^?_{talk to moo} 05:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Why are you trying to write them out? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:02, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I really like the game, and I like the song. + I don't have anything else to do XD モーモー^?_{talk to moo} 06:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

XD "The "Holy snap, I've Got a Lot of Barnstars and Jump Guru doesn't even know why he gave you a similar barnstar like this one to you back when you only had like 10 barnstars and the reason he's giving you this very special barnstar is becuase you have exactly 30 which is three 10's instead of one barnstar" Barnstar" モーモー^?_{talk to moo} 06:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Wrong Arts & Sciences

I did not create College of Arts and Sciences (Bukidnon State University). I created a redirect which evidently was later hijacked. -choster (talk) 04:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah...Twinkle probably got confused. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

No worries. I set up College of Arts and Sciences again. -choster (talk) 23:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Author article

I was thinking on making an article for Shiori Teshirogi. What requirements does the author need to have for the article? Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 00:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

He would need to meet WP:N and WP:CREATIVE. With only three works, I'd say he doesn't likely meet that requirement unless he's had some significant coverage in reliable third party sources. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Image tagging

Hello, fellow upload log watcher! I noticed you often use both the {{nsd}} and {{nld}} tags on an image. There is alao a tag, {{nsnld}}, which addresses both concerns at the same time. The message is a bit more compact, and I believe it categorizes the image into both cleanup categories at once. Thought you might be interested. (ESkog)^(Talk) 06:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm using User:Howcheng/quickimgdelete.js to do my tagging...it would be good if it could switch to using that :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

List of Vampire Knight episodes

I'll probably finish copy-editing sometime tomorrow (or maybe even tonight if I get a second wind. Too much melodrama to crank through :D). When I finish, can I nominate it for FLC and name you as a co-nom? — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 07:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure, though I didn't do much beyond formatting and adding a lead (and get annoyed that working on it totally spoiled the anime and manga for me LOL) :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 07:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Eh, having the most edits to a page (71) typically means your a major contributor. And IMO, they fucked up the ending in the anime. The manga version was way better. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 08:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Good to hear (on the ending)...hopefully I can avoid spoilers to it ;) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 08:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

University of South Carolina Upstate College of Arts and Sciences

Wouldn't it make more sense to just merge and redirect it to University of South Carolina Upstate? Cheers! bd2412 T 19:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Not really. Its not a likely search term and doesn't appear to have any mergeable data. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Link for the info.

What I put there is true information. Here is the link: http://www.yugiohfans.co.uk/characters.html . Check AKi's profile there. Thanks. Beejay1234 (talk) 09:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

That is not a reliable source at all, so the information is completely invalid. As already suspected, that is nothing more than a fansite. Information from such sites are not usable here at all and, as you've already been told multiple times, that information is not considered "true" by Wikipedia standards. If you continue to try readding it, you will be reported and likely find yourself blocked. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 09:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

List of Naruto: Shippūden episodes → List of Naruto: Shippuden episodes

User:Moon-sunrise recently moved List of Naruto: Shippūden episodes to List of Naruto: Shippuden episodes, by copy-and-paste. Don't we need an admin to merge the old history into the new history? moocowsrule^{talk to moo} 22:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Already done, but yet, an admin had to fix it. I've left her a warning. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

huh? You can't speedy delete these, right?

Check out the latest edits to User:Lightningleakless and Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Disney-Pixar_Cars_Die-Cast_Line SpikeJones (talk) 00:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

How odd...user pages can be speedied if they are attack pages, but usually MfD is the method to go through. The talk page of the AfD is fine since it generally shouldn't exist. Admin should have fun with those :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Hellsing (disambiguation)

I still think there's no reason to keep this dab. Maybe all of the Hellsing anime redirects would have been better off targeting Hellsing (TV series). What should be imposed? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree. At this point the page could (and probably should) either be deleted or redirected to Hellsing. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Suggest tagging it with {{db-disambig}}. And the redirects? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

For now, yes, if its about the anime it should redirect there. The discussion is back and forth on merging it to the main, so currently no apparent consensus. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Tagged it. Shall I switch the anime redirect links over to Hellsing (TV series) or did you have something else in mind? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Go for it, I've already closed the merge discussion. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

There should definitely be another merge discussion soon. Were WP:ANIME and WP:TELEVISION even aware of that one? I don't remember ... Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the anime project was, don't remember. TV doesn't generally get notified of such discussions since it has nothing to do with the project. :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Well I assumed they would've been notified too since the disambiguator says '(TV series)'. BTW, did you happen to catch this? A real rule would settle that ongoing dispute. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Nah...I think the disambiguate is TV just to differentiate it from the OVA, following the example in the MoS, since it has multiple anime forms. And yes, I saw...an RfC might be better to open it to a fuller list of editors, but I suspect people will just say "nah, let people use reflist if they want cause references aren't really important and should be hidden anyway." And they wonder why Wikipedia's reliability is questioned when the references are treated like an annoyance rather than a critical part of the article...-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

If the real problem is <references/> why don't the opposing editors request deletion? Heck, even I'll mark it for deletion if that's what it takes. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

<references/> can't be deleted. :P Its a core part of the software, and reflist uses it to make the references list, it just wraps it in CSS. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see. The others can be deleted because they're templates right? Still, why did they have to go and create {{Reflist}}? I don't see a necessity for smaller text, or the possibility for two or more columns. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

No idea. The page history doesn't really have much discussion on its creation. I like the 2 cols because it looks neat and tidy, but smaller really shouldn't be necessary except for articles with a lot of references (really, 10 is a small number). In an ideal world, it would be closer to 20 or 30 for reflist, and 40 for two cols, but don't think others will agree. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I think we have no choice but to bring back the hatnote. Our speedy was declined, and another link has been added to the dab by that editor you reverted. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I've let a note the declining admin about the CSD to make sure she understood that all the links were from the same franchise and that we normally don't do disambigs in cases like that. The Helsing link seems unnecessary to me (and was previously removed), and could easily be added to Hellsing with {{confused}} if necessary. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I might as well fix up the dab page while it's still there. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

(<-deindent) Cool. If you get a chance, can you take a look at Hershey's, which I created as a disambig from a redirect and Hershey (disambiguation), which I expanded, and make sure I didn't mess anything up or add anything that isn't fitting with the disambig guidelines? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

It looks more or less ok to me, but it might be better if it got attention from others associated with cleaning dabs. So I marked it for cleanup ;) Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Cool. BTW, I've posted a suggestion that Hershey (disambiguation) take over the Hershey redirect here: Talk:Hershey, Pennsylvania#Move proposal if you want to offer any views. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Teletubbies say Eh-oh!

FYI. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• Re your edit summary "DYK for Teletubbies say Eh-oh!: remove - point? DYK does no checking for notability nor anything else": No particular point - just interesting to see the article appear on the main page, albeit briefly (it has scrolled off now, it seems). As for DYK, I'm fairly new to this but my understanding is that articles are scrutinsed carefully in several ways as DYK is quite competitive and there is natural concern about the quality of articles which are highlighted on the main page. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Not really. They are quick checked for factual accuracy but that's it. No other quality checking nor notability checking nor even checking as to whether the article is valid is done. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar!

		The Pulling Everyone Away From The Dead Horse Barnstar
		Thank you for closing this discussion and reminding everyone that people make the decisions here, not tools! Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 15:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Adult Swim task force project tagging

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

This has nothing to do with the articles. The CN/AS template is added because these anime/manga articles are of interest to editors of the project, and as such, falls under the scope. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, the topics are not under the scope of either of those projects. This has always been the case for Cartoon Network, and as Adult Swim is a taskforce under that project, you have to have the parent's project approval before trying to go outside of its scope (Turning around and removing that line from the AS task force shows very poor form and does not change the fact that the articles are still NOT within the CN realm). The Cartoon Network project very specifically notes that it is only for CN's original programming, which excludes all anime that airs on the network, including the stuff that airs on Adult Swim except for CN original creations. The AS task force says the exact same thing: does not cover anime. I suggest you actually pay attention to the scopes before you decide to go reverting people's attempts to correct your errors. Also, the Television project does not cover anime/manga at all and will not do anything with them, period, hence Anime/manga being a separate project with a larger scope, its related but the individual articles are NOT in the realm of both. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

There is an Adult Swim task force. So what you're saying is that the AS taskforce can't "claim" scope in the articles because the CN project doesn't work on it? That there's a taskforce for AS makes the template apply. I don't need consensus to include these projects because there's exactly no controversy from them over including it, just anime fans who are claiming ownership of these articles.

And the idea of the AS taskforce doesn't cover anime or off-network programming was a decision made by one user. [Comments felt to be uncivil removed] A reversion of an edit by one person related to the policy of the AS task force while the scope of the AS task force is still under development? And under your logic that we need permission to have a scope on anime articles from CN WP, wouldn't we need permission to increase the scope to cover Adult Swim articles? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Correct. The task force can NOT extend itself outside of the project scope, which you are attempting to do. That is why a CN member corrected the page and why it is inappropriate for you to remove that line and then claiming it goes against consensus is false when you are the only person there. Also, your edit summary of "Of interest and relevance to members of the Adult Swim taskforce." is blatantly false and misleading when you are currently the only listed member of that new taskforce. In either case, interest to members is irrelevant for determining the task force scope, which is determined in large part by its parent project, which in turn is determined by consensus withing the overall Wikipedia project guidelines regarding scope and the function of projects. Projects are not about member interest. They aren't fan groups, the are editing groups within projects. Perhaps you should actually take some time to read up on the purpose of Wikipedia projects before trying to decide what determines scope. And yes, you do need consensus to change the CN project scope, including adding a task force that covers Adult Swim (and BTW, WP:CANVASSing is not appropriate either so make sure all those messages you are sending out are neutral and point to a central discussion). Before you remove validly added qualifiers, start a discussion instead of now going against two editors who have corrected your task force page (in a group of 3, that's consensus). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Until there is REAL consensus to expand the AS scope to include anime, please do NOT continue reverting your tag additions and do not tag anymore articles from the anime scope. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

That CN member is also a participant in the AS task force, if you read the talk page (though he hasn't signed up for it). And just curious, but do you honestly believe that a network that has had dozens of animes aired would not have any interested parties? I guess if you push aside common sense and logic, you have something resembling a point if you squint really hard and look at it from an awkward angle. If members of the AS task force are interested in editing articles, then it is relevant and should be listed under CN's project banner. [Comments felt to be uncivil removed] And why is it you haven't explained why the AS taskforce can cover Adult Swim topics? If CN not covering anime = AS not covering anime, why can AS cover AS when CN doesn't? Oh, right - because they have different scopes.

And nice job accusing me of canvassing. Apparently, messaging every single member of the project you claim formed a consensus against AS and anime being covered on the project is canvassing. WHo should I have messaged? People who have nothing to do with the CN project at all? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

You formed the task force without consensus, from what I can see. I've only actually seen one project member voice any support for its creation. Again, the point of a project is NOT "oh, members interested in this are probably also interested in that." The Cartoon Network project focuses primarily on the original CN programming, not the other shows it airs. There is really no reason at all for such an overlap. And sorry, but I've never said I don't like the project. When there IS valid overlap, multiple tagging is fine, but this isn't the case here. And yes, it is rather canvassing when you don't point to a central discussion and instead of just leaving a note on the project talk page (like I did) you appeared to be hand selecting people (now you've gone back and messaged all the rest, which is a bit spammy, but oh well). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

What the Hell are you talking about? I messaged every single person associated with the CN project. It is only technically hand-selecting people, in the sense that I hand-selected only people who care - you want me to be unbiased and message the Family Guy members too? There was no opposition to an AS taskforce, and there's no real way that it can be opposed, as AS programming is not covered in any project or task force. And none of the people I've messaged have commented negatively of the task force, either. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

You also didn't link anyone except ONE person to the central discussion. And yes, the AS taskforce CAN still be opposed. People aren't allowed to just create a taskforce of one and if the CN project decides to reject it, it can (and likely will) be deleted via XfD. AS programming does not HAVE to be covered by any project or task force. Its a small scope and can easily be dealt with by the existing Television project. And none of the people you messaged have commented at all except one asking why you were asking him. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, yes, if you assume that what I am doing is linking only one person to the discussion, then you're right, I did. But if you come back to reality, no, I did not. And yes it can, but no it hasn't. No one seems to bring up whether it warrants existence by you, who just seems to be spiteful that someone wants to add something to your article's talk page. The fact that no one has opposed its existence should scream "no one cares". Except you, who's not even a member and doesn't have anything to do with either the project or task force, of course. It's not a small scope (until you remove half of the articles from its scope because CN's scope doesn't cover it). If you want, I'll propose it as a WikiProject. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you did, edits don't lie. You are NOW going back linking people, after I pointed it out to you. And please don't start throwing around AGF after your accusation that I removed the tagging because I have some hatred for the CN project. Do you think the entire world sits on Wikipedia 24/7 or something? How about giving people TIME to respond to the discussions instead of somehow claiming that after a short time no one has opposed it so no one should care. And no, I'm not a member of the CN project because I'm a member of the far larger Television project and saw no need to be in both when CN-related articles must follow the TV project guidelines anyway, and I am also a member of the anime/manga project because it encompasses many different related media of which anime is only part, and it has its own unique set of guidelines. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

[Comments felt to be uncivil removed] I linked to them because a discussion was made. You seem to think that messaging every single involved party is not "good enough". And your constant argument of "you have to follow this scope" is bullcrap - CN's scope is "non-AS", so how can the AS taskforce even exist? One of the original members of the CN project even rebutted your claim that it doesn't cover anime, so why must the AS taskforce not cover anime? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 22:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Star Wars isn't originally anime in any way shape or form anyway. But I'm done discussing this here with you, as there is now a central discussion with other people and I've responded there regarding your continued red herring argument about the task force's existence meaning it should cover anime even if CN doesn't. Also, you may want to revisit your tone...isn't your block log for edit warring and incivility long enough for you to have learned better? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Katamari Damacy, Mario Bros., and Kirby's Dream Land

None of the articles should be at GA and definatly not FA status. Not even close, these should be at C-class. Kirby has referneces in the lead which should be a summary of the article, and even has some unreliable sources (GA-class). Mario Bros. has references in the lead, 2 of which aren't reliable. Katamari, I don't even have to say anything about that one (FA-class). – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 22:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Katamari Damacy went through FAR in September and was kept (barely), though it has been allowed to deteriorate yet again. A note might be needed to remind whowever is editing it now to do some clean up before it ends up back at FAR in March. Mario Bros. passed GA in December and while I'd have probably requested some changes, including moving referenced material out of the lead and doing better about following WP:LEAD, its biggest issue seems to be the use of possible non-RS sources (no time to check them at the moment). If they are RS, though, its fine. I would agree that Kirby's Dream Land, which passed in July 2007, has some issues that need to either be addressed to bring it back up to GA standards, or be GARed for serious sourcing issues and the poor lead. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to improve KDL and KD, but in the first one, I don't think I could find better sources (it's not easy to find sources for it), and I don't really have enough interest in working on KD right now. MB, however, while it may have a few kinks, doesn't need to be GARed, it just needs to be improved in some ways - I think only a few references may be below the threshold. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 22:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd think KD would have lots of sources as I remember it being pretty popular for awhile, though may need to tap Japanese sources as well. With MD, I agree, right now it seems like the fixes are mostly quick ones that should be relatively easy to address to bring it back to GA levels. KDL should probably be GARed, but since you're planning on working on it, don't see a huge need to rush that. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I actually may request it myself - I can't find anything better for sourcing. It's more like I'd like to improve it, but KDL I don't think can improve without extreme focus, and while it's not a good philosophy, I'd like to improve some other articles, like Rune Factory 2, Mario Bros., and Robocalypse. As for KD, I'll probably have to give it a look for sources. Also, I've been meaning to do so, but could you GAR Super Mario Land? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 00:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Already been done. Some GARed it in December :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah! Didn't even notice. Well, hopefully someone can improve it eventually. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 02:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Inoue joe?

This page is better then the one I created... But it's still not that great.

It doesn't use the Nihongo template, and is missing a lot of information. The bio appears to be copied from his official site. moocowsrule^{talk to moo} 05:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Tagged for deletion. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Merging sections?

Should I just merge the two games section in the article List of characters in Tales of Symphonia? I can't seem to find a good example of an article of a game that involves a new cast of protagonist who are joined by all of the old cast's protagonist.DragonZero (talk) 06:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I think so, yes. While not a game character, see the List of Naruto characters list, which doesn't separate by series, as well as List of Tokyo Mew Mew characters which has a whole new set of antagonists and a two new protagonists joining in the sequel. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Ah My Goddess episodes (season 1)

Hello, AnmaFinotera. Thanks for your comments on my FLC! Without such comments, I would have no hope of improving, neh? I have a few questions about your oppose though, mostly about the format of WP:ANIME FL leads. List of Bleach episodes (season 6), which I based my list off of, does not have a single mention of DVD releases in other regions or countries. Furthermore, the reflist at the bottom of the Bleach episodes has both the general and the specific refs. For me, these refs serve to confirm the English titles. Thank you for taking the time to help me get this through FLC! Feel free to respond on my main talk page. NOCTURNENOIR^talk 02:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Bleach has a general reference list for the airdates, not the titles (which are sourced to the eps themselves). It doesn't have a specific ref for the airdates on the header, which is why it has general ones. Your list has a specific reference so it doesn't need general ones. Also, since the AMG season 1 is really a separate series in terms of its release outside of Japan, I think it is good to have a lead more in-line with a regular episode list instead of a sublist. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Re:Post Oak Mall

When I linked puppy store to puppy mill, I did not really think about what a puppy mill and naturally assumed it just raised and sold dogs. It just seems really awkward otherwise. "...and a puppy store." Since the name of the store is The Puppy Store, couldn't we put link/write it as "dog store", or "pet store selling puppies", or something like that? Secondly, the Sears store in the Manor East Mall...if that were true, it would of had to go in what would be Wal-Mart. However, others say it was located at Townshire (near College Avenue). [1] They all seemed to agree, and it would make sense...almost no early 1970s mall had Sears, JCPenney, and Montgomery Ward (Rolling Acres Mall was the first) unless time forgot. Furthermore, a real article suggests that Sears was not in Manor East Mall.[2] It doesn't mention Sears at all. TheListUpdater (talk) 23:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Puppy mills are horrible, cruel places that are illegal in many states, frequently the target of animal rights groups, etc. They also are not stores, in the true sense of the word, but sell either to consumers from their location or, primarily, bulk sell to stores like The Puppy Store that sell to unsuspecting (or uncaring) people. Just because that article doesn't mention Sears doesn't mean it wasn't there. Its a summary of the past while talking about the new one and claiming that because it doesn't mention Sears means Sears wasn't there is WP:OR. And, quite frankly, I trust a local historical book by an expert over people's memories in a forum, as does wikipedia (though seeing a very old picture of Manor East was cool). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Bat-Manga!

How do you like the new article I created: Bat-Manga!: The Secret History of Batman in Japan. Anything you would suggest. =) – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 18:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Interesting series...might have to look for a copy. The other Batman manga was a great read. For suggestions, "Criticism" shouldn't be a separate section, it should be part of the reception section. Wikify About.com in the text. On the second review, Ted Anthony is not from Yahoo!, he is an AP national writer (basically a syndicated piece), so the wording should be changed to reflect that. The specific link just happens to be the Yahoo! News link (the story itself appeared in many news sources). For the reception section overall, I think you relied too much on direct quoting and not enough overall summary. Take a look at the Tokyo Mew Mew reception section to get an idea of how to balance to two. If batmanga.com is a valid URL, just use it rather than having a side note about a redirect or remove the side note - it isn't necessary either way. Add a plot summary if possible, and the lead is too short (again, TMM is a good guide for what the lead should have). Hope that helps (and Happy 2009) :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I was just ging too keep the lead short until the page has all the information needed, but I think it does. :D Thank you for the help. So how is life treating you? – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 19:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I've finally stopped trying to cough up my poor lungs, and whatever respiratory infection I have seems to be clearing...so of course the weather went nuts again and now its 36 and rainy outside and I've started coughing again (though not as bad at least). Otherwise, not bad...I'm replaying Final Fantasy X-2 and last night I finally beat Angra Mainyu on my fourth try (and after an hour and a half long battle @_@). I forgot the game is fairly short, story wise, but then you have psycho bosses to deal with before you can get the perfect ending at the end. Doh. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Final Fantasy X-2? I want to get that game. Sadly, I haven't even bought Bat-Manga! yet. ;_; However, I'm going to go to Meltdown and get the limited edition hardcover. Which I actually mentioned in the article, it's a comic store I go to all the time. :-D Quite the drive though. – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 19:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Its a good game. For the article, that should really be removed (the comic book promo stuff)...doesn't really belong there. :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Took it off. : ) I was worried it would take a chunk out of the article, but no. I scored on the picture, it's very high res. – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 19:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Wait a minute, actually Chip Kidd stated that it's not only about the manga, it is about the Batman craze altogether, plus teh hardcover has a manhua in it. What should I do? I need a lot of revamping now. But most of the book is the manga nad most of sources source the manga only. :-P – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 01:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Wait, is it a manga or is it a book about the manga? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

It is a manga, but has pictures of Japanese vinatge Batman toys and Kidd states that it is about the Batman craze rather than just the manga. – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 02:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay...but that's only in the one hardcover release, right? In which case, that's fine, just note that in the re-release, extras were added (consider them similar to the extra side-stories and side bar notes of a regular manga). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, no, the toys are both in soft and hardcover. But it's fine, the manga takes up most of the book, besides, it is called Bat-Manga! not Bat-Manga, Toys, Manhua, God of Africa. LOL – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 02:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

O.O Intense skillz... It's so dramatic... moocowsrule^{talk to moo} 03:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

:D I found it! I never really knew the official title of the song I played at this one recital thingy... [3] but I found it on Youtube :D moocowsrule^{talk to moo} 03:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Structure

Hi, could you set up the basic structuring for this article Mega Man Star Force 3? It's a mess and I'm not really good at structuring something from scratch.DragonZero (talk) 03:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Ewww...man, that is a mess. What's with the two covers and the "version names?" I don't quite get that...is it the same game, just two different covers? Why is the article under a presumed title when it isn't even licensed yet? It should be under Shooting Star Rockman 3 unless/until its licensed under the other name. I've made a rough attempt at fixing the article some, though the 2nd games article isn't much better :( The plot needs a lot of work, I basically tried to guess what people were trying to say from all the rumor stuff. I also fixed the vandalism that was done back on the 1st that went unnoticed. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that really helped alot. I'll see what I can do the first two games, though the only problem that I can see with them are the references, and the plot for the second game.DragonZero (talk) 07:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

No prob and good luck :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 07:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Something for you

		Anime and manga service award
		For tagging and assessing 200 articles in Tag & Assess 2008, by order of the coordinators I hereby present you with this Service Award. G.A.Stalk 16:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

As always, keep up the good work:) G.A.S^talk 16:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks :) I need to get those TMM eps finished and the Ichigo section...finally feeling better, yay! -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Good luck on those! And good to hear that you are feeling better... I did notice you were not feeling well :(. I am happy that the T&A is finally over, at some point it seemed like it would never finish... And that I would have to do the remaining 2,050 myself (A very scary thought). At least I should now be able to get back to some long outstanding cleanup work:).

Luckily it was much quicker handing out the awards.

At the moment all of the articles have a class assigned, ~99% have importance assigned, and ~90 still need the checklist filled out. The checklist was actually a good idea... Many articles do seem to improve after they are assessed.

To be honest, assessing 3,800 articles (plus who-knows-how-many unassessed articles added to the scope since) has been a very insightful exercise... In terms of getting an idea of the articles within our scope, their average quality, outstanding mergers, etc. etc. Though having browsed a few articles under the TV and Films scopes I can truly say that our B class and C class articles are very well written: You would be surprised as to how one misses a reception section in many of those articles, or a plot summary, or a decent lead.

Regards, G.A.S^talk 13:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Glad some others stepped in there to help out. No idea why I stopped doing it, just got tied up with other stuff I guess. Agreed on looking at our B/C articles now that they have been assessed. I don't think either project has done a big run through sweep like we've done, though they should. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Yuki's gone faceless

*sigh* I don't suppose you still have that image of Yuki Sohma lying about? A bot deleted the current image without any talk page warning, leaving us with none. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

There you go... it has not been deleted yet... just add the missing information. G.A.S^talk 14:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

He beat me to it :P I think the one I uploaded was already deleted. Also, File:Yuchi-vol18.JPG is used in the article but missing a FUR as well. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

For simple image undeletions, try {{ImageUndeleteRequest}}. G.A.S^talk 14:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

LOL I thought this converstaion was about your dog, AnmaFinotera! I was about to say, "Oh no, What happened to Yuki's face?" XD – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 17:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

LOL Her face is all good :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

told to ask you...

Thoughts on Special:Contributions/Qashijoo? Or just a kid playing around or are these similar to B101's sock edits on the Disney pages? SpikeJones (talk) 16:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

No, doesn't look like him unless he decided to drastically change targets and methodologies. B101 almost exclusively targets Disney and Teletubbies articles, usually restoring old bad versions and redacting talk pages (removing comments, "correcting" grammar/case, etc), and creating unnecessary redirects. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs)

However, Ohsuchanurge (talk · contribs) looks like another one of his socks. I've reported and tagged him. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Hershey Creamery Company

On January 10, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hershey Creamery Company, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Dravecky (talk) 02:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Kunimitsu Tezuka

I extended the summary in the lead, but I don't understand what about it [the lead] is not similar to other GA character articles (besides creation information, but that is not available, thus it can't be summarized in the lead if it's not in the article, and would also not reflect in its compliance to WP:LEAD since its non-existent). Also, looking at GA articles like Rock Lee and Sasuke Uchiha, Tezuka's series' summary in the lead was much longer than theirs (I should also mention that his plot info -character outline and overview combined (does the other media section count?; well, I shortened it just in case)- is sufficiently shorter compared to Sasuke's, Kakashi's, or Rukia's. Besides making it look exactly like their articles word for word, it looks pretty similar, with the exception of the lack of creation info and putting the other appearances and merchandise right after the first sentence (which I just placed after the summary now, along with the merchandise since I find that it is technically media).

By the way, I don't know if you have time for this, but I also want to ask you, in your point of view, which parts (exactly) of the article is still in-universe cause I've tried writing it in a perspective that can be understood by others unfamiliar with the series, but that's the best I can do without another person's perspective (I would put it up for a Peer Review, but I prefer doing that after I get back). And should I remove that matches' section? I apologize in advance if I don't reply for a while - I'll be away for the weekend. DarkAngel ⁰⁰⁷ 07:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Length isn't the only issue. The lead shouldn't have so many sourced statements, it should be a summary of the article. While not word for word, it should have a similar flow to the other GA character leads in terms of order and type of content. Of course, I've found the lead is easiest done after the rest of the article is up to snuff, since it is supposed to be a summary, but a starting point is moving the sourced stuff, if appropriate, to the correct article sections in said.

The matches section should be removed. It is completely in-universe and really something that would only interest fans rather than general readers. Beyond that, the "Tennis style and techniques" seems a bit excessive to me, but with a full creation/conception section and reception section it should be okay. A peer review would be good when you get back to help address other possible in-universe areas. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 08:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I removed some of the sources in the lead (with a little rearranging too, so it should look more similar to other GA character articles now) and removed the tournament record. As for the techniques section, it is basically an abilities section since, though the story's world is "normal", their abilities are a bit on the super-powered side (considering the genre, I figured it'd be more precise to just name it "Tennis style and techniques" rather than "Abilities"). Of course not all his techniques are mentioned, but his overall style and descriptions of his signature moves is what makes up the section. Well, thanks for the reply and input, and I'll be sure to do that PR when I get back. DarkAngel ⁰⁰⁷ 08:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Gotcha...sounds similar to Princess Nine (regarding the abilities). May also want to ask User:Sephiroth BCR for some quick comments/pointers, as I believe he's worked on several of our GA character articles. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 08:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Osamu Tezuka Disney manga

I just figured out about a box set of Osamu Tezuka Disney manga of Bambi and Pinocchio. Here's the official Japanese Disney link. I started making an article about the boxset. I really want to get them now. :-D I sure hope a Bambifan101 sock puppet won't ruin the article when I make it. : P – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 02:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think an article on the boxset is notable at all. At best, they should be mentioned in his article or those respective film articles. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I started making it on my sandbox until I figured out that I can't. : P Whatevs. I want to get it though, it looks cool. : D – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 17:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Questionnaire

Hi, I saw your comment in the questionnaire about wanting to have a reference library within the project. Two days ago, I started a page that will provide links to reliable websites as well as allow members to list their DVD and print libraries. Once the other coordinators take a look at the list, it will be posted to the project's space, where hopefully it will be helpful for members in improving their articles. However, it's likely there may not be that many print sources available for your Maneater series! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 11:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Cool and agreed on Maneater :) I need to get back to work on that. So far, every film has at least had a little production video on YouTube by the company on their official channel and reviews on the RS horror sites :D The hard part is finding them to rewatch them rather than having to wait for them to re-air, since only six are on DVD I think. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

2008-07-2008

2008-07-2008 is quite a strange date, even for ISO format. Too many days, even for years of 22 months. ;-) Platonides (talk) 17:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

LOL...I am not doing good with numbers today! -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Need your help

Just to "compromise" I am going to remove all the character relationships for Kagome Higurashi and Kikyo. I am not going to remove the realtionships for Naraku since they seem important, but if you feel that they are not, you can remove them. In my opinion, if you think that the character relationships are not important enough for one chatacer(InuYasha), then they are not important for any of them, but like I said before, I will let you deicde on Naraku. Thanks. Kagome 77 (talk) 22:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

If you check any GA level character article, you won't find a relationships section. Remember, character articles should primarily focus on their real world info: creation/conception and reception, rather than plot summary. The basics should be covered in their plot overview rather than in the excessive relationships sections seen in those. Of course, all also need their notability established...right now, InuYasha and Kagome are about the only one it seems like would be relatively easy to defend if they were AfDed. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Question

I recently added a template to the bottom of all the pages related to Arina Tanemura, but you automatically deleted them. I just wondered if you could give me a reason why? Thank you. --Kelakagandy (talk) 17:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

You did not add a template to any of the pages, you added a bunch of code which doesn't belong there. Also, we do not do those kinds of templates. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Bob Ross

Heya, without having any opinion on the tag itself, when I scanned the history of the article, I was a bit uncomfortable that you were using Twinkle to revert "vandalism".[4] Perhaps time to take a break? --Elonka 03:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry...his lack of response is rather annoying, particularly when I see him arguing FOR tags on another biography. Just seems weird to me. I've put in a protection request and am gonna go watch a film for awhile.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Odyssey Con

Hi. I happened to randomly come across another Sci Fi conference that appears to be non-notable and nominated it for deletion. Unlike the deletion discussion for MatsuriCon, this one was contested immediately. I don't know if you have a view on this conference, or if if you find the logic for the keep !vote persuasive, but you may wish to add your views to the AfD. Rgds, Bongomatic 03:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

What a bad keep reason...took a look and added my view. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your $0.02. Beyond that, the editor who gave it (and removed my earlier {{prod}} has used it a lot. I will try to catch up with some of the more eggregious deprods. Bongomatic 04:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Lightmouse date scripts

• I see you operate date script written by Lightmouse: A discussion at Lightmouse's house may be of interest to you. Ohconfucius (talk) 10:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Petit Apple Pie

Does the formatting on this article look a tad odd to you? What attracted me there at first was a mundane hatnote, which has since been removed. Now I'm starting to think the article needs to be totally redone, and probably tagged with {{notability}} or something. Your thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed on both. It has excessive non-free images (only one is needed at best, the first vol should be in the infobox, the other deleted), the refs are odd, and the series doesn't show any notability. It is really is nothing but a list of artists which seems semi-pointless with out any other context.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, too many problems. I just placed a prod tag on it ;) Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, someone took it off. I was gonna resort to WP:AFD but now that I think about, it really isn't worth the hassle. Hey, you think you can perform that "cleanup" you do in times like these? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Just in case you didn't see, done (meant to say that sooner) :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion

Hi, I was just wondering, do you think we should put the detachments back on Naraku's article? Put it there as "Detachments" instead of "relatives" in the same box that has his species, age, etc.? Please let me know what you think. Thanks. Kagome 77 (talk) 16:13, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

No. They are individual characters and already covered in the character list. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Hayate X Blade

A guy at the Hayate X Blade page keep putting "Plot", "Characters", etc. under one section. The revision is here. I kept reverting it but he just put it back. Got anything to say? – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 17:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Can try reminding him of the MoS but I can already tell you he doesn't care and will just point to the 5 other articles or so he's done like that they have old FA status (or the rest that have since been FARed). Been there on that road with him before and he doesn't care what the bulk are doing with regard to that kind of formatting, so we just avoid each other (or at least, I avoid dealing with him with that regard). Seems silly to me, but oh well. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Breaking redirects

Please stop intentionally breaking redirects as you have done here, here, and here. Your actions have resulted in a series of short confusing articles that others need to clean up. Instead of breaking the redirects, you should instead either retarget redirects to new appropriate targets or nominate the redirect for deletion. --Allen3 ^talk 19:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I did not "intentionally break redirects" (thanks for the WP:AGF). As the edit summary notes, I used Twinkle's "unlink" function to remove the links to "Clow Cards". Apparently it does not properly differentiate between a link and a redirect. I will leave a note on the tools page that it should check this. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I was having problems with that too; Goodraise gave me hell when I was unlinking merged pages and it was pulling linking out of the redirects. Nobody ever bothers to click the (TW) link to see what that means, they just presume that you don't know what you're doing. Anyway, it looks like they've done nothing to fix the feature. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib)

I filed a new bug report at the Twinkle page...hopefully this time it can be fixed. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Tite Kubo

Would you mind taking a gander at this edit and perhaps sharing your thoughts on this conversation? I know I'm supposed to assume good faith, but User:Pfahlstrom's statements don't seem credible without verification, which should be from the editor of that LA Times article himself. Here's the LA Times link that's being cited in Tite Kubo: http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/la-etw-kuboweb28-2008aug28,0,3099871.story — how to determine the validity of this one? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

How many times will this argument come up I wonder? *sigh* Restored the original and leaving a note on the talk page. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Futaba Channel

Hi there. You were a participant in the AfD discussion for Futaba Channel, which I closed as "delete." I have decided to relist the article at AfD; the discussion is here. Your further input is welcome. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 18:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

*sigh* Don't see why this was restored at all, but have again stated it should be deleted. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:53, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Editting categories

How do I add Biomeat-Nectar onto the B section of this category? Category:Shōnen--DragonZero (talk) 21:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Of which category? Its already showing in the B section of Manga series. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I mean for the shonen catagory. From what I've checked out, it's considered a Shonen manga.DragonZero (talk) 22:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Categories are added at the very end of an article. If you click the edit link for External links (or whatever the last section is, References in this case), after the links you'll see the categories the article is currently in (as well as any interwiki links). I've added some for you to that article so you could see how it works.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Examples by Class

Hi AnmaFinotera,

I thought that now might be a good time to revisit the examples for WP:ANIME/ASSESS, your input would be appreciated.

Regards

G.A.S^talk 06:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, that never did get finished did it :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! G.A.S^talk 10:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Master Roshi was merged ...

... but the person who performed it didn't do so well a job [5]. What's that thing you do in these instances? Which reminds me, Talk:Cell (Dragon Ball) has been needing it too. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Fixed both (that what you meant?) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Thank you ;) Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

AnmaFinotera, do you have to source character lists? – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 18:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, very much so. See List of Naruto characters (FL) and List of Tokyo Mew Mew characters (near FL when I finish doing Ichigo's section and a last bit of sourcing). Since we are not supposed to interpret plot, all statements in summaries should be sourced to specific episodes and manga pages where the statement can be verified or to reviews, official sites, or other third-party RSes to confirm it (especially interpretive and reactionary statements). For example, you can't say "x is is a brat" unless a third party source says so or another character in the series does, at which point you'd say "other series characters consider X a brat." -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

January 2009

I don't appreciate the lecture, and I have presented evidence. The information is not reliable. If you continue adding it back in, I will consider it vandalism. —pfahlstrom (talk) 07:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

No, you have presented original research, not evidence. Again, if you readd it, you will be reported. Vandalism is removing validly sourced information, not stopping an obviously non-neutral editor from removing said validly sourced information based on his own personal belief. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 07:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I have worked with you a long time, and have a lot of respect for you. I'd like to request that you edit your summation of the debate on the Reliable Sources board. I worked very hard on my posting at the Biographies board, trying to summarize the debate in neutral terms; the way you present our views is not only insulting, it is blatant canvassing. (Under the campaigning section.) Requests for help are not the place to express your views on the subject, or express your contempt for people engaged in an honest difference of opinion. Doceirias (talk) 07:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I attempted to write it fairly neutrally to summarize both views and pfahlstrom's most recent actions. If you feel I have mischaracterized the discussion or misrepresented the views, please point to something more specific that I can fix. In rereading it, I didn't see anything lacking in neutrality. I did not read your post on the Biographies board before writing my own.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 07:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I was probably getting a bit worked up despite myself. Looking at it now, it isn't that bad; I object to the contemptuous quotes around evidence, and the completely inappropriate characterization of our suggestions as slanderous, but not enough to have bothered posting anything here. Those issues were better dealt with in context. Doceirias (talk) 03:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Alrighty. For the evidence, I was speaking more to pfahlstrom's lengthy post of fansites more than anything else, when only one had any sort of dating on it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Not the strongest aspect of the discussion, no. Doceirias (talk) 04:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zettai Kakusei Tenshi Misutoresu Fōchun

Apparently, I wasn't clear enough. Following your comment, I've posted a clarification. - Mgm|^(talk) 00:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

What category of WP:SPEEDY would this article fall under?

It seems to be a completely useless page, no sources, and tons of original research... moocowsrule^{talk to moo} 04:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

None. It would need to either be prodded or taken to WP:AFD. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Ooops. Wrong link. I meant WP:DP. Doesn't it sorta fit in "Articles which cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and articles which are themselves hoaxes (but not articles describing notable hoaxes)"? moocowsrule^{talk to moo} 04:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Not really, since it isn't a notable hoax and emoticons themselves are well documented in reliable sources. I'd probably AfD it under being an unnotable list of primarily OR that fails trivia and is too subjective. The main emoticons article already covers the topic well. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

List of Neon Genesis Evangelion manga volumes

Should this article be renamed List of Neon Genesis chapters? Im quite confused. By the way, any other comment on Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Bleach chapters? Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 15:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, unless they plan to split it. Manga volumes should only be used with lists that are split. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

And about the Bleach FLC?Tintor2 (talk) 17:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Can't think of anything. I feel the summaries are too short, though, and I'm worried there may be other inaccuracies like those first, but haven't had time to go through them all. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Could you tell me what summaries of the Bleach chapters need expansion? At least to work for a future renomination. Thanks.Tintor2 (talk) 14:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I would say all of them could be expanded. They probably don't need to be as long as the ones at List of Tokyo Mew Mew chapters, but right now, most seem to be missing some key events from the volumes. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I expanded more or less the summaries from the volumes. Is it better now?Tintor2 (talk) 14:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Eh collectian?Tintor2 (talk) 18:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Dabomb87 said you'd withdrawn the nomination so I was going to wait till the weekend to check it. Quick checking, seems better. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Sorry for bothering again.Tintor2 (talk) 22:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

1988

Thanks for the revert. I could not find RS either way. I hate when I rv to the wrong version. Thanks for fixing my mistake. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 15:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

No worries, the guy you reverted is like a Kanon fan with at least 10 sockpuppets so he was a vandal either way. The RS on her year of birth was only recently added as Shojo Beat nominated her for one of their annual music awards. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Re:Redirects

Eh, I don't know. Sometimes redirects for different spellings are warranted, but I don't know the series well enough to make that judgment. Place the redirects you find frivolous on a separate page and I'll delete them (as I can simply do a batch delete with Twinkle to save some time and sanity). Also, if you haven't noticed already, I've nominated List of Vampire Knight episodes for FLC. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 11:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Will do, and yes I saw and I have it on my watch list. :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Goku vs. Seiya

I saw some IP link to this on the Saint Seiya page, I was curious to see what it was so I clicked on the link. It turnes out (based on the YouTube links they put on the page) that it's a very poorly done, Brazilian, YouTube fan made "anime". What do you think, this should abviously be deleted. – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 02:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Tagging for CSD....ugh....-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Pretty bad, huh? :-P – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 02:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Uh huh...especially then coming here and actually claiming its "anime" and legit. Grr....-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I wouldn't be suprised if it's actually the person that made it. – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 02:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh my gosh, the person remade the article after it got deleted!! – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 19:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Took out templates, now they're calling it a shōnen anime. Corrected lots. – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 19:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

CSDed again and requested page protection. Also AN/Iing that guy. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

As an update, its been indef protected against recreation, so hopefully that stops him. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 08:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Dragonball (film)

Unprotected as requested :) Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:35, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Umm...its still showing as protected. :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:53, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, try it now :} Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 05:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Dream Focus

My goodness, this guy doesn't know when to quit. Not only is he going around using the lamest excuses to keep recent anime article up for deletion. Now he is trying to dispute the redirecting of Clow Cards after its AFD. He hasn't crossed the line of being disruptive yet, IMO, but he's getting close. --Farix (Talk) 23:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't know if I should have been laughing or crying over the Gantz issue. I chose to laugh Dandy Sephy (talk) 23:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

In some ways, he reminds me of Pixelface. --Farix (Talk) 23:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed...and unfortunately, it seems partly that he started by deprodding anything I had recently prodded and is now just moving on to anything else in the anime realm. I really never can understand why someone who surely must recognize that Wikipedia is not the kind of site they want doesn't just move on to Wikia, which is, or some fansite rather than doggedly trying to force Wikipedia to be what it isn't. ~checks watchlist~ I love how he refuses to consider anything that doesn't agree with him as consensus, claiming that "Everyone" didn't weigh in. Oh gravy, and now he's bugging MBisanz about the Clow Card list[6] and borderline canvassing[7] (I removed it as such). Good lord, if every discussion on Wikpedia required every last editor's input, we'd have to dump all editors or just go ahead and shut down. Gesh. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

This is just nuts User talk:MBisanz#Why did you delete/redirect Clow Cards? *sigh* -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Question

Sorry if this is a stupid question, but where is the "etext"?(what do you mean by that)? Kagome 77 (talk) 00:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Typo..."that's covered in th etext" should be "that's covered in the text"...-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

You've roused my curiosity . . .

AnmaFinotera, you are obviously amongst the most experienced of editors, and so I am presuming that you understand this matter better than I. I am looking at this edit, and am puzzled why you feel that this constitutes a violation of WP:CANVASS. The language appears to me to not only be neutral, but merely to be interrogative. And the editor's contributions list gives no indications of other listings of this mere question. Looks to me like a friendly notice, but I won't revert without first seeing your explanation. Cheers. Unschool 04:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

He is specifically targeting another equipment list (rather than a neutral area, like the various policy and guideline pages that his list fails), and very clearly attempted to imply that because his list (which he created against consensus) is going to be deleted that the weapons list there could be as well. Its forum shopping and non-neutral. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I guess I see your point, if one is looking for bad faith on his part. But CANVASS does say,

Editors who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion, might also place such neutrally-worded notices on the talk pages of a WikiProject, the Village pump, or perhaps some other related talk page _{[emphasis added by Unschool]}, while still only, or in lieu of, posting a limited number of friendly notices to individual editors.

Isn't this a related talk page? It just looks to me like a good faith attempt to involve other editors. And, by the way, I'm wholly uniformed of these subjects, so if you think I'm being suckered by this other editor, just say so and continue with the explanations. I'm just trying to figure out policy. Unschool 04:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

No, it isn't a related talk page as its two different media forums and the Star Trek has clearly established notability, while his was inappropriate created after consensus agreed the content was not appropriate for the article (and now he's apparently desperately trying to keep it from being deleted even though he is the only one who thinks it should be kept in the AfD). Some other talk page generally refers more to policy/guideline/essay pages, not specific pages and attempting to "scare" editors of similar pages to try to get them to come vote "keep" on one list out of fear that its deletion will result in "theirs" ending up the same. With his actions as a whole of late (including dismissing any consensus that doesn't agree with him no matter how many people participated as not having "enough" participation, lying about the list's creation, etc), its hard to continue assuming good faith in his actions.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I've read your comments over at Wikipedia talk:Canvassing, and followed the links you provided. It's good to have that background. My thoughts:

• First of all, DF is clearly not only a relatively inexperienced editor, but also appears to be a bit juvenile _{(and before someone shoots off that I am engaging in personal attack with that comment, I am not. I mean it literally and it is simply a stage in life that we all go through. Youngsters are not put out to live on their own at the age of 13 for a reason, and we adults are charged with helping them grow and mature. Nothing negative about that at all.)} His misunderstanding of WP:CONSENSUS was simply shocking for someone with 2 1/2 years of experience on Wikipedia, and came across as someone who believes policy is what they want it to be.
• Secondly, I think that the only disagreement I might have with you is that I still think that good faith would dictate that this article should be considered "related". Your points about the notability of Star Trek are duly noted, but may actually enhance his argument. If this subject matter he is trying to work in does not yet have obvious notability, it might make sense to go to something remotely similar to get people with "expertise" (I hate using that word when discussing science fiction) to chime in on his area.
• Thirdly, I think that given the extensive discussions and disagreements that you have had with DF already, that it was possibly not the wisest thing for you to be the one to shut down his attempt at furthering this line of argument of his. I can see that you are acting in good faith and are following the rules and all. But to DF, you are probably furthering his sense of persecution. AnmaFinotera, what harm would result in you allowing his post at Talk:List of weapons in Star Trek to remain? As you indicate, the case is open and shut against his position. Allowing him to bring in other editors to review this would almost certainly result in more support for your position, and thus might help to accelerate DF's maturation. Instead, by stifling him, the subject moves from a discussion of the merits of his article (or list, I forget what exactly the argument was about) to the way he is being treated.

Anyway, at least now I understand your actions, and I acknowledge that what you have done is within the letter of policy. That does not necessarily mean that it was the best action to take. And I say that as one with more than my share of mistakes in dealing with my fellow Wikipedians. Happy editing! Unschool 04:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem. As he has reverted the comment removal, I've asked an uninvolved admin to look at it to see if it is canvassing or not. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

A wise move. And, incidentally, I've chided him on his talk page for reverting you. His last edit summary really took the cake. Unschool 05:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I think I'll go attempt, again, to watch Batman Begins. Second time I've rented, should actually watch it this time :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Chōjū-giga

I was recently working on the Chōjū-giga article, how do you think it looks? Now we have a double-decker conversation. ^_^ – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 02:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey, not bad! I see you're expanding into new areas of working, which is cool :) May want to clean up your ref tags to remove the unneeded fields, just for slightly easier readability. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

You mean like the page field on Cite Book? I was waiting till I could get the pages, but, oh well. I was thinking about putting in a gallery to illustrate all four scrolls, but I wanted to ask you first before I screw everything up. ;_; – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 02:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh! thank you for correcting my spelling. : D – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 02:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

No, like some date fields on stuff that isn't dated, or the OCLC field if you aren't going to fill them in. :) I think having a gallery would be fine, if The Hunt of the Unicorn is any indication. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:46, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I think I filled in all the OCLC's though. : ) – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 02:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Might have been misreading then. Was skimming kind of fast. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Put in the gallery, how does it look? :D – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 18:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Good, but needed a header :P May want to tweak the captions to more specifically note "First scroll, "Second Scroll", etc or whatever their official names are. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Fixed!...well at least I think. Did I make it clearer. :P – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 20:20, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello? Yō? – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 21:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Woops...I know I thought of a response, but guess I forgot to actually type it :P Better, but I'd move the "from the first panel" to the from rather than the end.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Huh? Can you explain a bit better? : ) – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 21:42, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Yō? – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 02:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm...either I've had too much to drink today or not enough that I keep thinking I replied when I didn't. :P For example, the first one, I'd change to: "A panel from the the first scroll, Kō, depicting animals swimming and bathing for an upcoming ceremony." -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I gotcha. ; ) LOL too much to drink. – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 03:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Looks way better too. :-)))) < three chins – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 03:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I also added a book source, used almost all the fields. Few! :O – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 18:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Help with OSSaN?

I'm trying to tag the page for speedy deletion, and it's not working... moocowsrule^{talk to moo} 03:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I think there's something wrong with my TW...

How do you think theme songs are supposed to be formatted? User:TheFarix has reverted two of my edits on Shugo Chara!#Anime because they think that the song titles are supposed to be translated, and the actual title of them is to be put in the parenthesis. They haven't provided me with an explanation either.

From all the other anime (like Naruto, Bleach, FMA, Furuba, etc.) the songs aren't translated, and put in their original form. What do you think about that? moocowsrule^{talk to moo} 03:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

And the reference doesn't translate the titles at all. moocowsrule^{talk to moo} 03:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Have you noticed a change in the font size of Wikipedia? For me, the font size has gone down, and everything appears much smaller, although it might just be my crappy computer... moocowsrule^{talk to moo} 05:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

It looks the same to me. Check your browser settings to make sure it didn't accidentally get changed to smaller. I've done that before :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I checked my browser settings... Every other site seems to be fine except for Wikipedia... Maybe I changed the resolution? moocowsrule^{talk to moo} 05:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm...if you haven't changed your settings, try changing your theme to something else then back again. Or restart the browser. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

How do you request a page to be locked? Code Geass REALLY needs to be locked. I've fixed some vandalism on the page, and it appears to be a bit extreme... moocowsrule^{talk to moo} 06:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

You would file an Request for Page Protection (a temp request for semi-protection, specifically), however, if its from one person, reporting them to AI/V is the better route. RFPP's are primarily for granted with recent, heavy, multiple IPs.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 07:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know who did the vandalism, I figure it's from too far back to figure out who it was (since it when unnoticed for so long). How would you deal with Mirotic and MIROTIC? They're both about the same album by DBSK... moocowsrule^{talk to moo} 08:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind, Mirotic is the Korean version, and MIROTIC is the Japanese version... But still, they could be merged or something... moocowsrule^{talk to moo} 08:06, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I think the single should be merged to the article page, since both rather suck, however the single appears to meet WP:MUSIC so it satisfies the guidelines to exist. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 08:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Code Geass, huh? I remember that, it used to be on my watchlist, till I removed it so I could keep up with my watchlist while I was working... The history (and talk page) suggests I'm not the only one who jumped that ship. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 11:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:NPA

This probably doesn't come as a surprise, but we have personal attack guidelines (or rather, guidelines to prevent personal attacks), remember? Please try not to abuse others, in edit summaries or otherwise. Editing is a lot easier if there isn't animosity flowing seven ways to Sunday. Thanks! Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 04:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Why am I receiving a warning for something from WEEKS ago, hell almost a month ago????? Okay, I see from your talk page that he is only just now complaining (grudge?) and that apparently he is doing some admin coaching or something. I'm a little disappointed that you didn't seem to follow the entire history there either, as he obviously made it seem like it was out of the blue. *sigh* -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, it only just came to my attention; I'm sorry if you've changed since then or such. And this is completely unrelated to the coaching. I was just concerned that your replies came out harshly. I'm not saying you're to blame or anything; I think you're a great editor. I just wanted to raise that issue. Thanks, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 07:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I agree, they probably did come out harshly, after two days of dealing with him over the issues with that article (you know, he even bugged Jimbo Wales?[8] who interestingly enough, said he would have said delete[9]). My growing annoyance at his responses to an attempted discussion which finally just got, to me, ludicrous enough that I wanted nothing more to do with him. Such as his "jokes" that he put on my talk page[10] the day before calling me "evil ebil" (direct quote). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 08:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you could at least inform him that when someone says "leave me alone" he should actually listen instead of continue to attempt to be annoying,[11][12] and perhaps get my talk page off his watchlist or stop reading it (presuming he is doing one or the other to even know to shove himself into a conversation when he's already been told repeatedly he isn't wanted here).-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll pass on your wish, of course. Thanks for being reasonable now; just remember to keep your composure when things get irritating or annoy you. I know I sound patronizing when I say that, as you already know, but I'm just thinking in your best interest. Thanks again, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 01:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I try, I try :) (and I would say I do better than I used to LOL). It may not be a valid "excuse" but that day I was sick as heck (walking pneumonia) and had done a four hour drive to/from Houston earlier that day. Not the best of moods for dealing with someone who I found a bit annoying, but Wiki kept me occupied while I was hacking up lungs. :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree, you're doing much better; I remember a while back where it was... problematic to say the least. :P And as long as you're feeling better, all is excused. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 03:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

:-D Mostly better. Still have a cough, especially on cold days, but from what I understand that will probably stay with me a few months (blech). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Re:Dream Focus

Oh, I remember this guy. He tried to run for ArbCom and ended up with 14 supports (most of them "tactical supports" or people giving moral support to the new user) and 115 opposes. Fun, fun. As for the AfDs, let him rant. Any sensible administrator immediately dismisses his !votes at AfD for being rather silly, as his "we need to include everything!" approach is rather laughable. Let the thing on the Star Trek weapons page go, as he's not going to get any traction for anything concrete out of that. As for his edits to Gantz (and the equipment page), that is a bit disruptive, this especially. If he continues then let me know. Cheers, — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 06:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Will do, and thanks. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey...he is now encouraging someone to do what he did, split out a list from a stub to "preserve" content that was removed during a clean up of Rockin' Heaven, even though its currently at AfD and obviously is not an issue with size nor a separate character list appropriate even if it is kept.[13]. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I saw a large number of people vote Keep, and only you and one other saying delete, so I'm assuming that means it'll be kept. And if the character information was too long for the page, then wikipedia policy is to make a side page for it. That is preferred to simply mass deleting things, without discussion about what should be cleaned up. Dream Focus (talk) 23:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Too large does not apply for a stub, and size splits only occur AFTER the information has already been reduced to its appropriate length. That has not happened with this article and is extremely unlikely to happen for a long long time considering the completely lack actual information beyond the plot, even if it is kept because of a falsely claimed notability. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Assistance?

I've been trying to figure out how to combine the refs at Nightshade (video game) for the last ten minutes, but to no avail. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Which refs? See User talk:AnmaFinotera/Archive 5#Refs within refs (or notes) for the info from Dinoguy. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I apologize, I meant Nightshade (2004 video game). Most of the refs there are substituted with templates. It's a little odd. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah well, at least I removed some major copyvio. For that one...that is so weird. Fixed the one valid ref and removed the two that didn't actually source anything anyway (and weren't valid refs). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I've also been thinking about setting up a nihongo too, like the one at Resident Evil. Should I presume that the Japanese Wikipedia has the correct name? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. I started to do that myself, and yes, no reason to doubt (though can also check to see if it appears if you use the name to search Amazon.co.jp). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, guess I'll look into it later ;) Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Twinkle=PHAIL.

My TW is like failing on me, and so I can't fix the vandalism on Tales of Vesperia. Help! moocowsrule^{talk to moo} 04:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks like someone already did it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Yomiuri newspaper

I found this article at Anime News Network (which I don't agree with) about some issue of whether Chōjū-giga is the first manga or not. What section should I put this under in Chōjū-giga? What would fit? What should it be named? :| – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 17:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm...I'd probably create a section called controversy or disputes and note it there along with other sources that may argue for or against. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Added the section, the question is: where should the section go? :P Under the gallery? I can't find anything against the statement. – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 21:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

No, gallery should be last before further reading, refs, etc. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow, you responded quick! Okay, I put it above the gallery, just making sure. – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 21:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

What's new? – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 00:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Nothing much. I am behind on some article expansions I've been meaning to do, but low on my usual editing mojo. Need to clear up my mind and make a new list. Finally started editing my novel, yay, mostly enjoyed my three day weekend though it was a bit boring, and happy cause I was able to start doing my taxes (yay!). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Yippe, taxes! :P Would you think that making a section for all the Chōjū-giga exhibits whould be notable? There hasn't been many, it'd be one thing if there was like 1,000,000 past exhibits. Have any of your stories gotten published? – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 02:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm weird, I enjoy doing my taxes :) I'm inclined to say no on the exhibits, but maybe look to see what some other similar articles that are GA or FA are doing. And nope, no publications so far. This year is the first time I've actually finished an entire novel start to finish instead of just having starts with no endings. :) Some of my poems were published long ago, but not in any meaningful way. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I actually don't mind taxes either, I'm a very very organized person. : ) I thought you would say no on the exhibits, I wasn't even too sure for myself on that one. Any new manga? – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 03:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I found a few more volumes of Ceres, Celestial Legend that I was missing. Now I just need volume 4 to finally finish my collection. Other than that, Chibi Vampire vol. 12 and the 1st volume of Prétear. Haven't gotten much this month since I'm still recovering from Christmas and my car needs a state inspection and brake work done. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I still need to get the volume of Tokyo Tribe. Going to order the hardcover Bat-Manga! online becuase it's only $30.00 there with free shipping! and it's $60.00 in stores! Don't you think that Chōjū-giga would be up to a C-class now? :S – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 17:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

No idea on C, as I don't know what criteria its covering project uses. I'd rough guess so, but may want to check their guidelines first. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Looking at criteria. It meets C-class, changing. – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 20:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

January 2009

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edit(s) to WP:RPP, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thank you. HereFord 19:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that was a BIG oops. Meanwhile he has now violated 3RR completely. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Need some outside eyes on Yotsuba Koiwai

So I'm rereading Yotsuba Koiwai for the first time in a while, and trying to figure out what sort of context is needed to take care of the {{context}} tag -- and coming up with nothing. Got any ideas or guidance for me? —Quasirandom (talk) 20:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

What context tag? I'm not seeing one anywhere? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Heh. Kraftlos removed it between my question and you getting here. That makes it a ne-vvvvver-mind. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zettai Kakusei Tenshi Misutoresu Fōchun

Well, since it's a deletion discussion, "userfy", "no consensus", "merge", and "redirect" closures default to keep. Once such closures are made by an administrator, other editors discuss where to merge/redirect/userfy. Hope that clears it up. :) –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 03:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm...I'd have thought userfy meant move to user space and delete, not leave it there? The editor who created it hasn't edited in awhile, so not sure where to even suggest a userfy to and there are no other editors who expressed an interest in working on it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that was one of the problems; there was no suggested place to move it to. I suppose I could move it into my userspace temporarily. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 03:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I can check in the anime/manga project, see if anyone wants it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Re:Socks

I am nothing to do with User:YourLord AnmaFinotera and I am deeply wounded and offended that you would think such a thing. We have after all worked together in the past and I considered you a friend. My remark about socks was perhaps a poorly thought out remark as the result of an uncharacteristically idealistic belief in the existence of good in everyone. I always say there's a chance of redemption. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 17:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, I find it hard to believe looking closer at your history. You have done the same sorts of edits, editing the same kinds of articles, and have the same writing style. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh really, I'm flattered you've taken the time out of your day to analyse my writing style. I myself have worked to prevent sockuppets in the past as I state on my userpage. Furthermore, with regard to Illustrious One, you'll notice that I once added him to a category for Suspected sockpuppets of YourLord. Now why would I do that, if I was YourLord? --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 17:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Because it amused you? Because you wanted to make it look like you weren't him? No idea...hell, the Bambifan101 sock (who has some 60-70 socks) loves going back and "fixing" sock notices on his blocked named socks and IPs. And honestly, it seems suspicious to me that the first thing you do when you create your account is state you want to help prevent sockpuppets when you were a "new" editor who rarely have any knowledge of such a Wikipedia-based term. Your editing the same realm of articles with the same sorts of edits, is concerning to say the least. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:42, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Lots of people edit the same sort of articles. User:IllaZilla for one seems to edit all the same articles as me. Forgive me for saying so but you seem to be being a bit melodramatic. Anyway, I edited as an anon for a while before registering which was how I became aware of the term "sockpuppet." --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 18:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but nothing melodramatic about it. Will leave it to others to decide if there is enough to warrant further questioning. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:28, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Peer review for Bleach FT

See Wikipedia:Peer review/List of Bleach episodes (season 10)/archive1. If there's nothing to note, then simply say so. The goal is to show at the FTC that people looked at the article during its peer review. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 04:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Added to my watchlist and will give it a look over soonish. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Rockin' Heaven

I saw some of your edits on my work and I think they're great! However, while it's good to keep everything terse, it's better to be a little careful about some details... no, wait. What I'm saying is we should avoid trying to change meanings...? Yeah. Haha. I'm sorry, I'm terribly bad with words and I'm so verbose. I think it's still an important detail to include that Tsubaki loves Ran because... well, it's true, and it explains most of his actions such as him becoming mad when Sugishita comes into the series, etc. (Like what I discussed at http://icysnowdrop.livejournal.com/333128.html , if it would help for some explanation and insight... would it help?! I'm so sorry if it doesn't!) Also, a lot of the characters are referred to by their last names, such as Tsubaki, Kido, Ogawa, Sugishita, and Taguchi... would it be right to refer by what they are normally called? (I'll have to check the manual on that.) But otherwise, thanks, and let's make this article look good. I salute you! Blackarcadia (talk) 04:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

LiveJournal is not a reliable source at all. All of this should be coming purely from the series itself. If you're working off a fan translation, I'm inclined to question whether Tsubaki loves Ran or if its just fan-love of hints of yaoi. Either way, it doesn't really add that much detail to the story at all and seems like a relatively minor detail as it has no actual effect on anything. And no, we use their first names consistently, irregardless of what they are normally called. I tried not to change the meanings in making the wording more concise, but if I did, please point out where. Also, for future note, when starting a new topic on a talk page, the new topic goes at the bottom, not the top. If you click the + or "new section" tab at the top, it will put the topic in the appropriate place for you. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

No, no, no. I don't intend on using LiveJournal as a source. Sorry about that. His "love" (although in my personal opinion, it doesn't seem like "love" so that's why I'm using quotations, hahaha) was actually revealed in chapter 24. It actually says that in the manga (actual citations with page numbers will come once I purchase volumes of the manga since I'm not working off of hard copies, only scans). I would put the dialogue in Japanese to prove it but I was working off of the Chinese RAW of the manga and thus am unable to put the original text since I don't know how to use the Chinese keyboard. But honestly, I swear it happens! Although you may feel it's irrelevant, I feel it's an important detail to the character itself because (like I said) it really explains why Tsubaki is protective of Ran. It's also an important part of his side story with Akira and everything, if you know what I mean?

Oh, yeah, about the topic thing; sorry about that. I just realized that when coming back onto your talk page. Need to get a hang of this thing more. Whooo! Blackarcadia (talk) 05:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, one more thing! It seems that you removed the character Tomoki Ogawa from the article. Although he doesn't play a large role in the series, he is still considered to be part of the main crew. You might want to reconsider that... I'm not sure if you've even read the manga? Blackarcadia (talk) 05:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Not really. The fact that he is protective of Ran is enough, and unless its actually stated "I protect him because I'm in love with him" there is no way to say that is why he is protective of him. Close friends are protective of one another without a romantic love involved. And Ogawa seemed to have a minor role from the summary with no actual major part in the story. Just being there isn't enough to be a major character. There isn't a need to mention every single character, even if they appear in every chapter. Remember, the purpose is to provide a brief overview giving the major points of the series and those characters who have an impact on the plot line as a whole. And no I haven't read the series as it isn't licensed for English release and I do not read scanslations. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

You bring up a good point, but it's also relevant in dealing with the subplot between Tsubaki and Akira. I think it's also relevant to his character background. As for Ogawa, while he's not a huge character, he is notable for being the author's favorite and also helping out the rest of the characters, such as realizing Ran and Sawa's relationship when Ran asked to work at his family's beauty parlor, giving Sawa a haircut after her hair was ruined by Yuri's friends, and encouraging Taguchi to ask Akira out. Blackarcadia (talk) 06:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, but that is a subplot, not a major plot (and can easily be dealt with in appropriate volume summaries if the article is kept). Source for Ogawa being the author's favorite? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

It was in one of the earlier volumes, I believe in volume 2 or 3. It was on a side panel where the author discussed the character poll results conducted in Ribon, and Ogawa won 1st with Ran following 2nd. I'll have to check back later; I wasn't going to include that information until I found the exact page. Also, I checked the manual and it said to refer the characters by the names they are usually known by, so it would be best to have some of the boys be referred by their last names because that is what most of the characters call them. As an example, in Katekyo Hitman Reborn!, Takeshi Yamamoto's first name is "Takeshi", but only his father calls him that; everyone refers to him as simply "Yamamoto." Calling him "Yamamoto" would be more familiar than referring him as "Takeshi."

As for the Tsubaki thing, I still think it's important to his character and background. Blackarcadia (talk) 06:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, no, it isn't. Where it is relevant to the overall major plot points, Tsubaki's role should be noted, but going into excessive and ultimately irrelevant detail is unnecessary. Also, that guideline is specifically for characters of unlicensed series and refers to translations/romaji, not whether to use first name or last name. First name is more appropriate and what is used in all higher quality articles. (not including character articles, which switch back and forth inconsistently). However, as it seems we will not agree, I recommend asking at the Anime and manga project talk for additional views instead. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 07:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Since the project is working on updating that part of the MoS, I've asked there about the issue of using first name or last name. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

All right. But regarding Ogawa, I still think it's not right to remove him. That's like removing Taniguchi and Kunikida from The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya article because they don't play a significant role in the series, or removing Chocola from Time Stranger Kyoko because of the same reason. Blackarcadia (talk) 19:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Tell you what...go ahead and readd him, but see if you can give him a better summary than just the hair parlor thing that at least makes it a little clearer that he isn't a purely minor character. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Samurai Champloo

I'm starting to think that this article needs a good fix. Would you mind taking a shot at it? I'll tweak things if necessary. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Sweet mother of some diety...that is one ridiculously long plot summary! Its only 26 episodes...wow! Will work on it a bit. Will also go ahead and take care of the episode list merge (can't believe someone actually split that). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that took longer than I thought to cut down that plot summary. Episode list still needs massive plot cutting as well, but hopefully that's a better start on the main article. And yes, that would be a good use of a ref within a ref, though probably more for the chapter list, with just the character list giving the actual correct # and a hidden note for other editors.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into that. Quick question, I've just discovered that Viz has made errors in Dragon Ball vol. 25 regarding the chapters from pages 75 to 233. Care to take a look at this? I'm wondering if this is one of those times where refs should go within refs. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:19, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I looked through that archive which you once pointed me to but still quite figure it out. Is it supposed to be something like this:

{{#tag:ref|However, it should be noted that on page 103 Viz erroneously labels the chapter as 298. This is inconsistent with the table of contents on page 6 which accurately gives 299.<ref>''Dragon Ball Z'' manga, vol. 25, chapter 299, page 103. ISBN 1-4215-0404-9.</ref>|name="laserdisc-early"|group="note"}}

Pretty difficult if you ask me. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed on being difficult. I think that's right, but definitely test first :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Despite a few adjustments, I'm still unable to get around to it. How did you do it exactly? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Done, sort of...hmmm....they seem a little backwards though. Dinoguy??-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

That looks about right. Haved you asked Dinoguy for his opinion? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I can't see anything wrong with it... Keep in mind, though, that I've never actually nested refs before, I just happened to come across one that offered a (hidden) link to more info, and remembered that AnmaFinotera had been wanting to know if it was possible. In any case, it'll be nice to see the devs fix this particular bug, so that we won't have to use #tag. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 22:21, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed...the #ref tag seems to do things a little backwards though, since it seems to get the actual reference in the reference section, you'd have to group those too? Confused...-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

So, what exactly could be done? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Not sure...does that tag have a talk page somewhere? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:19, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Keeping in mind that I've never played around much with it, I believe you could use #tag like follows: {{#tag:ref|{{cite web|url=http://www.example.com|title=An example URL|publisher=Somebody|accessdate=9999-00-00}}<ref group="n" name="sample note">Some notey text.</ref>|name=sample ref}} (the pipes in {{cite web}} might give the tag trouble though, you would have to test it first). As for a discussion page, I think just about the closest you'll get is mw:Help talk:Magic words. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 17:56, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Re:List of Naruto characters

Up in the air. I think someone was collecting reception information, and we could have a reasonably decent section on it. Only reason that it's there is WP:SIZE issues, and I think it could pass FLC when cleaned up and reception added. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 23:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Alrigthy :) Oh, BTW, I finally finished the last character section for List of Tokyo Mew Mew characters. It still needs a peer review and copy-edit, but do you think the lead and sectioning is alright? I tried to base it off the Naruto one. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Need to mention the conception/reception in the lead. And also, the character entries are way too long. Remember the job of the character list is not to regurgitate plot points; it's to give a general description of the character. The only plot points you should mention are those that result in a significant change for the character in personality or some other aspect. Even in the most plot-intensive series, I doubt you ever need to exceed two decent-sized paragraphs, three if absolutely necessary. Give List of Naruto characters a harder look, especially in the character entries, before you go for a peer review and copy-edit. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 11:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm...I'm not sure what else to cut on the character entries but will try. I tried to keep them brief, but the whole Aoyama = Blue Knight = Deep Blue makes for tricky dealing with those sections and Ichigo's, and needing to briefly summarize the stuff changed in Mew Mew Power. Thanks, will keep working on it :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:57, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

More for Tokyo Mew Mew

Hi,

I know you are rather touchy about your preferred articles so i'm giving those informations to you and you handle them as it suits you.

Tokyo Mew Mew Opening Single released the 1 May 2002 under NEC Interchannel label (NECM-12030)

Ref 1 : http://anime.geocities.jp/st_nht/MewMew/mewmew_op_cds.html

Ref 2 : http://ranking.oricon.co.jp/free_contents/search/detail.asp?itemcd=475178&samecd=1

Ref 3 : http://music.goo.ne.jp/cd/CDDORID475178-1/index.html

I don't want one of the three FA article to have a single opening for critic.--KrebMarkt 11:57, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I knew it was out there, just didn't include it as we don't normally include singles releases in the series articles, leaving that for the artist pages. I can't tell from the second link though, did it place in Oricon? If so, that might be a good note for including it in the main article. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:45, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

No unfortunately it did not chart or Oricon did not mention it, i would have gave you that one if i could ;)

My main concern was that the opening single was the first to be released fellowed by the ending single a month later. You can fix that issue with any reference i gave you.

Out of curiosity, i also check for the other albums and singles but i none of the references i found can give an added value to the article--KrebMarkt 16:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, unfortunately with the series relative age and the apparent dislike most Japanese media sites seem to have for archiving, sources about the other media is somewhat scarce. Even though I know there is tons of character merchandise for this series as well, its another thing thats hard to reliably source. :( -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Funny that we are called evil when we ask people to put reliable sources for their goodies, they mustn't know how hard we are restraining ourself to put our own not sourced stuffs. I will probably focus on the albums & singles for Card Captor Sakura in February--KrebMarkt 17:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Goo and Geocities are not reliable sources, Oricon should be fine though. : ) – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 17:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The Geocities is RS as additional reference mainly for the content of the album or single (It's translation) in fact combining one link from Oricon or CD's label with on from there can give a complete coverage.--KrebMarkt 18:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

So so true. It is kind of frustrating at times, though I'm learning to just go with the flow. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Characters

I was wondering, how often do you try bold merges of character articles to the broader articles? Inane article rescue attempts are disrupting discussions by playing up these character and never expanding the broader articles with character detail. Seems like such rescue attempts are merely for posterity's sake and have zero regard for the balance of content. —Erik (talk • contrib) 14:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I generally go on a case by case basis. In the anime/manga realm, where I am more confident the project will back such merges, I'm more inclined to be bolder. After having endured a ton of personal attacks from some people for doing bold merges, and the whole TTN thing, I now generally will tag, discuss, and merge in a month, especially for film stuff where the consensus seems less clear (some are kept and you get chided for even suggested it, others are all for getting rid of it) and TV where the project doesn't always offer the support needed to back an article clean up effort. If I feel there will be adequate and neutral discussion, a merge discussion is usually better, even if there is nothing to merge. But I will AfD if I suspect either the character is completely unnnotable and doesn't need a merge and it doesn't really seem to need a redirect either (especially on barely notable stuff), or where I feel a tag/merge will result in too much incivility from own-y primary editors. I completely agree with you on those "rescue attempts." 99% of the time, they just throw in a bunch of crappy sources, most of which don't even source anything that needs sourcing or that just has one line about the character. But as a lot of AfD reviewers don't go in-depth into the sources, just see they are there, the article is "kept" and the "rescuer" forgets it ever existed, leaving it no better off than it was before. Its annoying as all get out, did nothing to improve anything in any real sense, and yet they proudly proclaim "I saved it" and "I fixed it." *sigh* </end ranting> Ever notice most who do that have never even brought an article up to B class, much less GA, FA, or FL? But we're the bad guys...-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that editors late to the discussion do not adequately review the actual contributions of the rescue attempt. Remember Isla Nublar and Isla Sorna? I merged them to Jurassic Park (franchise). Their sections look pretty small relative to the whole article once the fat is trimmed, yeah? Too many section headings were inserted in the kept revisions to give the appearance of an authentic layout ("Reception" of an island? Really?) so the merges better address the balance of content for these topics. Perhaps AFD is not the best way to go about it with such topics? For film characters at least, maybe you could inquire members of WP:FILM about such merges and work on not just merging what little (if anything) exists and expanding with any other tidbits at the broader article. —Erik (talk • contrib) 14:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I've tried in the past...results are mixed. Some days, lots of response, others, none (though Film is certainly better about it than the TV project :( ). Maybe the film project needs a clean up task force, similar to the one we did in anime/manga, for a more dedicated group of editors who will work on cleaning up articles tagged for issues, and responding to such discussions? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

A task force may be overkill for such articles unless the scope is larger. The future films department is set up for that kind of clean-up since there are always new films. I'm not sure just how many articles of fictional entities from films there are. One goal that WP:FILM needs to pursue is to have guidelines for film-related articles other than individual films. Film festivals, film series, film characters, etc... still waiting on the outcome of WP:FICT to shape that last item, since discussion is a carousel there. I know that Girolamo has expressed interest in cleaning up film characters. A workgroup is smaller than a task force, right? One goal to have for sure is to build up detail on the other side of the fence (the broader article) to reflect that it is worth merging to and expanding from within. For some reason, people are averse to the philosophy of building from within and expanding outward. —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, for the task force, I meant clean up in general :) Such as dealing with articles tagged for excessive plot, lack of references, needing clean up, etc. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Cleanup task force to get a better idea of what I was thinking about. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

List of characters in Tin Man

I'd ask that you remove the AfD for this list until after the AfD for the various character articles get merged into this (which I think you will agree is the likely outcome of the individual character AfDs if history is any guide here) Otherwise we end up with a large number of conflicting AfD results. Thanks. Hobit (talk) 18:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I disagree. If the characters close as merge, they can be merged to the main article just as easily (or at least the actual relevant ones). Also, currently all three are far more strongly supporting outright deletion, with only the creator saying merge. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey, just as a note, they shouldn't only be merged to the article on the series, but also to the sections on modern adaptations in Dorthy Gale, Tin Woodman, etc. The out of universe information, such as actress Zooey Deschanel expaining that she was not trying to imitate Judy Garland and the like would be excellent for improving these articles. No one could make a valid case for the Dorothy Gale, Tin Woodman, etc. articles being deleted because these are iconic characters with appearances in many notable movies and literature and as such the out of universe information I have only begun to add, can and should go to flesh in these articles about the characters in general, which would still mean a merge and redirect with edit history intact. I would support that as a compromise. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 03:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

So, you're suggesting a double merge? The plot the Tin Man and the rest to the actual notable original character articles? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, ma'am, I am. (I needed to start the day with a rhyme!) The characters on which these are based have considerable notability and it is reasonable to believe that as authors continue to write about these characters they will continue to write about their reinventions and adaptations, meaning there is an academic interest in these particular characters as depicted in Tin Min, because they represent only the most recent depiction of arguably some of the most recent fictional characters from all of literature and cinematic history. Because they are from a miniseries that appeared on a major cable network and portrayed by recognizable actors/acrtresses as well, there is an interest and relevance to the careers of these real people. Thus, some of the information I have added could be used in the article on the miniseries, the articles on the characters in generally, and maybe even in the articles on the actors and actresses. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd need to check the history, but I could have sworn that was done when the series first started airing and people starting trying to create character articles...but Jupiter didn't retain any of those histories when he made new ones, he just started over again under new names so finding the originals may be difficult. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay. To clarify what I am getting at, look at this unreferenced section at Cowardly_Lion#Recent_works_and_parodies. I really think a good way to develop and reference that section would be to add the out of universe information from The Washington Post, which is clearly a mainstream press and not a fanzine opinion, from List_of_characters_in_Tin_Man#Raw that compares Raoul Trujillo's portrayal with Bert Lahr's performance. This source appears to be entirely about this particular character with additional information comparing/contrasting with the other performance that could be useful; however, you have to pay for the article.  :( Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I have looked at sources for List of characters in Tin Man and have come to following conclusions:

• Notable characters that can and should be kept/merged in some capacity and possible locations due to availability of out of universe reliable secondary source citations:
  • List_of_characters_in_Tin_Man#Raw to Cowardly_Lion#Recent_works_and_parodies
  • List_of_characters_in_Tin_Man#Tutor to Toto_(dog)#Later_film_versions (if you look here, you will see that we can even source the name of the dog as well as human actor who portrayed the character in Tin Man; because we can source the dog's "actor", too, a merge to the Toto (Oz) article wouldn't be too over the top)
  • List_of_characters_in_Tin_Man#Queen_Lavender-Eyes to Glinda#Other_films
  • List_of_characters_in_Tin_Man#Mystic_Man to Wizard_(Oz)#Adaptations
• Characters for which I have thus far been able to find any secondary sources:
  • Ahamo, Jeb Cain, Xora, General Lonot, General Zero, and General Zero.

Now with the above said, List of characters in Tin Man can still serve a navigational purpose and there are a number of previews and reviews with general comments on the characters as a whole that could be used for development and reception sections, but if nothing else, the reinventions of Dorothy Gale, the Tin Woodman, the Scarecrow, the Cowardly Lion, Toto, the Wizard, Glinda, etc. are significant to cinematic and cultural history. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:28, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm still not really seeing any notability for any of them, though merge is better than a keep. Most of the references you've been adding a purely reviews of the miniseries, not specific studies/commentary on the characters themselves. That, to me, speaks to merge and create a seriously awesome reception section in the main article instead of a few spit sized ones spread over articles that are still, primarily, plot. As a side note, named references are your friends :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I have only scratched the surface of the results of Google News searches and again because these characters are versions of some of the unquestionably most notable fictional chracters as indicated above, there is clearly legitimate encyclopedic interest in them. I personally think the articles should be kept, because they can be sourced through reliable secondary sources that can allow for sections of the articles on development and reception; however, for the sake of compromising, I would be willing to allow for merges to both the main character and series articles. My concern is that the information is not lost and if I was able to do what I have done thus far by just choosing a few of ther results from the pages of results that the searches bring up, it is fairly clear that further improvement is clearly possible and we now have a basis from which we can either merge and build up some other articles or even to expand these articles. AnmaFinotera, just to be open and all, I am bit surprised here. I tend to stay out of those anime ones you nominate as I don't know much about them, but here we're essentially discussing variations of Dorothy Gale and related characters that have incredibly high importance in literature and film. Should the various incarnations or depictions of her and the other characters have separate articles, well, that's debatable, but certainly we should be able to agree that the main character article should exist with at least redirects of any individual portrayals to that article. I of course realize that in some instances these fictional character articles for one off characters and the like are hard to defend and I have avoided commenting in many fictional character articles of the past few months for that reason, but in instances when there's information concerning characters that are relevant to a much broader lineage as in the case or elements of fiction (such as those Jurassic Park islands) that appear in a variety of media and are indeed mentioned in reliable secondary sources, we should be able to agree that they merit coverage in some manner. If my sources were solely the "offical Tin Man magazine", okay, but consider how many made for Sci Fi channel movies do NOT get coverage in The New York Times and Washington Post. This one has coverage in mainstream press, because it is a reimagining of one of the most well known works of fiction with A-List actors/actresses portraying them. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

That was a bit long. :P I've looked at those references and thus far they are all minor notices and would not hold up under real scrutiny (i.e. FA level reviews). And sorry, but just because the film was covered by the NYT doesn't mean it is significant coverage of the characters either (and actually, many of them do when RHI ramps up the promotion as it usually does for all of its miniseries). Of those sources you added, almost all of them are just reviews with quickly interviews (common for promoting films and miniseries), and none were specific and extensively covering any one character. Dorothy Gale already has an article, every iteration of her character is not notable on its own, its notability depends on the original. I didn't say DG shouldn't be mentioned in the Dorothy Gale article. She should, and if she isn't, I'd check the article history to see who vandalized it because she was added back when Tin Man started as part of its initial article creation. However, the specific character DG is not independently notable, not apart from Dorothy and not apart from the film itself. Specific and properly sourced information within the main articles is appropriate and relevant, not a single article for each. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

In which case we should close the AfDs and discuss how and where best to merge on the articles' talke pages. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Not really. I still think they should be deleted, since GFDL doesn't apply after the fact. And no reason to close them now. Even if the end result is merge, its still a valid discussion (and, quite honestly, either way I'd rather have something more "official" in case this same editor decides to pull this again. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I really can't think of any reason to delete them. We're a paperless encyclopedia, they're clearly relevant to a good deal of people, discussed out of universe in multiple reliable and mainstream sources, unquestionably mergeable at worst, certainly legitimate search terms to everyone who created and worked on these articles, etc. Now some of those manga articles you nominate and comment in that you don't see me commenting in I don't do so, because I can't do anything to improve them. Here, however, we are discussing characters portrayed by notable actors and actresses such as Richard Dreyfuss and Zooey Deschanel who are not merely reviewed in some genre specific source (SciFi has many miniseries and movies that don't get national media coverage) that are likely to be discussed long into the future due to their being new takes on some of the most recognizable characters from literature and cinema. Somehow this information is salvageable and this is one instance where our credibility is on the line. People might mock us for covering inidvidual Pokemons or something, okay, but literary and film scholars, i.e. not just fans, will have a hard time taking us seriously if we start dismissing the mainstream media and diminishing our coverage of reinventions of strikingly notable characters. Regards, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:59, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but they are still not notable and I do not see the handful of sources added (which are all the same sources on each article) as showing they are notable enough to have their own articles, at all. They should be covered, as appropriate, in the main miniseries article and, as sourcable, in the original character articles, the way they used to be. And hey, we deserve mocking for having individual Pokemon articles too, when only one or two are actually real-world notable per significant coverage in reliable third party sources that extensively discuss them in detail. This is the second time you noted anime/manga, and you may notice that I take the same stances there than I do here with film articles. Only truly notable characters should have individual articles. Tin Man was a great miniseries (loved it), but four or five sources covering the miniseries itself does not make every character notable nor does it really show its relevant to a "good deal of people"...how many people are talking about it or the characters now?. Any newer film books including it in its discussion? Any one still talking about those characters? Notice that the article itself has little editing, which while not really a great guideline, also doesn't show that people are still remembering and heavily interested in teh film. Of course reviews came out when it was released, it does happen with many films. See Grizzly Rage, undeniable a wonderfully horrible B-movie that aired on Sci-Fi. Despite that, it still had enough reviews that it is a GA level article. Would you actually say those handful of sources made each of its four characters notable enough for an article or a list? Films, as a whole, rarely warrant a character list at all, including miniseries films, much less individual character articles. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:21, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

They are notable by any reasonable standard and even if you don't see that, but do at least agree they can and should be covered in other articles then that is still a call for merging and redirecting, but not deletion. To be honest, there's no real reason why we shouldn't cover just about everything that can be verified in reliable sources and that some of our editors and readers view worthwhile. The whole notability thing is really anti-wikipedic as it boils down to "I like it/I don't like it", just as a handful of editors in some five day AfD who feel otherwise doesn't truly reflect the opinions of our community when many times that number have worked on or come here to read these articles. Keeping this content expands our coverage of a non-hoax topic that is verified in reliable sources. Deleting it accomplishes nothing worthwhile. It doesn't make the people interested in this topic suddenly want to work on other articles. Not all articles must be GA or FA level to merit inclusion here. In any event, in December 2008 and January 2009, people are indeed still talking about it. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 04:16, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

nothing anti-wikipedic about it. Wikipedia is not a fiction fansite, its an encyclopedia. And no, notability does not boil down to "I like it" or "I don't" it boils down to what is actually notable by reasonable standards of SIGNIFICANT coverage (not one source being stretched paper thin to call it good enough). And yes, it does reflect the opinions of the community. If you don't vote, you can't complain about elected officials with any real authority. If you don't voice your opinions in the discussions, same applies. Just because it isn't a hoax topic doesn't make it worth inclusion. And people are not talking about it. People mentioning it in passing as "the last miniseries aired" or "he also starred in" is not talking about it. All significant mentions are from when it was released. Nothing since. You know what I find sad? People will sit here and do all this work and research and hotly defend such unnotable characters, yet can't bother with the actual notable work, the miniseries itself. Which might explain why the article doesn't even mention its Emmy nominations. That, to me, is far more sadder and anti-wikipedic than wanting to clean out the cruft. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Well WP:ITSCRUFT is always an "I don't like it". Significant coverage is what we have here, i.e. the characters being mentioned out of universe across dozens of sources. Seriously how many characters from mini-series are cited in The New York Times with quotations from actors and comparisons to other versions of those characters? Just because I only selected a few of those sources does not reflect the actual Google News results, which is of course far more significant and extensive collectively. People mentioning it at all in newspapers still this year is a sign of notability as of the countless miniseries in existence, not all will even get that. It is anti-wikipedic, because Wikipedia is indeed an encyclopedia. A paperless encyclopedia that boasts about having 2 million articles which anyone sees on the main page. Wikipedia is something people are interested in and come to because it has such extensive coverage of topics that some may see as obscure or come up with their personal ideas of notability over. Our claim to fame is because we have millions of articles on so many diverse topics. No, we should not cover literally everthing and as such I have actually argued to delete by now more articles than I have seem some of those who have disagreed with me in various discussions argue to keep. And I am trying to be more selective about which ones are worth defending anymore. These ones are slaveable. Plus, if we were merely a clone of Britannica, what would be the point? Citing The New York Times and other mainstream newspapers is the exact opposite of a fansite. We don't have to have dissertations on every single topic we covered. If we get sufficient coverage in multiple reliable sources from which we can write an article, that's good enough. If it is at least sufficient for merges and redirects, then we do that. But deletion in this case goes against Wikipedia:PRESERVE#Preserve_information, because it is not original research, it is thus far not redundant (not merged yet), not irrelevant (out of universe cited information is what we have), not patent nonsense, not copywright violations, not inaccurate, and goes without saying about not being unsourced claims about living people. And on top of it, we have a Talk:Tin_Man_(TV_miniseries)#Merger_proposal that should have been revisited first just as I believe you opposed TTN nominating articles for deletion for which merge discussions existed (and no I do not think you are the same as TTN, so I do not mean that as any kind of slight). If the main article needs improvement, well, it should be improved as well, but it is not an indication that the sub-articles should just be abandoned. BOTH should be improved. I would be glad to help improve the main article, but it requires such an inordinate amount of time having to defend some articles from which we might draw information to improve the main article or for which we need as spinouts for future improvements as well. Being a collection of deletion discussions hardly makes us a better encyclopedia (I don't see how we benefit from keeping an AfD discussion public rather than an article that at least a segment of our community believes worthwhile that we know is not nonsense as AfD discussions are useful to who?). Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 04:44, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's too long and I barely read it. In short, no, they aren't salvageable. They will never be nothing but a bunch of plot with a handful of lines of real world info. And no, sticking in token citations does not make us better than a fansite when people are only keeping these articles on some thinly claimed "notability". And no, it doesn't go against preserve, but that's something you and will probably never agree on (though I am curious as to how you would make the same argument with the 10th Kingdom character articles which ARE copyright violations and inaccurate). And I opposed TTN nominating articles for deletion for which there was already a consensus to merge (not just because a merge discussion existed), so it was a waste of time all the way around. The issue was already dealt with, he just decided I was taking "too long" to do the merges because I left the discussion up for a month. AfD discussions aren't "public" in terms of being out there. People have to know where to find them, and there is no valid reason not to have them available, though, as it helps people understand why some content just doesn't belong here and why it was removed if the issue comes up later. And true, every article doesn't have to BE GA/FA, but it if can not be reasonably be seen as being capable of being brought there, it should be questioned as to why it exists at all. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:51, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

They are salvageable, which is why the consensus in the discussions is clearly moving in that direction. One who argued to delete, now says to merge. One who argued to merge, now says to keep. I have greater hope in these articles futures, but neither you nor I are seers and as such cannot know how they will be improved further in the future. Yet, characters that are adapted from Baum have a reasonably good chance of being discussed in further books and articles about The Wizard of Oz and its various adaptations. If the 10th Kingdom articles are copywright violations or inaccurate, then they should be rewritten and improved accordingly. Looking at the merge discussion on the series talk page for the Tin Man articles there actually does appear to be a consensus to merge, so the nominations does seem to be going against that consensus or in place of it and by and large the consensus in these discussions is shaping out to be either a keep, merge, or no consensus. By the way, I was about to add about it being nominated for an Emmy, but that seems to already be mentioned at Tin_Man_(TV_miniseries)#Reception. I checked Academic Search Complete and came across Fees, Jarre, "Miniseries Have Major Impact," Television Week; 8/11/2008, Vol. 27 Issue 21, p26-26, 1p, 5 color which also discusses it being nominated for an emmy only to see the article already reference as much. Ah well. :) (I wish we could make actual emoticons by the way...) Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 05:04, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Its now mentioned because I just added it :-P, along with some production info long left neglected (I really need to get the special edition DVD which has the making off stuff that aired when the miniseries aired). I'd be curious as to what that whole article states because according to a source I just added, Sci Fi is now one of the only American channels that still gives that kind of support to miniseries, which would be a nice note for the channels otherwise blah page. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:08, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how much I'm allowed to quote without it being a copy vio (I found it on a search engine that I have to log on for), but here's part of it: "This time around, HBO's historical drama John Adams tops Emmy's list with 23 nominations, including miniseries. Cranford, a story set in 1840s England, also is nominated in the miniseries category, along with A&E's retelling of the biological thriller The Andromeda Strain and Sci Fi's Tin Man, a reworking of Frank Baum's 1939 novel The Wonderful Wizard of Oz that draws a line of demarcation between the fantasy of the old Oz and the darker, somewhat psychedelic world of the new....Tin Man (Sci Fi, RHI Entertainment) stars Zooey Deschanel as DG (Dorothy Gale), who goes from fighting boredom to battling flying monkeys, aided by the half-brained Glitch; Raw, who only wants a little courage; and Cain, a former cop also known as a Tin Man. The series features Richard Dreyfuss as Mystic Man, the drug-addled wizard, and Kathleen Robertson as Azkadelia, an evil sorceress who holds a big secret about DG's past and future." Academic Search Complete and J-Stor frequently get hits that Google News and Google Scholar don't get I have found. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 05:16, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah. So basically the same as the other ones (23 nominations! Wow...never even watched that one LOL). Agreed on ASC. I use it and some others through A&M for a lot of stuff, especially when working on company articles and anything from more than 5 years ago since so many papers want to charge to read their online versions. *grumble* Gonna see if Tin Man actually won any awards (and BTW, none of its Emmy noms were for the characters/acting ~ducks~). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:18, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I watched the first few episodes of John Adams, but never got around to finishing it before it was off of HBO on demand. In any event see also this interview. It is five pages long and the actress discusses her role and her take on the role, how she prepared, etc. at some length which could be added to the production section. Pretty bold claim here. I can go through those again tomorrow, but I need to watch the replay of The Soup in three minutes. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 05:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay...gotta find a way to work "as a Straw Man 2.0 whose brain was vacuumed out of his zippered head" into the article LOL Very bold headline indeed. The Teen interview isn't actually that long if you check the whole version...I hate it when sites do that...besides making it annoying to cite, its annoying to read :-P For now will add the link to the article as I want to play some Odin Sphere before sleeping.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:30, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I have made some additional improvements to the DG article using these sources. By the way, in other news, you can actually hold a version of The Black Pearl in the real world.  :) Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:43, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Just thought I'd butt in. I'm interested in improving the main Tin Man article, and I believe I was the one who initiated the various merge discussions and cleaned a lot of excess plot & OR out of the character articles. This really riled up Jupiter Optimus Maximus, who'd created those articles (and who frequently fills character articles with his own POV and OR), so I let him have the character list article as a playground (read: dumping ground) while I spent time cleaning up the main article. But my interests eventually shifted to other things and the article and merge discussions kind of got forgotten. The AfDs have re-kindled my interest in working on the series article, so I'm going to put more time and effort into that tomorrow. I've got the special edition DVD, so I'll go through the featurettes and add what I can. I'll also try to expand the cast and reception sections using the source material that A Nobody has brought to the table. When all is said and done I think we have the potential to get the series article up to GA (or at the very least B) and to delete/redirect the character articles back to the main one.

As for adding bits about the Tin Man character adaptations to the articles about the Baum characters, I'll leave that to you both but I feel that it will be able to be done using material from the Tin Man article once it has been significantly improved. I'm with AnmaFinotera in the opinion that these individual characters (DG, Cain, Glitch) do not have enough significant coverage of the characters beyond the context of the miniseries itself that independent articles are justified. The source material is certainly fantastic for improving the main article, but worrying about spinout character articles while the main article is in dire need of improvement is seriously putting the cart before the horse. WP:SS advises us, and I wholeheartedly agree, to develop the main article first and then split out only those topics that seem worthy of standing on their own. The gun was severely jumped in splitting out the character articles at an early stage, and it's been an uphill battle ever since to get them cleaned up and the worthwhile info brought back into the main article (I fell compelled to note that, at the time of the AfD nominations, there was no worthwhile info to bring over into the main article). Funny how that works sometimes. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:53, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Cool on the DVD! I keep meaning to get it but then Christmas happened :-) Glad you've gotten reinterested in the article. Unfortunately Jupiter Optimus Maximus did the same mess with 10th Kingdom, but at the time I just got fed up and walked away and he, of course, restored the entire thing back to his preferred trashy, personal summary state. *sigh* You might find this interesting, though, regarding him. After seeing what he did at 10th Kingdom, I got curious...because it was quite similar to what someone else had tried. Meanwhile, I've gone ahead and fixed the lead and hopefully fixed the wording on that sentence I moved to the production section so it flows better? Category 6: Day of Destruction is a miniseries article I have taken to GA, if you'd like to take a peak for potential guideance. My main concern with Tin Man is the inclusion of a character section which is generally no something film articles should have unless it has more a real-world context and is in prose, though with the sources found now, perhaps it can be reshaped into that. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 07:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

On another note I saw somewhere about rescuing articles, but not making GA articles. In my 30,000 or so edits, I have contributed to good and featured articles, however, on this volunteer site I most enjoy rescuing articles and making editors feel welcomed by giving people welcome messages or listing nice people on my userpage (and sometimes I fight vandalism or warn people for incivility as I did someone who said mean things on IllaZilla's talk page recently or back before I had my username changed when I helped checkuser some socks that were harassing AnmaFinotera). If I have any role in article writing, I see myself as a middle phase, i.e. others create articles, I help to improve them sufficiently to justify their inclusion, and then the better writers than I fine tune them to bring them to GA or FA status. All phases are relevant, especially on a volunteer site and we shouldn't disparage any one phase. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:43, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I was not saying you have to "make" GA articles, but if the article could NEVER be a GA nor an FA. And I do appreciate that while we frequently disagree, you avoid the incivility others often descend to and have been nice enough to help out when someone has vandalized my pages before. :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Remember AnmaFinotera, they aren't "your" articles. : ) – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 19:05, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I was referring to my user pages and talk pages not articles I work on. :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:11, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, you were. *blah* My bad. – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 19:16, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Note on the casting section in Tin Man: I'm thinking of something like this from another article I brought to GA. Plenty of sourced real-world content there, and it's what I'd like the section in Tin Man to eventually look like. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:37, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I would say that similar to the Alien casting section, we should still be able to merge the DG and certain other characters to the articles on say Dorothy Gale and such, just as we still have a separate article on Ellen Ripley, but not articles on separate portrayals of Ellen Ripley, which by the way could and should be better referenced as she gets numerous Google scholar and Google Books hits, i.e. more than just reviews, that discuss her at some depth. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

If merged, DG should be redirect to Tin Man because it is the work her name is used in and the work the character is specific too. However, links to Dorothy Gale should certainly be added, and the Gale article should include information on DG as both a portrayal and a fictional ancestor. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Where it is redirected to, probably doesn't matter, I just want to be sure that we also bring up the Dorothy Gale character article as she is of high significance to literature/cinema and Deschanel's version of her is relevant to that lineage. Hey, as frustrated as I may be seeing these Baum characters nominated for deletion, I actually see characters from a Charles Dickens book that have appeared in at least TEN (10!!) TV and cinematic adaptations and for which I am able to find not just reviews, but full length scholarly articles focused specifically and entirely on these particular characters, not to mention clear evidence of school assignments concerning these characters. When we start trying to delete articles concerning characters people actually study in school and for which they are the subject of journal articles, we are losing sight of what an encyclopedia/reference guide is. Almost as disconcerting as when I saw someone redirect rather than improve the article on the main character in War and Peace for whom full length dissertations have been devoted, scholars have called the "greatest literary figure of all time", etc. I have way too many articles to rescue at once!! :0 (not sure how to make an exhuasted face...) Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

More Boku no Pico manga D:

There's one called "Hareta Hi no Pico (晴れた日のぴこ, Hareta Hi no Piko, lit. Pico's Sunny Day), based off the first OVA, published in Hanaota, February 2007 (published before Ame no Hi no Pico to Chico). The second one (published after Ame no Hi no Pico to Chico), called "Toppatsu aho 4 Koma Gekijō Sugoi yo Tamo-cchan" (突発あほ4コマ劇場 すごいよタモっちゃん, lit... o.o I have no idea), but not much is specified about this one. I'd search google for stuff about both those. moocowsrule^{talk to moo} 02:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Very suspicious

Does this strike you as familiar? I swear, just by looking at the contributions, this has to be the same guy ... Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

If it were, the checkuser probably would have indicated as much as from past experiences with requests, they tend to indicate when other socks were being used. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 04:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed...someone to watch, though, since he's running around making fake articles for his own fictional creations. *sigh* -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

He looks like a sock. – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 18:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Chōjū-giga‎ at B-class

I got Chōjū-giga‎ up to a B-class. It's my second article to get to a B! :-D What do you think? – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 05:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Congrats :) Are you going to take it to PR and try for a GA? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I haven't thought about PR and GA yet. The see also section is for linking to related topics, should it be removed? :P – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 06:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Man, this Bueller 007 guy has some real nerve. He replaced all this valuable stuff in the lead with all of his unsourced crap that's not mentioned in the article. I don't get it, he gets all these awards while he just makes these wimpy stubs. >_< – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 21:42, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

How did Fundamental Law of Education (an article written by Bueller 007) get B-Class???? It has no references (unless you count "Much of the content of this article was translated from the equivalent Japanese-language article, accessed on June 26, 2006. Some revisions were made on March 15, 2007, equally translated from the equivalent Japanese-language article." as a reference) and has way too many personal opinions and original research in it. Other than it being a law, it gives no notability. moocowsrule^{talk to moo} 03:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

People will regularly give an article a B just because they wrote it. Fixed. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Told ya'. – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 01:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Look who did it too. See revision of talk page. – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 01:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep...ego rating rather than reality. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Could you possibly review an article?

Hello we've spoken, albeit briefly, before and you seemed a very intelligent and decent individual, skills which I would appreciate very much in reviewing an article of mine, namely: Ten Technologies to Save the Planet. I'm steaming ahead with it, I'm also starting to lack direction and maintain a sense of what is needed and is utter rubbish. It might be slightly too early, but I was wondering if you could pour over the content for a moment and inform me of what you think (possibly grade it (I dislike grading myself and it feels arbitrary if not downright against Wiki policy)). Thanks in advance. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 16:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I would the biggest thing needed is an increased reception section, which is what most speaks to its notability. Right now, with only review, it fails WP:BK and could end up at WP:AFD or being prodded. I'd look at tighten up the overview to reduce the use of "This chapter" and instead just give an overall summary without a chapter by chapter breakdown. The lead needs a little expansion to better summarize the entire article, per WP:LEAD. You may also want to add a section giving a summary of its release history (particularly if its been released in hardback/paperback, UK and US, etc), later editions (if any), etc. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for that summary. The critical reception section is something I have tried to work on but there are few notable sources; what do you mean by 'with only review', is two not enough at this stage?

The chapter overview is something I was cautious about adding and I think you're right about cutting it down. I'll take a look at the lead article and see what can be done about the lead; it was something I identified as being in need of a revamp from the beginning. I can't say that there are enough releases to warrant a section on them, however it's definitely something I will consider as the article ages. Much appreciated as always AnmaFinotera. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 17:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem and glad to help. If there isn't enough on the releases to go in its own section, a short summary in the lead would be a valid exception to the usual guideline of not having sourced content there. Good luck with it either way :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Hikaru sockpuppet

I found this user named Hikaru300 who vandalislised Bleach, who has a similar name to Hikaru1000 who vandalised the Weekly Jump page. However, 1000's contributions were once actually supportive, but when he started vandalising Jump he stopped, in 300 it just seems like he went crazy. I think it's debatable. – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 01:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

How odd...maybe someone high-jacked his account or someone ticked him off. There was a fairly long pause between his last okay edit and his vandalism. If the 300 keeps vandalizing, I'd send to AI/V. I think it may have been too long since 1000 edited for a checkuser to do any good. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

You see, what happened was, I reverted the edits (adding a picture) he did to Weekly Jump, and then he just got really ticked off and then started trying to take revenge on me by changing the names on the list, and erasing all the pictures I put on. Then it just looks like he completely turned on Wikipedia and started vandalising when he made 300. Well, at least that's my theory. – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 02:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep...unfortunately it happens sometimes. People come here thinking they can do what they want, misunderstanding "free encyclopedia" then when they find there are actual guidelines and policies in place, they throw temper tantrums. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I've noticed that just by keeping your talkpage on my watchlist. Sorta like the guy who commented right under this coversation about keeping a non-notable, short lived, Weekly Shōnen Jump series. – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 17:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikiquette alert

I have filed a Wikiquette alert at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#User:Kangarugh22 over Kangarugh22 accusations of bad faith towards you. Hopefully, other editors will step in and help calm the situation. --Farix (Talk) 21:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I've been trying to hold in my temper (not an easy task for me, ya know ;-) ), but its getting quote annoying. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

It's getting annoying for me too, it's crowding my watchlist. : P – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 21:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

LOL, I'd have thought to AMG convo above would do that more ;) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

SSP help

Well, I see that the checkuser page is not marked as historical and I am not really familiar with the new page. But in any event, please see:

• D50qhx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• I am Emilio (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Am I Massimo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

For, I believe obvious reasons, I suspect these are socks of each other and thus possibly vote stacking at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sisters of the Poor Child Ziko. If you agree, please help in filing a report or if in cases that seem obvious, what if anything should be done? Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, the new page is taking some getting used to. I went ahead filed an AIV since Emilio is actively vandalizing and that is some pretty obvious sockpuppetry. Hopefully the reviewing admin will block all three and not just the Emilio sock. If another appears, let me know and I'll go ahead and file a report so the IP can be found and blocked as well.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, only one was blocked so went ahead and filed the report. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/D50qhx. I'll keep the AfD on my watchlist in case anymore appear. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Completely obvious that they are sockpuppets. -_- They didn't even try, on the deletion page he or she completely gave it away. – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 02:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

*shrugs*

"If you have time... just do it" would have to be worst slogan ever. Imagine if Nike used it how different things would be... Giggy (talk) 03:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

You said "You have the time to find sources and vote on the afd, but not time to copy paste the URL into the article and put <ref> tags around it? Yeah right." Guess what? That's all the "speed rescuers" do now, which doesn't actually improve the article. It just sticks a token source or two on its so they can claim "now its notable, you must keep" then after its over, they just leave it in the same shoddy shape. AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs)

Yeah, I, uggh, didn't encourage those "speed rescuers" (although I challenge you to say they make the articles worse). I just pointed out the silliness of making a loophole for the people you're trying to convince to change their behaviours. But oh well.

Confrontational tones are always welcome, by the way. Giggy (talk) 13:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

*shrugs* in the end...you really think they will read it or care? The main ones who seem to be reading are the ones who it annoys :P (and they do make articles worse because it gives a sliver of notability that rabid fans will hold on to like a starving dog to a bone to prevent any future merge discussions. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I think we can agree to some extent at least. Cynicism is fun :) Giggy (talk) 14:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

LOL, true true :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Bari Haken and Shinya Suzuki

Per some of the comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bari Haken that resulted in the "no consensus" result, I've created the article about the author, Shinya Suzuki, and redirected Bari Haken to it. Even though you advocated deleting Bari Haken, I figured that you wouldn't have an issue with the merge to the author's article. --Farix (Talk) 03:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep, that's fine with me :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Properties licensed by Funimation

You're keeping an eye on this one right? Some editor is insisting that Funimation is the licensor of Samurai Champloo, and misleadingly showed me this. I don't see any verification for this factoid. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

No, I didn't have it on my watchlist anymore. Interesting that he claimed his own edit as proof. ~shaking head~ -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Geneon stil own the license, but Funimation is distributing it now according to ANN. It's quite confusing that Geneons American office supposedly closed a year ago, but they still own licenses.Dandy Sephy (talk) 02:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it seems like Funimation mostly is just distributing rather than taking over licenses, though I think they did also buy some of their licenses (to make it even more confusing). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Makes sense really, it's mostly "easy" work as the subbing, dubbing and possibly authoring is already done so they can do it amongst their own licensing. Saying that, they are supposed to be using Bandai's work for Love Hina after taking their license, but so far it's already a year late! Dandy Sephy (talk) 02:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

True...saves them money while leting them making it. I think all they are doing is reprinting the discs with their logos, and doing new packaging. I haven't picked up any of the series yet to see if they changed out the disc contents to include their logos/trailers, or if they did what Pioneer did when it became Geneon :-P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

AnmaFinotera, have you seen the recent activity? Haven't the time to check, so I'm wondering if you can verify the credibility of this particular update. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The Funi page is showing both on it on its A Go Go page. No idea if its a license or a distro though, page doesn't say. I still think the best thing would be to just get rid of all those silly lists. :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that would be for the best. Think you can drop those lists now? They only serve to confuse. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I remember doing some, but they were reverted and no consensus seems available to act as guidance. Half the time such lists would be called useless and deleted or redirected, while the other half, even though its just a catalog listing, its called good. *sigh* -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I see. Well, whatever you decide to do is OK with me. Perhaps there should be a mention of Funimation at the Samurai Champloo article. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there should be. Check ANN to see if they have a news item on whether its a distro agreement or a license. If the former, just a note in the anime media section saying its distributed by Funi for Geneon. If license, update infobox accordingly and change prose to note was licensed by Geneon, now by Funi, blah blah. :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for asking, but are you able to get to it? It just sounds like a lot to do and I'm afraid I don't quite have the time to learn the works. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Disney again

You're the expert. :) is this Bambifan or is it unrelated? Garion96 (talk) 23:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep, that be him. Those talk page edits and the articles he's doing are good clues, and that IP is definitely within one of his main ranges, the 68.220.x.xs -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Blocked. Tan | 39 23:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, will keep that in mind. Next time I'll block him myself. I am getting my Disney vandals confused lately, too many IP's of skymac and bambifan lately. I also re discovered another Disney vandal again. See User:Youngcolton and notice his edit summaries. A year ago I blocked a whole bunch of socks and ip's from that editor. What is it with these Disney articles? (Hmm, I asked the same questions already a few times...:) Garion96 (talk) 20:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Wish I knew. I suspect their lack of quality may be part of it...I've tried several times to get some Film project members to adopt and clean those up cause Disney films are, for the most part, the easiest to source and bring up to GA/FA, but no one wants to deal with the constant vandalism. And as long as there are no regular editors, the vandalism will continue...vicious circle. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Should this page be moved?

I'm not sure how companies should be structured, but I think the page NAS (company) should be moved to Nihon Ad Systems Inc, since NAS is only it's abreviation. DragonZero (talk) 07:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, how about this page too?. MÄR DragonZero (talk) 07:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, I think this page should be deleted.NetNavi DragonZero (talk) 07:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed on NAS and moved to Nihon Ad Systems (no Inc. generally), asking about MÄR at the project (my gut says yes, it should be Mär but want to confirm on that one. NetNavi should be merged or, if no appropriate merge target, deleted. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

MÄR is only part of the title as I understand it, the full title is MÄR: Märchen Awakens Romance. Unless that second part is just a subtitle. *shrugs* 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 18:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking too...I posted in the project cause it seems to be all over the place :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, is there a tool that will speed up the process of creating an episode page, since the episode pages for MegaMan NT Warrior#Anime are a mess, and they stopped dubbing them.DragonZero (talk) 02:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, not really. I've used Dreamweaver to help me convert a list in a spreadsheet to the proper code, but still have to make the list first and get it going. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I've personally tried using Excel (copy+ paste a ANN page to a sheet, then use a formula to autofill)to do it but it's been a long time since I used excel for any real purpose so I didn't have much luck. I might try it with Apple's Numbers actually Dandy Sephy (talk) 02:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Tsubasa characters

Ggctuk (talk · contribs) just undid the merge/redirect of Yūko Ichihara and created Clone Syaoran (Tsubasa: Reservoir Chronicle). Thoughts? 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 22:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I say restore the merge (pretty sure it had consensus - and already did this one for now) and undo the split out of the clone article as it is certainly not notable. If he protests, guess we need a second full blown discussion with project backing and get all of them merged in anyway. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

That's what I thought, but I only caught this because the navbox is on my watchlist and he added links. I personally have little interest arguing over character articles (or doing much of anything with them at all), and you've dealt with Tsubasa/xxxHolic character articles yourself, which is why I asked you (long excuse for: I'm lazy =) ). 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 22:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

LOL, my only Tsubasa/xxxHolic stuff is minor, mostly keeping them out of the CCS articles :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

List of Dragon Ball characters

Do the links here seem totally unreliable to you? The editor even linked to Krillin in an odd way. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes...it seems like they may have pulled content from the old merged articles or something. I've reverted as being excessive plot detail (way too much). Is there a similar page on the DB wikia? Might have copied from there or something. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Truth be told, I haven't been to the DB wikia in about a year. But yes, the information was pure bunk. The article is already unsourced enough and those editors were making it worse. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Please take a look at the article's talk page, which I referenced in my edit summary when I restored the content. I re-added the content with the {{fact}} tags temporarily so I could look for reliable sources. If I am unable to find sources, I will remove the content. Please use the talk page for discussing the article rather than edit warring. Useight (talk) 21:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The other editor is a admin, and if anyone knows how to edit thing it would be him. Also i did not use anything from the dragonball wiki, and I was in the process of obtaining a creditable source. Yami (talk) 21:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Another thing is that I pulled nothing from a merge article, and I didn't link to krillin's destructo disc in a weird way. If you understood wikipedia more, you'd know how to link right to the target section. Yami (talk) 21:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Being an admin does not necessarily mean he knows better how to edit a specific topic (no offense meant to Useight, I'm saying in general). I've seen some admins who are outright horrible at article writing, plottiness, etc. They are still human you know and no admin is an expert in writing in every particular topic area. And yes, you did link to it in a weird way. You used an external link instead of a proper wiki link, so perhaps YOU are the one who needs to understand Wikipedia more. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. I am not omniscient. I have never read the DBZ manga nor seen its anime. I'm more of a Pokémon guy myself. And, yes, Yami did link with improper syntax. But that's just a reason to fix the syntax, not remove it outright. However, the other reasons you offer are valid reasons to remove content. In theory, all unsourced content should be removed. Anyway, I'll be working on the resolution I have mentioned below. Useight (talk) 22:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolution

Here's the simplest way for us to resolve this. I'm going to take the content that is currently being challenged and I will put it in User:Useight/Sandbox. Yami and I will look for sources and add them there, rather than on the article itself. If and/or after we find reliable sources, we will move the content back to List of Dragon Ball characters. If a concern remains regarding it being "too much plot detail", other unsourced content can be removed in its place, because there is plenty of unsourced content in that particular article. If this content turns out to be unsourceable, it will not be re-added to the article and my sandbox will be blanked. Does this resolution sound acceptable to all parties involved? Useight (talk) 21:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll go with it. Yami (talk) 22:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

It is still excessive and minor plot details about that particular character (yes, the list suffers from it on the whole as well but that's no reason to continue the trend). Just because it can be sourced to the plot doesn't mean it belongs there. See WP:WAF and take a look at higher quality character lists for anime/manga articles, such as List of Naruto characters which is a featured list. For example: "It should be noted that at some point she has acquired the ability to perform Krillin's Destructo Disc which she uses against Goten and Trunks disguised as Might Mask." - a, "it should be noted" is not anything that belongs there at all, and b, no, it does not need to be noted. Its a minor note that is not necessary for anyone to understand the series. Nor is it necessary to repeat everything in each of the Androids section. Giru's production number is another trivial point that isn't necessary. In any peer review or copy edit, that stuff would be stripped out quick fast and in a hurry. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Since I know absolutely nothing about the series, are we in agreeance that this information is minor? Or is it also claimed by at least one party that this information is vital? Useight (talk) 22:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I cringe at the very sight of the phrase "it should be noted" (or some variant thereof), as it almost always means that whatever follows is not noteworthy. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 22:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The part about 16 being able to sense power levels unlike the others is vital. That's how they tracked their way to the Z-warriors.

The part about the android seen in trunk's recollection crushing gero looking like 16 can be removed.

18 learning the destructo disc is vital in its own way as well. The androids don't have Ki like the others, so performing a attack like that is notable. especially since she uses it to demask mighty mask and in the games its a move of her's.

Also you should be less aggressive in your arguments. "it should be noted" was just something i put down, it sounded encyclopedic.

and what does Giru have to do with anything on this topic?

Yami (talk) 22:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

the info on 16's bomb being removed should also be mentioned. Yami (talk) 22:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

It is not notable to anyone but perhaps a fan of the series, but not for giving non-fans a general understanding of the series. And "it should be noted" doesn't sound encyclopedic, that was my point. And the note on Giru was among the stuff I reverted. Useight, thus far only one person, Yami who has already noted to you that he is a fan of the series and editing as such, has claimed any of this is necessary info. Meanwhile, we now have two experienced anime/manga editors saying it isn't (one who has seen the series, one who has not). Perhaps a post to the project for further input would be appropriate, or maybe as User:Sephiroth BCR for an additional view, as he is well versed in FL criteria and what is, and is not, appropriate level of detail in character lists. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

That's a possible idea, but it feels to me like canvassing or forum shopping or something. I'd prefer something on the article's talk page. Useight (talk) 22:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

is the destructo disc thing the only thing you have concerns about? because the 16 bomb and power level sensing is important.

If you're so worried that this list is to let non-fans understand the characters, then 16 attempt at a suicide bomb on Cell should be mentioned. His ability to sense power levels unlike the other two should also be added.

I can see not templating the same info into all three, and i can see the destructo disc might not go well, but the 16 info is vital to the character.

a soruce for 16's bomb being removed has been found and is in Useight's sandbox. I also have a reference that can be used to cite his power level sensing. Yami (talk) 22:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, NONE of it is notable nor necessary to mention. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

side note Focus on the article not the editor please AnmaFinotera. Just because I'm a fan doesn't mean I lack the qualifications to edit a article based on what I am a fan of. Yami (talk) 23:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Then please act more neutrally and read the noted guidelines and argue based on those, not just your knowledge of the series. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Android #16

Android #16 was built with the ability to sense power levels unlike #17 and #18, and assists the other androids in finding the Z-warriors. While trying to protect #17 and #18 from Cell, he is greatly damaged, though Bulma and her father Dr. Breifs repair him. He then ignores his old orders to kill Goku, and helps in the fight against Cell. Like the other androids he had the ability to self destruct, but the device was removed during his repairs. This is made known only when #16 tried to self destruct and destroy Cell, which Cell retaliates by destroying most of #16. His head and consciousness survived, but later is destroyed by Cell, which pushes Son Gohan over the edge to Super Saiyan 2.

the citations have been added. I also cited the voice actors. does this please the other side? Yami (talk) 23:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

See User:Useight/Sandbox for a copy of the proposed material with the included reflist. Useight (talk) 23:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. Those are NOT reliable sources, period. If you can't site it to the series itself as something directly stated by characters, or to actual reliable sources, the information doesn't belong. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Back from Wikibreak

I'm back from an unannounced 1-month wikibreak. So there's two issues that I would deal with first:

1. I read the B-class evaluation for Case Closed; it failed on coverage and WP:REF grounds. WP:REF is probably something that is easier to deal with, but what of coverage, you think, is lacking in that article?
2. A lot of work is required on List of Lucky Star characters; I don't believe a generally plotless series need this length per character. On the other hand, there a WP:REF question related to editing this article: Would you consider official character sketches and the mangaka's afterword in the tankoubon a secondary source?
3. Deal with List of Hiroshi Agasa's Inventions. I would prod it after it's done.

Also I voted a support on WP:FICT, with a condition of a grace period for transwiki.

Cheers,

--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 16:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back! I'd wondered where you were! For Case Closed, it has no production information and the reception information has only sales figures and awards. It needs reviews from reliable sources as well. The plot may also need expansion. I'm not familiar with the series, so I don't know if it covers all of the major events up through the last completed "arc" (or if it even has main arcs). With that added, it should be able to pass to B class. For List of Lucky Star characters, I'd agree, for the most part characters should only need 1 paragraph, with maybe 2 for main characters. Also, official character sketches (or official anything) and manga-ka's remarks are all considered to be primary sources as they are by its creators. They are reliable sources, but don't add to notability.

For List of Hiroshi Agasa's Inventions, since its been to AfD, a redirect would be the best option and in keeping with GFDL if any content is merged. Just make sure to unlink it from other pages afterwards to discourage recreation or excessive IP reverting.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply.

In the case of List of Lucky Star characters: No, I'm not using those references to establish notability, because notability is supposed to be presented in the main article (Lucky Star (manga) in this case).

In the case of List of Hiroshi Agasa's inventions, I do not understand some of your answers:

• a redirect would be the best option seemed to be conflicting with unlink it from other pages afterwards. If there's no link, what's the use of a redirect?

--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 18:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

For the character list, if there is any goal to get to FL, it must have outside notability (newer thing that started happening while you were away). For the invention list, if any content is merged from that list elsewhere, then the article history must be kept so it must be redirected rather than deleted per GFDL. If nothing is merged, then another AfD would be needed to delete since its been there once negating a prod ability. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't intend to do it this far at this stage; doing Case Closed material is time-consuming already. However, I checked WP:FL and WP:FL? and did not say about the notability criteria you mentioned; can you point me where can I find it, please?--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 22:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

This is a notice that List of Hiroshi Agasa's inventions has been selectively merged to Hiroshi Agasa#Inventions, per previous agreement.--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 22:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

(EC) It isn't listed as an WP:FL criteria specifically, but you can see a recent discussion here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga#Results of FACs where it was discussed with input from an FL director who confirmed that character lists missing that kind of info will never pass. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Read and found it confusing. There clearly would have receptions towards a fictional work, and probably a few characters (Putting in consideration of WP's verifiability guidelines), but I doubt very few works would probably have that amount of sources to write a character list with reception for each and every character.--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 22:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't need reception on each and every character (unless someone wanted those characters to have articles of their own), rather there needs to be enough information to be able to add a reception section to the character list covering, at minimal, the overall reception of the characters in general. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Back on the merger: I have effected the merger more than 24 hour ago, and removed the source of the majority of inlinks, {{Template:Case Closed}}, which was used in all DC/CC related articles. However, it seemed the what links here page have not been updated...?--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 01:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe "what links here" is cached, similar to search results, so it takes a bit for it to be updated. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK for White Dog

On February 1, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article White Dog, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 02:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Cool beans! -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow! I really want to see that movie, that sounds genious! – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 05:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I highly recommend it. I remember watching it on late night/early morning cable long ago, and was so happy when it finally got the DVD release it deserved. I never knew it had been deliberately suppressed until I started working on the article though. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

List of Ah My Goddess episodes (season 1)

Seeing as my old thread was deleted... As you probably know, List of Ah My Goddess episodes (season 1) failed FLC. As you seem to be one of the few WP:ANIME members who has watched this (or at least nobody else has confirmed that they have), would you possibly be able to copyedit the episode list? I'd really like to get this to FL some time in the next two months or so if at all possible... (sorry if it seems like I'm trying to push this FLC because in fact, I am). NOCTURNENOIR ^{( t • c )} 19:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I wish I could help, but unfortunately, I suck at copyediting. I have to get everything I do copyedited first to correct my grammar issues (and I've never seen the full series, so I can't even do a check for completeness :( )-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Arg, I'm going to tear my hair out at this rate... Is there simply nobody in WP:ANIME who has watched this series and/or can copyedit? I'm not even concerned with weight at this point... I can probably fix that, but I need someone to fix the flow so it can pass FL... Any idea who else I can bug? I think I might have tried almost everybody at this point. NOCTURNENOIR ^{( t • c )} 20:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm...me, I still don't get why people can't copy edit a series they haven't seen for pure grammar/prose flow. Hmmm...have you tried Keeper76 (talk · contribs) or Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs)? They are both good copyeditors who I've worked with before on a variety of topics (Keeper took on the insane task of CEing the Naruto character list before its FLC) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Keeper seems to have gone on an indefinite wikibreak, but I'll drop a message at Malleus's talkpage. Thanks! NOCTURNENOIR ^{( t • c )} 20:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Doh, pooh...guess I better add a note to my list of CEs. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

No, I lied... He still hangs out here, though I'm unsure if he still copyedits... If Malleus can't do it, I'll ask Keeper next. Thanks for your help! NOCTURNENOIR ^{( t • c )} 21:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

It's worth asking Keeper anyway. He knows what he's doing, and two heads are better than one. Or should that be many hands make light work? :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 22:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Shall I go ahead and ask him? I didn't know if it was a good idea to have two copyeditors working on the same page... Sorry for hijacking your talkpage, AnmaFinotera... NOCTURNENOIR ^{( t • c )} 23:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

No worries...nice to have it used for good purposes :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Bah, I hate dumping this under an unrelated heading, but for a series like List of Spice and Wolf episodes, where the English episode titles have not been confirmed, what should be done? It makes the most sense to put a (lit.) behind each, but since you're more experienced than I am, might you be able to tell me exactly how this should be done? NOCTURNENOIR ^{( t • c )} 02:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree, but usually the ones I see just put the translated title for the English title, including some FL lists for unlicensed series, maybe with a note in the lead about the English titles being translations. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Chapters

If I may completely hijack this thread, I don't suppose you have any OMG volumes, do you, Nocturne? Especially ones from Dark Horse's original release, I'd like to know just what chapters were included and in what order. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 11:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Nope. I didn't like OMG enough to purchase it, unfortunately. However, I'm fairly sure that the information can be found either through Amazon or some other online resource. If you need help with refs, certianly let me know. Again, sorry for hijacking your talkpage, AnmaFinotera... NOCTURNENOIR ^{( t • c )} 14:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Nah, I don't need help there... Dark Horse's website lists all their OMG-related stuff, going all the way back to the original edition releases, complete with release dates and ISBNs... the only thing missing is chapter lists. The main thing keeping me from just sourcing the whole chapter list at this point is the size of the list (37+ volumes' worth, with three English editions), combined with the fact that this is a very unique chapter list... but the last point makes it just as much fun as intimidating, and I'm really enjoying brainstorming possible ways to reformat the list (one thing I've already decided on is to split the list after chapter 20 and just use the traditional {{Graphic novel list}} for volumes 21-current, and to put the chapter titles in between the releases for volumes 1-20, instead of to the left, as the list is currently doing). This work should also help with other chapter lists (Maison Ikkoku or Ranma ½, anyone?), which only adds to my enjoyment of it (dear God, is it just me or am I weird as hell? XD ). 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 22:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Not just you, but still makes us all weird :P (at least, according to my real life associates who just don't get why I "waste" so much time working on articles here anyway). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

How's this look as a layout for the first twenty chapters? I'd particularly appreciate input on the widths I chose (based off of those used by {{Graphic novel list}}) and how I might better handle the left volume column header cells with respect to the language being in every cell. Thoughts? (I've already finished splitting the list and formatting volumes 21-current with Graphic novel list, if you want to take a look) 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 22:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Sample table

# Japanese release date Japanese ISBN Chapters # English English release date English ISBN Release date ISBN 01 September 23, 1989 ISBN 978-4-06-321009-5 001. 01 June 5, 2002 ISBN 1-56971-669-2 December 7, 2005 ISBN 1-59307-387-9 002. Volume title Wrong Number Cover character(s) Cover character(s) 003. 004. 005. 006. 007. 008. 009. 02 August 7, 2002 ISBN 1-56971-764-8 02 March 23, 1990 ISBN 978-4-06-321013-2 010. Volume title Leader of the pack Cover character(s) April 12, 2006 ISBN 1-59307-457-3 011. Cover character(s) 012. 013. 014. 015. 03 October 2, 2002 ISBN 1-56971-765-6 016. Volume title Final Exam Cover character(s)

Hi. I started the current re-formatting of manga chapters. I'd be happy to go through my volumes (I have the original large DH printings of 1-20 and the small 21-current) and correct the chapter names if that's what needed. It may have to wait until this weekend or something though. Also, I like the formatting Dinoguy came up with for the early chapters. DenisMoskowitz (talk) 23:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep, official chapter titles would be nice. I'll work on updating the table when I'm through my watchlist (assuming I have the time) while I try to figure out whether (and how) to list DH's original releases. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 17:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Whew, just finished updating the list with the new format... how's it look? Next thing to do is to ref all the reldates, add the cover characters, and figure out what to do with DH's original release (I'm thinking another table underneath the uncollected chapters section, but I'm not 100% sure yet). In any case, I'm not doing any of this today - I've had enough of this chapter list for now. =) 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 22:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm...not completely fond of it, but certainly way better than the previous one and best option I've seen so far for dealing with these few weird releases. Any way to tweak the headers and widths to keep the dates from wrapping? (my minor pet peeve for table layouts :P) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:40, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

TBH, I don't completely like it, either, but this has been at the back of my mind for months, and I've been specifically mulling over it for weeks, and this was the best I could come up with. As for column widths, do you mean ISBNs? On this monitor (1440x900) reldates and ISBNs don't wrap, and on another monitor with a smaller resolution (I think it's 1200 x something), only the ISBNs wrap. Regardless, though, I wouldn't be entirely comfortable messing with the column widths now until we get the official English titles as well as kanji and romaji titles (and I've stuck all the sources in, since that will add a bit to the width of the dates). Currently, the four reldate/ISBN columns take up 60% of the table width (15% each), and when you throw in the two # columns (4% each), that only leaves 32% width for the chapters column.

Know, I meant the dates. Like September and the day appear on one line, then the year is rapping. That annoys me :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:50, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

What's your screen resolution, if I might ask? 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 20:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The standard, 1024x768 :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Aah, I was afraid so. Can you give me some widths that prevent the dates from wrapping on your screen? I don't have a monitor of that resolution for testing, and I can't change the resolution on the library computers. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 20:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Usually 17% for date fields has been working for me. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

It is sometimes worthwhile to give these fields a fixed width, in which case only "Chapters" would resize, depending on the resolution. G.A.S^talk 06:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

@AnmaFinotera:  Done. Previously, I upped the fields to 16% width (since I ended up on a computer using 1024x768 and thus *was* able to test it... funny thing, fate is), that stopped dates from wrapping for me, but some of the refs still ended up on the next line.

@G.A.S: I'm not too sure about fixed widths myself, because of the possibility of people browsing with a different font size. If we set fixed widths on the table to prevent wrapping on 1024x768, and someone comes along with font size set above "normal" or "medium", they'll get wrapping whether their resolution is 1024x768 or 2000x1600. I'd rather use percentages at the cost of possible wrapping at low resolutions for some, than use fixed widths and ensure that some get wrapping regardless of their screen resolution. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 18:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Just corrected the chapter titles up to volume 31 and added the cover characters while I was at it. Glad I could help. DenisMoskowitz (talk) 22:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Cool beans, it looks pretty good (except the cover characters are in the wrong format - they should be a bulleted list, but I can fix that up). I don't suppose you know if the chapter names change at all between the first release and the second one (since I found out that, for all intents and purposes, there are only two releases, with a re-release of the first three volumes... gah, why's it got to get more complicated every time I look)? 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 18:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the "1-555-GODDESS" titles were the same as those used in the "Wrong Number / Leader of the Pack / Final Exam" volumes but I'll verify them. There used to be a note about the first volume on the top of the page but it was removed by our host on November 14 - AnmaFinotera, was there a reason for that? I don't own the recent unflipped re-releases but I'm going to a comic-book store tonight so I'll see if they have any of them that I can check. DenisMoskowitz (talk) 22:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The good news is that "1-555-GODDESS" uses the same chapter titles as the three collections that replaced it. The bad news is that the new releases use different chapter titles - not sure whether it makes sense to list both, or how to keep people from switching them back and forth if you only list one. And I don't own the new re-releases, so I can't add the new titles myself. DenisMoskowitz (talk) 01:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I was rewriting the lead in something of a hurry and incorrectly thought it was noted in the table. Feel free to restore that note. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The lead needs a complete overhaul anyways, but I'll eventually try to do that as part of the present cleanup/expansion/sourcing. I'm not worried about the chapter titles from the 1-555-GODDESS release (though it is nice to hear they're the same as the ones used for the second, flipped release); just how much do the titles differ between the Wrong Number release and the unflipped release (and do you know if there is any point where the titles become the same)? Also, would you be willing to write plot summaries? You should be able to work off of the Wrong Number release while writing for the chapter groupings in the unflipped release. If you do write them, don't worry about trying to place them in the table, you can simply post them to the talk page (AnmaFinotera would probably appreciate that over posting them here ;) ), and I can add them to the table for you. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 02:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I only looked at volume 1, but there were a number of differences there - I think "Wrong Number" became "The Number You Have Dialed is Incorrect" and "Into the Lair of the Anime Otaku" became something like "The Lair of Anime Mania". Chapter 6 changed as well but I can't remember the new wording. As for plot summaries, the flipped releases are organized into plot arcs much more than the unflipped releases are but I'll see what I can do. Is there a WP page with good plot summaries (of some other series) so I can see how much detail to go into? DenisMoskowitz (talk) 14:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

List of Marmalade Boy chapters and List of Tokyo Mew Mew chapters are to FL chapter lists with summaries (those two are considered to be around the max length desirable). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Ooh... some of those could be rather nasty then. If you're able to get ahold of the unflipped releases for long enough, could you make a list of the differences and post them to the chapter list's talk page? 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 18:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Ep 12.5

Ah, time to rehijack my thread. AnmaFinotera, I'm thinking of resending List of Ah! My Goddess episodes (season 1) to FLC. I got Malleus to copyedit it, as you know, so the only remaining issue should be episode 12.5. As a temporary solution, I've removed it under WP:V, but I really would like to readd the episode back in with a source. I've looked pretty much everywhere and all the sources I can find fail WP:RS, so I doubt sourcing the episode will be possible, though. Any ideas? NOCTURNENOIR ^{( t • c )} 04:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm...is it on the Japanese DVDs? I would think its existance is a source enough for its being there somewhere, though without a source on the airdate, maybe at the end or in a subsection as an extra episode? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not on a single DVD in the US or in Japan. Vol 4 ends with episode 12 and vol 5 starts with episode 13, completely skipping over episode 12.5. The only reason I know it exists is because I've watched it. Reliable sources for it simply do not exist, which is why it's causing me such a headache. NOCTURNENOIR ^{( t • c )} 04:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

How odd...usually it would at least be on the Japanese DVDs somewhere...not sure how to handle that one then. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that the episode was used as a filler episode, but I'm surprised that the company refuses to admit its existence on a DVD or on the web. ANN and anidb confirms its existence and airdate (as does cal.syoboi, a source of unknown reliability). You'd think there would be a source somewhere out there, right? NOCTURNENOIR ^{( t • c )} 04:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

You'd think! Was it that bad of an episode? :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't remember it entirely, but as far as I know, it was incredibly boring. How good can a recap episode be, anyways? NOCTURNENOIR ^{( t • c )} 06:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey...could have gotten four in a row! *cough* -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Wait are you serious? They had FOUR!? Grah, insanity. Anyway, I have opened another FLC for List of Ah! My Goddess episodes (season 1), so I wanted to let you know. If you could comment, that'd be great. Thanks! NOCTURNENOIR ^{( t • c )} 21:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Yep. There was some production issue, I think, so they made those to fill in. Talk about fan complaints! Most people I know who got the single DVD volumes were happy Bandai put them together so they could be skipped LOL. Will try to take a look at the FLC after I get back from getting groceries :D -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

More pages need protection

Bambifan101's socks have set their eyes on List of The Mighty B! episodes, List of The Mighty B! characters, Talk:The Mighty B!, Hotel for Dogs, Hotel for Dogs (film). Talk:Hotel for Dogs, Talk:Hotel for Dogs (film) Balto (film)', Talk:Balto (film), and Robin Hood (1973 film), all of these pages need indef semi-protection. I tried contacting LessHeard vanU but he's not online. Elbutler (talk) 14:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

You'll need to submit to WP:RPP. Note that they have become the newest target of Bambifan101's sock and note which how many socks have appeared and hit so far. I'm not an admin so I can't do the protections myself. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

List of Dragon Ball characters

First let me say thanks for helping me take care of this page. Now about that note in Gotenks, it says "In its English release of the series in the 25th volume Viz erroneously labels the chapter as chapter 298 instead of 299 on page 103, though the table of contents on page 6 which accurately gives 299." ... any ideas on how to improve it? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

No prob. I'll see if I can think of a good reword. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Something like "On page 103 of the English release of volume 25, chapter 299 is erroneously labeled chapter 298, although it is correct in the table of contents on page 6."? There's no reason to state that it's Viz's fault, since the blame could (and most likely does) lay with the translator or editor as opposed to the whole company; and in any case, it's hardly important. On the other hand, if it was meant to show that it was Viz's English release that had the mistake (which should be obvious, since IIRC Viz is the only English licensor/distributor), that can be specified by just replacing the first "the" with "Viz's": "On page 103 of Viz's English release of volume 25, chapter 299 is erroneously labeled chapter 298, although it is correct in the table of contents on page 6." 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 21:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I changed it to "Viz Media's North American English release of the manga incorrectly labels chapter 299 as being chapter 298 on its title page (page 103), though the table of contents lists the chapter correctly." earlier today. "erroneously labeled" sounds better though. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

*back :D*

Our internet like died for a few days, but I'm back again! And why did you undo my edit on Kanon Wakeshima? I think it looks a lot better than having two parenthesis, so it's easier to put it in the Nihongo template... But whatever moocowsrule^{talk to moo} 06:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

How do you request a page be locked or protected? Because Naruto: Ultimate Ninja (series) REALLY needs to be locked. It's come under a large amount of fan speculation and needs to be locked desperately! moocowsrule^{talk to moo} 06:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Because it is formatted properly according to the MoS as is. :) For page protection, see WP:RPP for reasons a page can be protected and how to file a request. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

>.< *so much fan speculation* *dies D:*... People have been changing Naruto Shippūden: Narutimate Accel 2 to Naruto Shippuden: Ultimate Ninja 5 and claiming it might be released in November (and adding notes saying it's going to be released then because if you take the time between Accel 1 and 2 (like April to December or something) that it should be released in November and it's confusing D:)... Thanks, I'll take it to the RPP... moocowsrule^{talk to moo} 06:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Issue with Fay's name

Check out User talk:Dragonmaster88#Fay vs. Fai on Tsubasa: Reservoir Chronicle - exactly the type of stuff I try to steer clear of. =P 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 06:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to my world *evil laugh* Talk about a snarky response though (not that I'd expect otherwise from him - for amusement, he also "semi-protected" an article...though he isn't an admin). Posted a reply. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Dab "Hershey's"

Thanks for the benefit of your greater familiarity with the Hershey's-related topics, and please say so (here is fine) when you're done, so we avoid further edit conflicts. You may also want to give some serious attention to WP:MoSDab and WP:Dab, since, as it stands, some of what you've changed will have to be put back.
While it appears (contrary to what one of your edit-summaries might be construed to say) that you have a grasp of the fact that Dabs do not have entries for everything that is simply called by the term being disambiguated (someone's error, which i presume got the Dab tagged for CU in the 1st place), you should consider looking into the distinction between primary-topic Dab'n and equal Dab'n; you may be in effect making a reasonable argument for

1. The Hershey Company to be renamed "Hershey's" (and the Hershey's Dab to move to Hershey's (disambiguation), or
2. (a situation that i believe to be a common sense extension of the explicit guidelines, and implicit in them) "Hershey's" being a Rdr to The Hershey Company, and the lead line of Hershey's (disambiguation) reading

   Hershey's is the chocolate-focused manufacturer The Hershey Company.

--Jerzy•t 20:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The Hershey Company is the official company's name, so renaming that article is not an option at all. It would be completely inaccurate. "Hershey's" is the name used on many of its products, but not all of them, so all of those options would be severe misstatements. Hershey's is also the name used on the products made by Hershey Creamery Company, which are not the same company nor even related (if you check the latter, you can enjoy reading about their rather embittered legal battles over that Hershey word). So redirecting Hershey's to The Hershey Company would not be neutral nor the best option, to me, as there are also other Hershey's (though not as many as Hershey). I created the dab over the redirect that was already there because it was simply redirecting to The Hershey Company, which was not a neutral treatment, IMHO, of Hershey Creamery Company. I'm not a dab expert or anything, I had someone who does work in dabs check it and he tagged it for clean up. Perhaps another option would be to merge it to Hershey (disambiguation) to ensure more neutral treatment. I created separately because other similar type things seem to be considered separate entries in other dabs I looked at. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks. I suspect you are right about not renaming: there does seem to be an indecent degree of respect paid to "official names" of organizations. (E.g. tho no one insists on moving Moll Flanders to The Fortunes and Misfortunes of the Famous Moll Flanders, and despite what the Constitution calls it, we have Supreme Court of the United States, -- copied from its Web page headline -- for what would be sensibly be Supreme Court (U.S.).) There are a couple of non-controversial guideline deviations that i too would have places a tag over, if i weren't already working on it; i'll clean them up.
  But my main concern at this point is with the 300s: there's nothing wrong with a user learning something on a Dab page, but entries have to be written for the sole purpose of getting, in this case, someone interested in the series of races those 3 were part of, to Camping World 300, despite their name for it being "Hershey's". (Note that Hershey's Kisses 300 is a Rdr they could have used if they knew that much, and they're not likely to stray to Hershey's Chocolate World bcz we fail to mention the Kisses.) The place where they learn, or refresh their memory, about what "Hershey's" has to do with the article they want should be at that article. Take a look tomorrow; if you're still uncomfortable with it, we can close this here and copy it onto MoSDab talk to seek consensus among more heads.
  --Jerzy•t 07:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
  

I made a few minor tweaks to the first two, but otherwise its fine. And true on the races (though if I remember right, only two of the races have redirects)...it just seemed unbalanced to decide Hershey's meant the chocolate company when the others are fairly big in their own rights. :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• We're not in perfect agreement, but for me, in adequate agreement. For the record, i'd put "nickname" only in the target article, in contrast to my (clumsy and picky) "theme-park/visitor-center facility", bcz confusion abt the nick would not interfere with selecting the right article, while i can imagine someone ruling out HCW bcz they are familiar with only one aspect (theme park or visitor center, but not the only one we mention). But evaluating the wording of either the company's entry or HCW's is pretty subjective, and disagreement is neither surprising nor worth trying to eliminate. Thanks for the good process!
  --Jerzy•t 05:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
  

Gundam 00 characters

Would you take a look at this proposal, Talk:List of Mobile Suit Gundam 00 characters#Character organization outline, and comment on it? --Farix (Talk) 13:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Sand Land

There is a discussion over here concerning the title of the article. What can you make of it? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment left there :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

So did you get any input? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Still seems to be pretty back and forth :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Astro Boy

Is this a violation of WP:DIRECTORY or something? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

It seems like that guy is plastering that thing all over the place, but the site itself seems legit. Still, not sure that's appropriate. Might be something an administrator should look at. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Eh, I'll leave it be. Least (s)he stopped spamming. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 06:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Forever Knight

I just looked up WP:RS and I assume you're talking about Self-published sources? You might want to re-read that section. Fansites are not actually NOT WP:RS While there may be de-facto rejection of many "fansite" writing, there are certainly decent source materials that can be found on selected ones-- And especially in cases where there is no alternative!!! Cuvtixo (talk) 20:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Again, a fansite is NOT a reliable source and no, it is not even a decent source. It fails ALL aspects of RS, not just being self-published. Nor is it the only possible source for anything related to that series. Again, do not continue attempting to add such sites (it also is a WP:COPYRIGHT violation). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

I just wanted to thank you for your help on the Fushigi Yugi article ^^ --Refuteku (talk) 01:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem. :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Son Goku article progress

I've done some work on the references are they acceptable? Sarujo (talk) 14:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Several need some formatting (many of the web cites are missing basic info like author, if available, publisher, date released, date accessed, language for non-English sources). Beyond that, #35 (Voice chasers) does not appear to be RS. Voices can be voiced to an episode and the films as long as they have credits. Ditto 41 & 42 (CrystalAcids) and 46 (Idoke). Ep 55 to a TV.com episode page isn't reliable because that's all use submitted content. Ep 64 should cite the original episode if it aired on TV, rather than an online video (even legit one). Rest all look good except the formatting issues :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The statement "Voices can be voiced to an episode and the films as long as they have credits." doesn't make sence. The problem with the voice actors section was it was tagged with a citation request tag making it clear that claims of actors to rolls required sources. The TV.com source was left by accident by me, I over looked it. The Robot Chicken sketch A Very Dragon Ball Z Christmas did air on TV and was also released on DVD. So I'll just source the DVD set then. Sarujo (talk) 16:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Who flagged it? Usually, you can do an episode or film citation for a role because its easily checked (film articles, for example, need no citations on who played what unless its actually an issue of dispute or an uncredited roll). I know in List of Naruto characters cites were added for the voice actors, but I don't think they are really necessary. For Robot Chicken, you can just cite the episode itself using {{cite episode}} rather than the DVD. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It appears that KojiDude was the culprit as seen here. But I'd feel alot better with stuff such as this had sources to strengthen integrity.

And I'll do that. Sarujo (talk) 18:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Which references needs reformating? Sarujo (talk) 11:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Ref 1 is not using the cite template, I think, while the rest are. Its also missing page #s, author, publisher, volume/issue. #4 needs to be templated with cite book as well. 5-7 are missing page numbers and need the all caps fixed. A lot of the manga references have only chapters, without page numbers which will be needed for any higher level class acceptance. Chapter names should not be italicized, just #: name (in cite 18, its bolded and that also needs fixed) For ref 10 and any other episode citations, minutes needs to be removed (that isn't for episode length). Also clear out the parameters that aren't needed to compact the page size some (like |episodelink= |credits= |url= |began= |ended=). Cite 11 needs cite web formatting. 30 is missing details and possibly cite template. 31-45 need minor title corrections (don't think ANN adds profile to the page name) and ANN needs wikilinking to its article. In 46, Dragonball shouldn't be italicized unless they do it in their title, and whole article title should be in italics anyway. Author name needs to be fixed into first/last params to match others. 48 needs correcting/citing - if its citing an ep, should cite ep. If its citing a DVD feature, {{Cite DVD-notes}}. Cite 50 seems like it might have something backwards. 52-54 are missing key details and need formatting into the appropriate templates. 56-58 are missing the language=Japanese param. 59-61 are missing key details needed to identify the source and need templating. 62-64 are missing some details, like season number, and need the series links added. 65-67 need title checks; is 67 WP:RS? 69-73 need title clean up (using Amazon's mixed up casing at the moment), should be capitalized first letter of all words except minor ones like of/or/and, etc). 76 has an error in there causing two ((. 78 is missing details. and 79 is missing author info (if available), release date, and language.

Overall on many of the references: Authors and publishers should also be linked in the refs (for authors, use authorlink parameter, for publishers regular wikilinks). All dates in all references need to be unlinked. There is no accessdate for books or any other reference except online ones. "|edition= Tankōbon" isn't needed on any manga reference and clutters things up, nor is format=Paperback (that is really intended to use when linking to an online version, not the format of the book). Hope that helps :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I've made a few changes to many of the references. Sesshomaru went behind me and delinked the dates while I was away. But I'm sure I've got more to go.

I don't see how 50 can be backwards, could you elaberate? Sarujo (talk) 12:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind...just checked that one again and now looks fine. Must have been looking too fast :) And yep, still some dates left to delink :D I used a script to try to get the rest, but may want to double check that it didn't miss any. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Mizuki Kawashita‎

Can you help keep an eye on Mizuki Kawashita‎. Kintetsubuffalo (talk · contribs) is up to his old tricks again by claiming that my actions has no consensus despite the supporting comments I received at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Akane-chan Overdrive and copied and pasted the entire article into the author's article. --Farix (Talk) 12:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Will do. I'd added the article to my watchlist but forgot to add hers. :P Ugh...I see he's running around yelling all over the place, including asking Dream Focus to help him. Yay...more personal attacks for me! -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The last couple of people who personally attacked me received indefinite blocks. But right now, I don't feel like bother with an ANI report. However, if the personal attacks continue, I may become more motivated. ;) --Farix (Talk) 22:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully they will calm down. Meanwhile, certain people are running around trying to claim WP:NOT forbids plots of any length in any article...and that all projects are just "small groups of people" skirting policy with the various MoS giving lengths of plots. *sigh* -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

"Evil" comment on Talk:Dragon Ball XD

Hey AnmaFinotera, did you know this comment added exactly 666 bytes to the page size? Just a useless little factoid that I found quite funny, for some reason or another... 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 19:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

ROFLOL-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Mwahaha!! XD – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 23:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Aaaaugh!! XO

This article needs serious attention! Look for yourself. And look at the history, it is a vandalism hotspot. I remember the article looking pretty good last time I saw it. But now it just looks like that has been covered up with vandalism that hasn't been reverted for a while. There's even tags and everything, one of them looks like it was vandalised as wel because it says September 1940 on it. It needs to be protected ammediatly! The infobox is even broken with dead links. – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 00:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

It looks like there is at least one editor watching it and reverting daily. It needs some more clean up and lots of sourcing, but otherwise its not as bad as some :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, actually it looks like someone reverted a whole ton. – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 01:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Um....

Hi, yeah, sorry about that, I am a bit bored today. I'm just avoiding doing housework, and thinking where to start researching for an article about an Icelandic company (which is complicated as I don't speak Icelandic). Anyways, and good work! TubularWorld (talk) 20:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah...I know that feeling :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Askelpios

LOL, they released the first volume of Askepios, and right after that the series ended. Goes to show ya. – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 23:18, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Guess they figure they might as well go ahead and release it :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Going to GA/FA

You have quite a bit of experience here, and as someone who is distant from the article's source material, your opinion is very much appreciated. I'm getting bored of Love Hina's B class, or perhaps more accurately, it's now time to look towards GA/FA if not for now, then for later in the year.

I've got a couple of things later to satisfy some suggestions GAS made during it's assesment for B, but after that any information that can be added isn't going to make vast differences to the content or tone. After looking at the other GA's I don't think the article is far off, a copyedit and peer review should be enough, but I'd like your honest assesment of the article as it stands now. The real things to add are plot summarys for the 2 tv specials, and the Video games/Albums could probably read better. I'll ask GAS for his thoughts once I've done the edits too in case he has anything else, but I'm assuming he has more experience of the franchise then you do so he may notice things that someone with little to no experience of the subject matter may not.

For what it's worth, I'm aiming for GA first, then FA at a later date rather then aiming straight for FA Dandy Sephy (talk) 10:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd say its getting pretty close to GA. A few things I'd mention in a PR would be the lead needs work - it shouldn't need any referencing for this type of article. It needs to be a summary of the article, and shouldn't need to introduce new information. It also isn't completely summarizing the article yet (has no reception summary in the lead). The plot doesn't seem like a full summary, as it appears to be missing the ending. Also, don't forget, if the article has a character section, it needs referencing (it isn't considered to be the same as a regular plot summary). Other than that, agreed on the need for a copyedit to help with prose, text flow, and minor stylistic tweaks. Good luck! -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 10:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, sure you said before that character section didn't need referencing (or some connotation of that). I'll definately have a look at the lead/plot summary. The plot is a little harder due to the difference in anime and manga storyline past point x - the second half of the Tv series deviates heavily from the manga storyline. I actually need a RS to show this properly - most RS reviews don't compare the manga though :( Dandy Sephy (talk) 10:49, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The plot summary doesn't need it, but learned with Tokyo Mew Mew that character sections do. Remember, the main plot summary should cover the original media. Use a differences section to summarize major differences between the two series, where it can be reliably sourced (though some sourcing can be from the anime episodes itself, depending on the type of difference). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 10:52, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Difference section below plot or inside the anime section? The sort of differences would be quite noticable, I don't think episode sourcing is innapropriate there. Dandy Sephy (talk) 10:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

As a subsection within the plot section. See Wolf's Rain, for a somewhat okay example. The main thing is to make sure to stick general differences without getting bogged down in lots of little ones. :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

This is going to need more effort then I originally thought! After seeing the comments in the TMM GA discussion that G.A.S linked me too, I've spotted some other improvements. So After moving all the refs out from the lead, I've started changing some of the Amazon refs to publisher pages, which really I should have done in the first place (but Tokyopop don't give release dates!) Probably not as much effort as from C to B class, but not far off! Dandy Sephy (talk) 17:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, Tokyopop's site rather sucks. They do actually have release dates, just not on the publication page. Instead, you have to go through the alphabetical catalog browse feature and the dates are shown there with the thumbnails leading to the volume info pages. See List of Kare Kano chapters for an example of sourcing to that (sources 9 & 10).-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

It was a great site a few years ago, then when they started doing "fake" manga they went a bit loopy. Front page is better now then it was a few months ago, but content wise it's been better Dandy Sephy (talk) 17:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Stanley Jordan's debut album

Umm, Stanley Jordan clearly meets the notability guidelines since he has had multiple albums released on major labels (Blue Note, EMI, Capitol) and is an influential musician in terms of his use of two-handed tapping technique. Why did you mark the article on his debut album with the notable tag? Donald Hosek (talk) 05:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

He may be a notable music, but that does not mean the album is. See WP:MUSIC for the guidelines regarding albums. Without significant coverage in reliable, third party sources, it isn't notable even if it is by a notable artist. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

"In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia. " There are a lot more albums that you could tag similarly, but the question with the article in question is one of quality, not of notability. Donald Hosek (talk) 06:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

May have does not mean automatically have. As it also states, it must actually meet WP:N, requiring significant coverage in reliable, third party sources. Again, if its notable, it should be relatively easy to add actual reliable sources showing significant coverage of it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Beyblade

I tagged this for proposal for mergint he serpate vfore and grevolution article sinto the main beyblade articles and remove some fan stuff, i havnt been active much lately so i havent been kepe tabs on changes but it seems that a fan has remove the tags include article isseus and replace the fan stuff, since you are one the manga and anime people it probally better you retagging it for merging.--Andrewcrawford (talk) 23:17, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Retagged and starting discussion, adding in the manga and film. Also cleaned up the article to remove a lot of the cruft and fan opinions. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Case Closed Episodes

Since the release of the season 4 for List of Case Closed episodes have been released, I think it's safe to assumed how the seasons will be divided, so should it be changed? If it does get changed, will 20+ seasons cause problems? What would happen of they suddenly decided to stop dubbing the series? Also for season 1 to 4, I think the two hour episodes should be changed into two parts instead of remaining one episode with the words (1 hour special). Is there an official Japanese episode list somewhere? Should pictures of the English DVD's be posted onto the season pages? I'm done for now.DragonZero (talk) 06:27, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Having 20+ shouldn't cause any problems (see List of Lassie episodes), though the page may be slower loading. While it takes longer, I think perhaps it would be best to continue doing one season at a time, as they are released, rather than trying to guess, though may be worth discussing again to see if consensus will agree to a "best guess." If the series gets dropped, the subsequent pages would have to be redone back to the Japanese seasons, which would rather suck. The hour episodes should be listed however they originally aired (if they aired as two episodes in Japan, then list as two, otherwise leave as one). Yes, one picture of each Season DVD set should be on the individual pages. http://www.ytv.co.jp/conan/archive/ is the YTV page listing all of the episodes from 266 through 523. Not sure if there is a way to get to the rest by moving around more or not. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I was beginning to create the page for the fourth season, but I made a mistake somewhere and the dates became messed up. It's on my User page. Also for some reason, I think I screwed up on my User page and listed myself on the Megaman Game Category somehow. Can you edit my userpage if possible?DragonZero (talk) 07:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Fixed the dates for you. For the category, it was caused by the {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Mega Man/to do}} template. Someone forgot to put a : in front of a category link. Fixed that and should be fine on your user page now :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 07:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello, for character pages, should the voice actors be set up like Naruto and placed with the paragraph, or should it have a format like this page List of Buso Renkin characters. The last edit moved the voice actors section.DragonZero (talk)

I'd follow Naruto since its FL :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello again, can you delete some unnecessary information on this article Rumble Fighter, if it's too troublesome, could you list some things I should delete?DragonZero (talk) 05:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd recommend cutting down the system specs in the infobox...its really stretching the page. Beyond that, I'd recommend cutting down the gameplay section to the basic overview, culling some of those non-free images, and all of those lists and tables as they are game guide type info that just doesn't belong. The ELs need clean up, too. With that cut down, I'd recommend working on adding a reception section, and production/development info if its available. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Dragonball Evolution

Since the discussion here is going rather slow, do you still object to restoring that bit about the name change? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:02, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The name change isn't really needed in the lead like that. It should be in the production section, but that's about it, to me, since it wasn't a change made after release, just a change in working title. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Right, but I've seen other films do something similar. Aside from Mr. Bean's Holiday, there is War and The Last Airbender. Can't remember anything else ATM. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Those are alternate release names, rather than working titles, from what I can see. If it had been released as Dragonball in some places, and Dragonball Evolution in others, then putting it in the opening would be appropriate. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

French Bean was a working title for the Bean sequel for a long while, but I see your point. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not an admin.

I never claimed to be. You're asking the wrong person. HalfShadow 18:04, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

No worries, it was dealt with. I must have clicked the wrong name, though, because I thought I'd clicked the admin who'd last blocked him. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:07, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

S'alright; I just didn't want you getting the wrong idea. HalfShadow 18:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Please Like Me, Schoolmate

The article is a suspected hoax, with no one being able to turn up any sources to show the series actually exists. However, the article claims it's been running in Shojo Beat, which you have all the issues to. Care to comment on the veracity of that particular claim at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Please Like Me, Schoolmate? 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 22:20, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Total hoax...never appeared in SB at all. Left a note there. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

		The Editor's Barnstar
		I may not always agree with your conclusions, but I respect your commitment to ensuring that only articles that meet Wikipedia's inclusion standards should remain. Thank you for taking on this task. Karanacs (talk) 16:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Aggie Articles for deletion

I am trying to assume good faith with your posts. While initially I might react strongly negative towards the several AFD you have done to Aggie related pages, I do realize that questioning, and critics are vital in this type of environment to assure quality. So, yes, please to question every page's notability, and I guess, I will try to defend every page's notability. It is just that quotes like this get under my nerves.

• "overly inflated." Dixie Chicken AFD page 2
• "and completely unnecessary" (List of Aggie terms AFD with i am proud to say is now a Featured list!)

If you could try to pepper your language with less extremes, and try to understand that people to take pride in their own work, notable or not. That would be appreciated. Thanks and Gig Em! Oldag07 (talk) 16:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

3RR block on Anime Pulse

I hate to do this, AnmaFinotera, but due to the edit warring ([14], [15], [16], [17], and [18]) on Anime Pulse over the inclusion of an image, and because User:Ichigo-go-go was blocked for the same thing, I have blocked you for 24 hours for violating WP:3RR. If you have a content dispute, please use the talk page to discuss the issue rather than entering into an edit war over it. This is nothing against you as I think you generally do a great job, but we need to be fair if the other person in the dispute is blocked as well. Please let me know if you have any questions. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 18:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Did you not LOOK at what he was doing? I bet DreamFocus is deliriously happy now...he finally managed to con someone into blocking me for reverting vandalism. Also, why did you remove the merge tags from Cardcaptor Sakura? There is a discussion going on, actively, about the mergings. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:56, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I reviewed the whole series of edits, and in only the final two of them do you even mention vandalism. At no time did you really answer the other editor's questions or attempt to engage them in a discussion of why the image might be inappropriate for the article. As the user appears to be new and/or inexperienced, it would be more effective to discuss the issue on either the article talk page or the user's talk page instead of using Twinkle to continuously revert his edits. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 19:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

His first two edits were nasty personal attacks against someone...sorry, but that's not a sign of being new nor inexperienced, but likely an IP who registered to continue bad behavior. Nor am under an obligation to explain why his vandalism was removed. He was left the appropriate level of ascending warnings, then reported to AI/V and blocked. I suspect if a checkuser was done, we'd find he was one of the IPs involved in that whole on-going mess at that article. DreamFocus took it upon himself to then report a 3RR violation to get me blocked in his on-going vendetta. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

That may be true, but the edits on the article in question were not nasty personal attacks. As for explaining yourself, it's true to are not required to do so, but it certainly helps to provide a decent explanation. My main concern is that I see no evidence of you ever trying to engage the other editor in any sort of discussion as to why the image might be inappropriate. You have to assume good faith, even if past edits may have been less than desirable. It is possible for people to change, even over a short period. Also, the past edits have nothing to do with this series of edits, at least not directly. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 19:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

And regarding the Cardcaptor Sakura merging discussion, I followed the link and there was no such discussion. Where is it? (not that that has anything to do with this, though...) ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 19:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The original discussion fell into the archive Talk:Cardcaptor Sakura/Archive 1#Merges. Current discussion on doing the merging of the audio: Talk:Cardcaptor Sakura#Merging the audio -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it should be more clearly marked, then. A discussion about merging audio doesn't indicate anything about merging entire articles. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 19:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Unblock

{{unblock|Apparently I've been blocked for reverting vandalism on an article? WTF??? Check his contribs! It is a vandalism only account! Look at the image itself! It has absolutely nothing to do with Anime Pulse at all. Per its own uploader, there is nothing claiming those are fans of this podcast, but Malice Mizer cosplayers!!!! That would be like someone sticking a picture of a cat in the dog article and calling it a new breed of dog! -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:56, 13 February 2009 (UTC)}}

Thanks...I'm still autoblocked though. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

It should be removed now. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 19:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Man, just leave her alone. She was reverting freakin vandalism. – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 19:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The idiot was trying to vandalise the page, Nihonjoe! Look at his contributions. Get AnmaFinotera off of block emediattly!! – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 19:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your feedback. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 19:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I really don't enjoy throwing my lot into a drama-filled situation, but I feel some of my input would help this situation, so here I go. Per WP:BRD, AnmaFinotera is correct in her reversion of the addition of the photo. It is in no way relevant to the article and should not have been added. We can debate if this qualifies as vandalism (and I would argue that it does based on the edit summary which should, by all means, be judged through WP:CIV and WP:NPA), but the point remains that the edit was reverted. In BRD, Discussion should be the next step in the process. Here is the mistake that AnmaFinotera made: she made no effort to contact or talk to Ichigo-go-go (talk · contribs) for adding this material. But is this a blockable offense? I don't believe so. In this case, the "edit warring" on the part of AnmaFinotera was to remove what she believed to be vandalism. A gentle tap on the shoulder, pointing out the fact that she broke WP:3RR (a similar thing should have happened to Ichigo-go-go (talk · contribs) in my opinion instead of a block), would have sufficed. I do believe AnmaFinotera should be unblocked in this case (as should Ichigo-go-go (talk · contribs), but of course, that is not for me to decide. Thanks for taking the time to read my comments. NOCTURNENOIR ^{( t • c )} 19:35, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your well written response. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem. It's the least I can do for such a prolific editor like yourself. Best of luck to you in the future, and may you avoid the drama-filled goodness that surrounds Wikipedia. I can't help but feel like one of those male characters in a manga, saving a girl... (I'm just kidding, before someone kills me :D) NOCTURNENOIR ^{( t • c )} 23:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar of Diligence

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		As ever, I hate bumping heads with you as I did at The Eagle (newspaper), as you are absolutely tenacious. But that's what I most admire about you, as your views simply make me work more diligently myself to address your concerns and improve Wiki. Thank you for the withdrawal. And yes... the article needs more work, but I believe it will be worthy of Wiki quite soon. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks :) Next time I go source hunting locally, I'll see if there is anything to help expand it. I think, though, it should be moved to Bryan-College Station Eagle or Bryan College Station Eagle to match its actual official name. (though will wait till I go to the store later to see what they are actually putting on the paper, but pretty sure its still the full name). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

An odd set of edits

Check out these. A reference to BF101 in there. No idea why, but thought you should see it. SpikeJones (talk) 21:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

That's Bambifan101 as usual. He tends to get annoyed when someone is mistaken for him and is usually quick to point it out, like here[19]. I'd revert all edits, get that weird user subpage he created for no apparent reason CSDed, and report for the usual block. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I would rethink your AfD tagging

As I say again and again, I have respected your editing, and you as an editor. We've had a few recent cases of "over the top" AfD filings. The Dixie Chicken (which is currently being SNOW KEEP) is a perfect example. If I were you, I would lay off such nominations for awhile. Just some friendly advice. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 18:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I will not stop AfDing bad articles just because some locals/fans band together to make it a snow keep. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)