Talk:Air (visual novel)/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 1 |
Archive 2
| Archive 3 →


Contents

Renaming

The all caps have been lowered as per Naruto and Bleach (manga). (game) has become (video game) as "game" is not specific enough. Altough I'm considering that maybe it should be (visual novel) instead.--SeizureDog 20:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe (video game) is sufficient enough.--Juhachi 20:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Agreed then. Btw, check out the audio samples I just loaded up. It's such an obvious plagiarism >< --SeizureDog 21:48, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
I just checked them; you're right about how obvious it was. >_<--Juhachi 22:40, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Since no one disputes that they are the same, "obviousness" has no bearing on the case, and only lends credence to the story that the so-called plagiarists believed they were under license. Bustter 05:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

(video game) to (series)

Being bold is one thing, but you could have at least posted something here beforehand...In any case, I can bet SeizureDog will have something to say about this since I don't think the title is wiki-accurate, but we'll see what he says.--Juhachi 08:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm? What do YOU think? :) --Cat out 09:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I feel this article should be about air in general not about any of the spesific 'product' (game/Anime/movie etc) much like Oh My Goddess! which is a general overview of the series running for over a decade now. --Cat out 09:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
My only qualm with the renaming is that it changes how I was going to go about splitting the articles up. I was going to leave it at (video game), let it be a full article, and have something along the lines of an "Adaptations" section with main article links to the others. But I'm fine with it being at series if we want to go the OMG route. --SeizureDog 13:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Give me a Break!

I suggest we break this article to many others just like Oh My Goddess!. The movie and tv series are quite distinced from each other. Game should be a stand alone as well. --Cat out 21:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Even if the subject matter would make for good separate articles, it would be a good idea to keep them on one article and split them as they grew. -- Ned Scott 01:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
It's still only at 20.8kB atm, not enough to break it yet. Btw, here is my current plan of action (once everything gets enough information:
  • Basic story
  • Characters
  • In the video game
  • In the anime
  • In the movie (note:these three sections would be repeated for every characters article)
  • Video game
  • Differences between versions
  • Anime
  • Movie
  • Soundtracks
  • Critical reaction
  • See also
  • References
  • External links
--SeizureDog 02:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Eeto,
Unless we break it, it wont grow. I'll give Oh My Goddess! articles for example. Its been half a year since I broke the article apart and stubs had started to grow recently.
However for now we might want to just break this into 5 articles. One for the series (everything air), one for the anime, one for the movie, one for the game, and an episode list (I'll handle this one).
--Cat out 07:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Okay, this is what I think. I don't stand for every person in the universe. But, I don't think we should break the "Air" articles. Pretty much, if the page is totally overflowing, then maybe, but pretty much, they are all the same. If you like you could have a MOVIE vs. ANIME vs. GAME (laughs) part. (I know, horrible idea) --PiyokoPyo 00:00 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Merge soundtracks

I propose merging all under one big list. Like Oh My Goddess! Soundtracks --Cat out 08:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I just hate it, hate it, hate it when CDs, movies, or games get merged into the same article (Worms (computer game) really bugs me for example). But I guess it doesn't really matter too much as we're not really going to find much information to compliment them with. However, I'm pretty certain that Air also has an audio drama series. I haven't been able to find much on this, but I don't think that would need to be in the same section once the information is present. In short, go ahead and make Air an OMG clone :P --SeizureDog 13:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Kay. However I'll need some asistance with kanji/romaji titles of all those songs... --Cat out 15:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Animes title

I just noticed that the animes title is always presented in caps on all DVDs and posters. Shouldnt we do the same here? --Cat out 09:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

You only actually notice it because of how short the title is. Japanese have a tendancy to print their gratuitous English in all caps (I'm guessing because they learn capital letters better than lowercase). Really, check any English named anime. 90% of them are all caps. Anyways, as I mentioned before this debate has taken place on both Naruto (anime) and Bleach (manga). In short: As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks) "Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules even if the trademark owner encourages special treatment." --SeizureDog 13:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I see. Well false alert then ^_^.
Btw I prefer arguments rather than quoting policy and guidelines.. ;)
--Cat out 15:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Merge Category:Air images with Category:Air

What do you think of such a merger? --Cat out 15:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I think either is fine. I created Category:Air images because that is how many other articles have dealt with image categorization. They become a subcategory of Category:Animanga images and so it depends if you want to expand that category as a global category for anime and manga images. There are a few articles that don't do it currently and there is no guideline. --Squilibob 10:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Character placement

I see the reason for the recent change in character sequencing, but placing Misuzu behind Hijiri and Haruko and other comparatively minor characters is pretty much an insult to the lead female protagonist of the game/anime/movie/manga. _dk 01:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Unless you want to remove the pic of Misuzu, it has to be this way. Either that or the pic is aligned to the left of the screen...Okay, I edited it. Is that better?--Juhachi 02:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Better, thanks. _dk 04:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Manga?

I'm not doubting it, but I have yet to see anything on the matter in my searches. Link pls?--SeizureDog 02:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I was wondering about that as well since I have never come across any news of a manga...--Juhachi 03:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


Okay, I think I found something at Comtiq.com, though I didn't find any mention of the Air manga until the September release in 2004. --Juhachi 03:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Unlike many other anime, air started out as a hentai game... later became an all person game etc etc... I am suprised that there was ever a manga. --Cat out 08:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Where did the date Oct 8th come from? The manga started its run in the September issue, which came out on Aug 10th. Searching for a verifiable link...--Mikeats 13:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Blah, a link was right in front of me. The link that Juhachi provided was to the October issue. Check the September issue Comtiq.com. Release date shows 8-gatsu 10-nichi. Ah! I now realize where the Oct 8th came from. You got the month and day reversed - gatsu is month, and nichi is day.--Mikeats 13:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I am surprised that for such a popular series, the manga was pretty much unnoticed. Is it not scanlated? --60.35.133.141 01:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Movie cast

I dont think we can talk about cast for characters who only made camo apearances on the movie... --Cat out 23:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, Hikaru Midorikawa did the voicing for Yukito for the movie and the game, not Ono. The format now is too complicated for me to fix that. _dk 03:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Done. --Cat out 20:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Character articles

I really think all the characters should be on a List of Air characters rather than just make more stubs. If a section becomes big, then we can split it. -- Ned Scott 05:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Give it a week and see how they look. --SeizureDog 07:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
There's not a whole lot to be said about the characters that isn't extremely trivial. Note the logic of Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Minor characters. -- Ned Scott 09:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I'll try to get around to filling up one of the character articles soon to show how they won't be so bare. --SeizureDog 11:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I for one hate to be kept under presure. So i kindly ask you to stop it.
There is no regulation that requires me to create full articles the second I create them. The character pages can stay as stubs for a year. That is the point of stubs.
--Cat out 20:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Cool Cat, sorry if I seemed a bit aggressive, but this is Air we're talking about here, there's only so much you can say. The idea is not to make stubs when they still fit on the main article, because stub articles can become "hidden" (even if not intended) to other editors, and then never grow past being stubs. We want to focus editing efforts, not split them. If we have lots to say about a character, then great, lets give them their own article. The movie gets tons more info, awesome, I'm all for it's own article. But I honestly think the best chance for these sections to grow is to not split them up so much.
I was a bit worried about how you'd take my actions, as I was one of the people who opposed List of Fullmetal Alchemist episodes to become a featured list. This is unrelated, and I assure you it's nothing personal. I've been following the discussion on the talk page for a while, so don't think I'm just "butting in". I'm not trying to pressure anyone or say "if this article isn't big in 5 days, I'm gonna kill it!". It shouldn't matter if we're adding the information to a list of characters or to their own articles, as long as the information itself is there. If you want to keep them as stubs, no problem. If you feel strongly about making a separate movie article, then do it. Notice that I haven't done any deletion nominations or anything that is irreversible. I'm apart of WikiProject Digimon, and there are literally hundreds of stubs. I've tried to delete many of them, but editors wanted a chance to grow the articles, and not only did I not stop them, I help them.
Also, I'm a bit confused when Cool Cat said this on my talk page "You objected their creation hours later I created them and we have discussed this and I thought it was settled. So what is the issue?". Like I said, I've been following the conversation, and I even double checked the talk page before I started doing anything. I see only one comment, from Cool Cat, about splitting those sections into their own articles. I'm sorry, but Oh My Goddess has a lot more content than Air, I'm not sure if this is a good way to approach this.
If I'm putting pressure on anyone, it's myself to prove my own words and ideas. No hard feelings, just bold editing and logic. -- Ned Scott 22:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
All of the "hidden" character articles are linked multiple times already. They are under a category. If there is a potential (which there certainly is) for sections to easily grow into articles, I do not see why they shouldn't be stubs. Expansion does not go through deletion. A lot can be said about Kanna, Michiru, Misizu and others. Since we agree they have the potential, a merger is premature and inaproporate. I could expand the stubs to complete articles, but I am the kind who likes tweaking rater than writing complete articles. Besides User:SeizureDog has volunteered.
There are other ways to comunicate such as user talk pages when article talk pages are inconviniant. I'll be nice and cite the archived discussion: User talk:Cool Cat/Archive/2006/06#Air
--Cat out 10:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, thank-you for excluding the rest of us. I'm sorry, but I'm a bit offended by your attempts to "claim" certain articles. -- Ned Scott 10:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Also, where's the potential for Potato (Air)? Not only that, but there should be a threshold of notability. Wikipedia is not a fansite. I noticed someone else quested your judgement on creating all these character stubs on that same talk page link, interesting. -- Ned Scott 11:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Please save me the lecture... There is a limit on how much I tolerate interference with articles I have been involved with. So far you have interfered with most of my activities regarding Air series and I'd like to note I have been involved for quite some time.
I do not "claim" any article. From my stand point, you are the one trying to delete stub articles I have created, as well as attempting to fail FLC nominations on the list I have mostly shaped. If your intention is not to help articles grow in quality, you have absolutely no business being here on wikipedia. Vauge arguments about notability is not serving to any good purpose.
Now come back in perhaps 6 months and if the article has not grown beyond a stub, nominate it for deletion. If you'd like to help us expand the stubs... be my guest.
I do not have the patience to fight over every edit I make.
--Cat out 16:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Ah, see, I knew it. I knew you were still mad about my comments on the FLC. Also, "There is a limit on how much I tolerate interference with articles I have been involved with." and then you say "I do not "claim" any article.". And to think I was actually feeling bad about my comments last night, thinking I was too harsh. I'm sorry, but I am not going away. Also, I'm not fighting you on those character articles, I'm not nominating any of them. I'm having a discussion, giving my impressions of the articles and content. I will not stop in doing so, that is not how things are done in wikipedia. I'm sorry if I'm rocking your boat and making you feel uncomfortable. This is wikipedia, and you have no choice but to "tolerate" my interference. I am really surprised that an experienced editor such as yourself is still able to take such offense to actions such as my own. Discussion is a normal part of the editing process here at Wikipedia. I look forward to working with you. -- Ned Scott 21:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
To my knowlege, I have not told you to leave. I have however told you to stop complaining senselessly about fancruft and notability and instead focus on increasing the quality of the articles. I have suggested you to leave if you had any other intention. Unless you have another intention, you are welcome to stay.
On wikipedia, generaly non-contraversial topics require little discussion. Exactly what are we discussing? I am really tired of this rant.
--Cat out 22:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Air dispute

I didn't notice Cool Cat's edits before I read the talk page comments. I think you're getting a bit out of line, Cool Cat, you can't just undo all my edits and ask me to leave and expect that to be that. I've asked for input from WikiProject Anime and manga. I believe my edits are based on logic, not personal attack, and hopefully some other editors will be able to help express that. -- Ned Scott 21:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I for one agree that the inclusion of the {{Air characters}} and {{Air other}} templates is simply repetivitive and insulting to Ned Scott's editing the three templates into one, forming the {{Air}} template. Ned's is more concise and takes up less space, making it simpler to read and navigate.--Juhachi 22:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
If I recall correctly you were the preson declaring me stupid [1]... Three templates are usefull when you have lots of sub articles of not so related content. There is no point in linking to every character on an article that talks about the soundtracks. --Cat out 22:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
And I had reason to. I sat there going through every character stub you "created", replacing all the names with their proper forms. Are you telling me you were in that much of a rush that you couldn't even spend 2 seconds per article page changing their names?! Don't even try to defend yourself on this one. I don't care if you're an editing God, if you're going to try to make improvements, then go ahead and at least try to do it. Making senseless stubs when there isn't a whole lot of information is just...; oh well, I agree with Ned anyway.--Juhachi 22:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
The way I contribute is, I create a template for the characters. I save that and then modify it. The stub articles stay distorted for a few minutes normaly. Calling a fellow editor "stupid" is a blockable offense as per WP:NPA. --Cat out 22:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Your logic is flawed. I have been dealing with anime related articles for quite some time now. 3 of the lists I have helped create as a major contributor had been gratnted featured status. To my knowlege they are the only anime related articles that had made it to be featured. With that I am neither braging nor clamining any seniority, however with that record of mine being accused of fancruft hardly is fair.
I am getting out of line? Sorry, let me list for you... You have:
  • merged 3 templates, "series" "characters" "other" (which I created)
  • proposed the deletion of stubs (which I created)
  • Merged Sora (Air) and Yukito Kunisaki which was actualy pending discussion.
  • The featured list thing is beside all of it. I am not mad at you for the featured list candidacy charade. It passed regardless of your objections...
You are telling me that I cant undo all your edits? All I am doing is restoring the version that looks more like thye "prised" structure of the OMG template structure. You have been senselessly arguing about notability and fancruft before people had a chance to even begin writing the character pages. Your attitude had been most hostile and unproductive.
--Cat out 22:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
The template merge is a no brainer, it takes up less space, allows navigation without having to click through more than one article, etc. I have not proposed anything for deletion, I only proposed a merge. No discussion was necessary for Sora and Yukito Kunisaki, they are the same character, mergers don't always require discussion, and you were the one who proposed the merge in the first place. I don't care who you are or what you've done, I think separate Air character articles encourages fancruft. I would have said this to anyone, and I say it not because I think they want to encourage fancruft, but because I fear it might and I wanted to bring it up. I also don't care how praised OMG's stuff is, Air is not OMG, and I'd rather go with standard formatting that can be found in other anime articles as well as what is recommended by WikiProject Anime and manga. Get used to dealing with me, because my involvement on Wikipedia is only growing. -- Ned Scott 22:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I am sorry, who on earth are you to determine what is a no brainer? I with my "experienced editor" status (a title I object as wikipedians have no seniority over each other) as you put it seek discussions before merging articles I had created. I am in doubt what action to take and hence request arguments. That is the point of the merge template. That is why it has the discussion link.
Air is an anime just like OMG. There is no reason why it shouldnt have equal coverage. I do not have the time to deal with your fears, I am here to write about air characters. If 'fancruft' (non cannon data) emerges, I will gladly remove it. We do not write articles by second guessing ourselves. Thats how all anime related articles are written.
It is generaly customary for the newcommer to fit in with the comunity rather than force the comunity to fit in with the newcommer. You have absolutely no influence on wikipedia, no one does.
Since with unprofessional comments such as "get used to dealing with me" you are not helping us improve the article quality, what are you trying to achieve?
--Cat out 22:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I am a newcomer? Individuals have no influence on wikipedia? wait wait, the best part is your definition of fancruft. No, fancruft is NOT non-canon info, but rather, canon info that is extremely trivial and only appeals to a minority of fans. I'm sorry, your contributions may outdate my contributions, but you are not more experienced than I, rather, such a claim is rude, you are just trying to discredit me. I should not need to explain to you, an experienced editor, that your attempts to discredit me, insult me, and say that I am lesser than you, are not welcome here on Wikipedia. -- Ned Scott 23:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
The what? I think I just said wikipedians have no seniority over each other... I find it bad taste to discuss the contributor and I do not believe I have done so...
All so far I suggested is that we should focus on improving articles. So far all you have done is to complain about syntax and exitance of stub articles. So far you havent expanded any of the stub articles and barely made any edits to the main article.
--Cat out 22:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh, trying to hide that you basically said "I'm better than you, but I don't care about things like that". Nice. Look, stubs for a series like Air encourages fancruft, that decreases quality. MOST articles go through a discussion before making individual episode articles. And I, as an equal editor on this article, want us to go the rout of consolidation until a section is big enough to split. You have no more say in this than I do, yet you continue to imply that you are the better editor, thus your word is final. I'm not the only editor who thinks this as well. -- Ned Scott 02:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
No damn it, you declared me the "experienced editor" and I was explaining to you that your views were as valuable as mine and that I was unconfortable with the "experienced editor" tag. Of course I have no more say than you do. I was trying to encourage you, but you have so far treated that as a hostile act and waged a revert war dictating the template and the epsiode list. --Cat out 15:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Fine then, I won't go any farther with the attacking, if you can call it that. I have another point to make. I propose a merge between Potato (Air) and Kano Kirishima. I've explained why on the Talk:Kano Kirishima page.--Juhachi 22:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

A prudent course of action. Now have we started editing about air. --Cat out 22:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution

Issue one seems to revolve around merging some templates. Issue two seems to revolve around merging characters. (May I suggest a thorough reading WP:FICTION for guidance on the second issue.)

Has either of these issues been resolved? We need to work toward building a consensus and then applying this consensus to multiple articles. Do we need outside help to do this? Or can we do it internally? Should we call an WP:CS or a WP:RFC? (or has this reached an WP:RFAR)? --Kunzite 00:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, I think Cool Cat just needs to see that I'm not alone in my thinking. I think he's a good editor who's just got the wrong idea about me, as well as be a little bit more open to other opinions than his own. -- Ned Scott 00:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I am open to opinions of other editors. What I am not open to is someone coming after me and reverting my work w/o discussion, then complain about me reverting him, then collecting people with predetermined views (deliberately or not) to counter my arguments. --Cat out 14:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I am not willing to pursue any form of sipute resolution as there is no dispute here. I got people complaining about how articles might endup rather than how they are now. You cannot argue about any wikipedia policies apllying to an article BEFORE the darn articles are actualy written. I hereby am ignoring any discussion regarding how articles might endup. I will only respond to comments regarding the current version.
--Cat out 14:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
So basically you're going to ignore the other editors of this article, cover your ears, and go "la la la, I can't hear you!, la la la" ? Yeah, lets see how long that lasts. -- Ned Scott 21:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
No, I will ignore all comments that are not related to article(s) current content. Instead of wasting my time with that, i will focus on writing articles as I have begining with Breeze episode summary. --Cat out 22:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


Hello guys :-) Could you cool down a bit, this is getting a bit silly ^^; If you can't resolve the problem on your own, and want some outside opinion, here's mine - single templates with all remotely revelant links are more convenient to use than tons of small templates, and episode lists with pictures look a lot nicer than those without ^^; Oh, and be nice to each other Taw 22:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


Maybe we could settle this with a straw poll, right here. How about it? _dk 05:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't trust straw polls much. From my experience often one or both sides "vote stack". I am not acusing anyone of anything but, that is why I object to a poll. Besides I use the following featured lists as an example: List of Planetes episodes, List of Oh My Goddess episodes, List of Fullmetal Alchemist episodes. Unless they are defeatured, I have nor eason to change my stance. --Cat out 14:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Two other Featured List of episodes that use the Template:Japanese episode list style of layout: List of South Park episodes, List of Stargate SG-1 episodes. List of The Simpsons episodes doesn't directly use this on their featured page, but does use a similar structure for their split season list articles (such as The Simpsons season 1). The template was created with those popular and useful table styles, that are already in use, in mind.
The exact layout of the table in the list does not appear to be a factor, but rather, references, well written summaries, etc.
WP:LOE's template itself is used in over 20 articles already (Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Japanese episode list, Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Japanese episode list (no image)), and has been very well received so far. Meanwhile, the OMG inspired/Cool Cat episode template has some objections (Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/June 2006#List of Fullmetal Alchemist episodes, Talk:List of Naruto episodes#Reorganisation, User talk:Cool Cat/Archive/2006/06#Air). WP's LOE episode templates are easy to use, with clearly marked parameters. The template also makes use of individual episode screenshots seen on most lists of episodes. (I know, the screenshots are in debate at Talk:List of Lost episodes, but DVD images are in the same boat in that discussion. LOE's template can easily remove the images with less formatting by using the same parameters for {{Japanese episode list (no image)}} if the images do get rejected as fair use.)
On a related note, Cool Cat wants to make individual articles for each episode, a tender subject here on Wikipedia. If a detailed summary beyond the topical list of episodes summary is needed then LOE's template can use a long format, similar to that found in Sakura Card Arc: 47-59. Or, a non-list, non-split article could be used such as Plot Summary of Eureka Seven (anime). If episodes expand even more, then I see no problem in splitting, but these article creations are way to pre-mature. -- Ned Scott 19:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I do not care if the template you propose is the best thing since sliced bread. I dislike it and since Fullmetal Alchemist, Oh My Goddess, Planetes lists are indeed featured (and they are the only featured anime related articles) there is absolutely no reason why same style cant be used for, say air list.
this 'Cool Cat' you talk about does not want to make individual articles for episodes. He already has created the stubs and is willing to expand them in the following days. Jimbo Wales made his stand pretty clear about episodes IIRC.
Absolutely nothing compels me to use WP:LOE template especialy since you attemped to force it. You revert wared against me and then reported me on WP:3rr for not using the darn LOE template. I am not certain what on earth are you trying to achive with this flamewar.
--Cat out 23:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
You did a 4th revert within 24 hours of the last revert, I'm not sure why they let it go. I'm not sure why you like that horrible ugly episode table of yours. I'm not sure why you say stuff like "Why do you oppose me!" I don't know why you take things personally. I don't know why you try to use featured lists for your fame. I don't know why you try to take credit for List of Planetes episodes when all you did was reformat the table and add generic references. I don't see how this being an anime makes it any different other TV shows. I don't understand your claim of "more standard" for a style used by, what, 6 lists? I started a list of Air episodes on the main article, and someone for some reason deleted it during the restructuring. You are the one who is forcing this list on people, like in List of Naruto episodes. It's ugly, it looks bad, it's hard to follow the flow of information. -- Ned Scott 02:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes and 3rr considers the first revert and the other three afterwards within 24 hours. --Cat out 18:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Good god, stop. Both of you. This is why I suggested a straw poll in the first place. _dk 02:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I am drafting a straw poll now. -- Ned Scott 03:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Straw Poll for List of Air episodes

I have created a straw poll in hopes of quickly resolving the dispute over List of Air episodes. Talk:List of Air episodes#Straw poll for which episode table to use. I strongly encourage everyone to share their opinion and vote. -- Ned Scott 03:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

That's great, and should we have another one about the character articles? _dk 05:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Maybe, that or an AFD process. -- Ned Scott 06:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
That will abuse the deletion process for your own amusement. I will recreate them if they get deleted as comple articles, one by one. If they stay, I will expand them to complete articles. If deleted, that will only cost me time. --Cat out 18:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
It's not an abuse of the deletion process. If you wish to recreate deleted articles then that could warrant an edit block. Besides, in such a case it would be more likely that merge would be the decision, allowing for splits to come as needed. -- Ned Scott 19:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Category:Manga and anime characters by series Would you mind if I included in the draft of that deletion all stub characters in this category? --Kunzite 00:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually, no, I would not mind at all. I think it is much healthier for article growth, keeping track of information, and so on to follow a path of: main article -> split to list of characters when character section is too big -> split characters as sections grow. However, I do understand that stubs are not always bad, and there are many times when it's obvious that a stub article will grow eventually. I don't think it's so obvious for Air, and I think people tend to fill things out for the sake of filling things out, often resulting in fancruft. But even then, this process in no way limits the information one can write about a character. It does not limit the potential for a character to get their own article. On the other hand, when you have a large group of stub articles then the reader has to hop to several articles to get a small amount of information, which doesn't help anyone. And lastly, if a character has their own article or not does not, by any means, make that a less or more important character. -- Ned Scott 05:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Of course. I've made the list. Not all of the articles are stubs. Not all of the categories were considered. Should this start in the wikiproject or... elsewhere? --Kunzite 01:49, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Image:Airrealshrine.jpg

Is anyone else really doubtful that User:Neaco is actually the one that took that picture? His profile says that he's a native speaker of English and that picture he other picture he claims to have taken, Image:Summer Sky.jpg, looks very American PLUS is taken with an entirely different camera. I don't think that Neaco is Japanese and I think the image was just taken off the web. Therefore I have removed it.--SeizureDog 20:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

You can bring it up at copyright desk, but I do not see a real issue with copyrights unless you can find the images on the web... :/ --Cat out 13:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Here it is. _dk 22:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, kinda neglected the link as its in the article so I figured everyone would already have seen it. --SeizureDog 02:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Recap episode article up for deletion

Just to let everyone know, I've nominated Recap episode (Air episode) for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Recap episode (Air episode). You can see my reasons and give discussion there. -- Ned Scott 06:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Shorten the lawsuit blurb?

Maybe the lawsuit blurb can be summarised in about two or three sentences instead. Now that the issue has been settled, it's not very controversial or newsworthy anymore.—Tokek 15:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Either way, it doesn't belong on the page about the series as a whole. There's a separate page for the sountracks; if the lawsuit story belongs anywhere, it belongs on the sountrack page.--Tally Solleni 00:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. It's very important that the information is mentioned on the main page. No one really expects for the soundtrack page to have much information beyond track listing, so leaving it off the main page would cause for most readers to miss that information entirely. --SeizureDog 17:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Bring back the All Caps!

I know, I know. I've heard the Naruto and Bleach argument. But honestly, I don't think it applies here. You may have seen another rule... the one that says that the most common name must be used? I've never seen Naruto called NARUTO, so to me, that's just how the logo looks. But people call AIR "AIR" more than "Air". Of course, a Google search, the most common way to settle this, wouldn't work...Sana Jisushi 22:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not really quite sure what started the whole trend of all cap names, but it's really stupid if you think about it. Nearly ALL titles are stylized in all caps. For instance, we don't have a STAR WARS article even though that's how it's shown in the title Image:Star Wars Logo.svg. --SeizureDog 23:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree with SeizureDog; there's no reason to have it in all caps. Considering a large amount of Japanese media titles, when written with English titles, are in caps is most likely because of the 52 characters we have in our Alphabet (upper and lower case), I think the upper case is tought first or otherwise it's much easier to recognize the upper case letters with Japanese-natives than are the lower case letters, or maybe it's just because ALL CAPS seems to stand out more. Whatever the reason, it has no bearing in Wikipedia, and I am against this topic, or subsequent topics, being written in all caps.--(十八|talk) 00:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I was going to bring that up too but didn't. Simply put, how the Japanese use English really has no bearing on how we should use it.--SeizureDog 05:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
You don't seem to get it. You seem to have read the title and responded, not seen I've never seen Naruto called NARUTO, so to me, that's just how the logo looks. But people call AIR "AIR" more than "Air".Sana Jisushi 00:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
That's only because the longer a title a gets, the more unnatural it feels to put in all caps. Air, at 3 letters, is especially easy to call AIR due to many acronyms being the same length. I'll also point out that ANN spells it Air.--SeizureDog 05:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
People say SHUFFLE! too, and that's as long as Naruto or Bleach. (Sadly, that's been de-capitalized too...) Sana Jisushi 04:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I've never seen someone type Shuffle! as SHUFFLE!.. I don't doubt that some people do... but why? It's normal for titles to be in all caps in a logo, but that doesn't mean that's how it's supposed to be written. -- Ned Scott 05:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Userbox

So I was bored and decided to make a userbox for fans of Air:

A I R This user's other self is waiting in the Air. Gao!


--(十八|talk) 08:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/i/r/Talk%7EAir_%28visual_novel%29_Archive_2_a48f.html"