User talk:Saintmagician

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Page move of SnowBotamon 2 Digimon guidelines 3 Talk page 4 Double redirect 5 Headings 5.1 Insert text here 6 digimon header idea 7 Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot 8 Digimon Gender 9 Digimon types 10 About references 11 O_O;;;; 12 Whoops! 13 Greymon Derivation 14 WarGreymon

[edit] Page move of SnowBotamon

The article move on SnowBotamon is a good idea, but cut-and-past article moves are discouraged because it cuts the article off from the edit history. You might want to read up on Help:Moving a page, which will explain more. In this case I've simply requested that the redirect page be deleted in order to move YukimiBotamon back to SnowBotamon via the move tab at the top. This was done via Speedy delete G6 which is used for non-controversial housekeeping tasks such as page moves. In any case, thanks for clearing up the name issue and providing the screen shot showing the correct name. -- Ned Scott 07:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah, just read your message, but I've probably already summed it up above :) -- Ned Scott 07:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, i see. Thanks for the explaination. I would assume the talk page for SnowBotamon will also get deleted? I will go move the note i left there onto the YukimiBotamon talk page then. Saintmagician 07:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Why was that moved? It is known as YukimiBotamon in the English anime also, there was no reason ofr that move! Pokemega32 14:41, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not. It's known as "SnowBotamon" in the english anime. See Talk:SnowBotamon --Yaksha 00:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Digimon guidelines

Some new discussion has been brought up about revising and updating the guidelines for Digimon articles. You might want to check out the discussion on WT:DIGI and maybe show them some of the ideas you've had, as well as any other input you wish to give. -- Ned Scott 02:42, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I see, thank you. Not many people applied after that massive edit discussing problems with -mon articles, so i figured to just go ahead and try to get the -mon articles fixed. Now that you mention it, it probably is a good idea to go and explain what i've been doing there. Since it seems a few people have been making an effort to stop me, whether because they misunderstand my edits or because they do not agree. --Saintmagician 02:53, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not really sure what's up with KL. From what I can see your edits have been in the right direction, and the articles look much better. -- Ned Scott 03:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you --Saintmagician 03:04, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk page

Yes, I don't mean to say that your comments on the talk page weren't constructive, just that they weren't vandalism warnings - and really, those are the only kinds of comments that really must stay on a user talk page, to avoid confusion with other editors or administrators. Once a user has read the comments left on their talk page, they are "free" to delete them, in the sense that there isn't any Wikipedia policy which strictly forbids this, but if I really don't need those comments lingering on the talk page for the account, then it's my prerogative. The same prerogative, incidentally, that you and I and all other Wikipedia users enjoy. I hope that clarifies it. Cheers. -- bulletproof ^3:16 03:41, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Double redirect

Oops, I knew I had forgotten something! Thanks for catching those double redirects. -- Ned Scott 07:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Headings

A single = is usually avoided as it is considered the same level of the article title (or something to that extent), but === and ---- below probably isn't supposed to be used either. Not that it really matters much since it's just a minor style thing, but I'm looking into seeing what other options we might have. It works for now, I guess. -- 03:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, i know what you mean. The single = makes the heading text really big, which looks bad. The === + ---- creats a gap between the heading and the line, which also looks bad. I suppose i ended up deciding the single = looked slightly less bad. But I'm open to alternatives. --Saintmagician 11:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

One idea that seems to work for me is to forcefully fiddle with the = header text using the html tags. Take a look at this to see what i mean. --Saintmagician 13:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no reason whatsoever to use single equal signs, and several reasons not to. You'll notice Help:Section, Wikipedia:Guide to layout and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings) all clearly state that double equals should be used. Actually, Help:Section says "Please do not use only one equals sign on a side". I'm sorry, but while I'm willing to let through quite a few things with the manual of style, this one is one you will never find me wavering on: the basic header level for dividing articles is level 2.

For the record, I can't see any unseemly gaps in that version of Guilmon with Firefox 2.0, except where there are {{-}}s. I think you might want to try out {{clear}} instead (which leaves a smaller gap AFAIK). Circeus 17:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

But exactly what is the problem? Except for making the text slightly bigger? The article isn't any different to the viewer. The only time the = and == actually show up is when editing. The TOC even adjusts itself, so using = and == instead of == and === gives the same TOC. Isn't this just a arbitraty formatting decision? --Saintmagician 00:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

(reply to question on my talk page) Ok, I'll put the line below as a test of my code:

[edit] Insert text here

If you go to your preferences and switch between different skins, you'll see how it looks for each of those skins. The problem you'll find is that the line will always appear, even when the skin does not use underlined headings, which would cause these headings to look a bit out of place. It's not too big a problem, but it might cause some confusion. Tra (Talk) 02:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

It's called consistency. You seem to forget that there are multiple skins for wikipedia. And certainly NOT all of them make use of underlines on the initial title. Not to mention the usability and semanticity issues that can be occasioned. And no, just because "the majority uses the default skin" is NOT an excuse.Circeus 13:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

This is even worse than the previous solutions! It's defeating the purpose of wikicode itself! Start by working out something that is acceptable for everyone before you start unilaterally applying such non- (if not sub-) standard solutions.Circeus 13:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] digimon header idea

It's not really a change to the headers, but since the idea of the line is to help information separation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Veemon&diff=101166795&oldid=101090744

It's just something I put together quickly. It needs some tweaking, but the basic idea is there: using light shading to help separate the sections. Tell me what you think. -- Ned Scott 20:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I suppose that works too. The only reason i really want the line is to create a clear seperation between the different forms. I'd rather have the first form start off grey though (so as to create the seperation between the text under the 'othr forms' section and the start of chibomon's section). --`/aksha 01:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Digimon World 4 Archelomon AncientGreymon Neemon Toucanmon DinoBeemon Digimon Rumble Arena Mammothmon Edie Mirman WaruSeadramon Kokomon AncientSphinxmon Digimon Digital Card Battle Depthmon Manbomon Kokuwamon Sukamon Mantaraymon Orcamon

Cleanup The Seven Great Demon Lords Digimon Adventure 02 Digital World Merge Scs Pokémon Ruby and Sapphire Niflheim Add Sources Chika Sakamoto Ionian mode Bandai Wikify Super Buster Brothers Gungrave Virtual patient Expand Kimi ga Nozomu Eien Wolf's Rain Manhua

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 18:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Digimon Gender

What's the big idea? Digimon do have Gender of a mental nature, rather than a phyiscal one. Now with some Digimon I can except "it" (like babies), but some DO deserve to be refered as "him" (Royal Knights, Silphymon), "her" (Ophanimon, Crusadermon[US]). User:Fractyl

There's also nothing wrong with just referring to them as it, since they're officially genderless (mentally and physically) [1]. It may be convient to refer to some as 'he' or 'she', when it's obvious. But it does cause a range of other problems, as i've outlined in my reply on the DIGI project talk page. --`/aksha 10:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Digimon types

Also, should not mess with the species part, every Digimon is classfied as a certain thing(Dino, Dragon, Beast, Plant, Undead). Example: The Royal Knights are labeled as "Exhalted Kinght"(Holy Knight, Seikishi) types and Digimon like Gatomon & the Devas as "Exhalted Beasts" (Sacred Beast, Seijuu). User:Fractyl

I'm not messing with them. I'm removing them completely. We don't need to include that level of detail in the articles, especially when it disrupts normal sentence flow. It's basically trivia - saying gatomon is a "exahlted beast" is meaningless to anyone. However, if you where to explain in prose that gatomon is some kind of scared digimon (i think something to do with the tail ring having sacred energy is mentioned in 02), that's a different story. And i think the gatomon article already mentions it. But adding "Exahlted beast" into the middle of a sentence does nothing but make the article hard to read.

You should have a look at [[2]] and [[3]]. Neither of them are hard policies - but the general idea is not to include 'interesing facts' (although in this case, i wouldn't even call these facts interesting) which are unimportant and meaningless just because they're facts.

Just because digimon are officially classifed that way, it doesn't mean we have to include it on our articles. An encyclopedia article doesn't need to include everything. This kind of detail is basically fancruft. --`/aksha 01:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] About references

Can I request that plot summary-type text stop being ladden with {{episode}} templates? Look at most features film or television series articles: they usually don't have citations (Megatokyo), and when they do, it's only to quote specific statements that are usually general background elements more than plot (Avatar: The Last Airbender). As far as I'm concerned, unless it's a quote or such similar factlet that is not easy to trace to a specific episode, specific are not needed.

Also, two quick style-related comments: please do not use "notes" if the article does not use actual content notes, and {{cite episodes}} requires an ISO-format YYYY-MM-DD date for airdate. Circeus 01:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the only time i've used the ^{[episode needed]} tag was to replace ^{[citation needed]} tags which were actually referring to episodes. I agree that plot summaries don't really need to keep citing episodes, but i think the person you need to speak to here is Indiawilliams.

Regarding the notes section, i'm not sure what you mean. For example, you changed the notes section in Digimon (creature) into "footnotes". However, some of the items in the "footnotes" section are in fact references, whilst others are explianations regarding stuff we have in the article, and only a few are actually content notes. So exactly what's the convention with naming the section "notes", "references" and/or "footnotes"? --`/aksha 03:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] O_O;;;;

Please fix this. Indiawilliams 05:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

ops.... *sweatdrop* i forgot removing the table would...cause that problem. I'm editing the article right now to re-add {{-}} after each section, which should cause the sections to be divided correctly. --`/aksha 05:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Whoops!

I'm sorry. I'm an idiot with a rollback button. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 10:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

uhh...what did you do? Are you sure you posted to the correct talk page? --`/aksha 12:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Greymon Derivation

I was just saying, according to the Shining Evolution encyclopedia:

"Grey is most likely a misspelling of grea, short for great. It also may come from grey, meaning old or ancient."

I mean, his name coming from 'grey' as in 'ancient' makes no sense. Aren't some of the Japanese Digimon names misspellings anyway? Indiawilliams 19:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The main reason i removed it was because the old -mon articles had a *lot* of articles claiming that Digimon names where form mispellings (both jap mispellings and english mispellings), none of them ever being sourced. It just seemed odd to me that there would be so many mistakes in the digimon names, so that's why i've been removing most of the "x-mon's name is a mispelling of...etc" claims. But if this one has a source, let's put it back on. --`/aksha 12:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WarGreymon

Just to make sure we don't break into a wikifight, do you think the new text I put in the Great Tornado section's satisfactory? Indiawilliams 21:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that looks fine. Believe it or not, i'm not looking for an edit war either =P. I think editing at 1am made my edit summaries sound a bit scarier than what i was intending to say... --`/aksha 13:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)