User talk:Collectonian/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

Contents

ISBN formatting

Actually, all three converters listed at the Book Industry Study Group's website will return 978-(1,4)-00-000000-(9,0). There's a list of valid publisher numbers on the International ISBN Agency website, for reference. I'll add in some notes about ISBNs, though. —TangentCube, Dialogues 06:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Alrighty :) I think that will work. I'd just hate people to get confused and run around changing valid formats :P Collectonian (talk) 06:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect Correction

On List of Meerkat Manor meerkats, the bot replaced all instances of Commandoes with Commandos, however the groups name in the series is Commandoes. :) Collectonian (talk) 01:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Oops. Sorry about that. I've added that spelling to the exception list for that article in my bot. Thanks for letting me know. CmdrObot (talk) 14:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Dates

It works both for online and offline (just tested it myself). Where in this section does it say that commas have to be inserted? And why remove the category? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

It shows it in the examples. If they shouldn't be there, the examples wouldn't have them, I'd think. Woops, hadn't seen that you put in a category too. I've put that back :) Collectonian (talk) 00:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Join the discussion. Seems my edits were justified. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

RfB

Hey Collectonian, thanks for swinging by to the RfB that's currently going on and adding a comment. I'm not here to change your mind, just to try to reassure you that should the RfB be a success, I'll be starting with great caution until I can be certain I've got the experience the community want before making any "big" decisions! All the best.... Oh, and I'll get back to re-reading the Meerkats list shortly! Cheers for now, The Rambling Man (talk) 08:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks :) Collectonian (talk) 15:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Television Show Guidelines

Would you please give me the link to the Guidelines you're using? Thanks. Also why was the quote from Henry Jenkins deleted? I think it appropriate. I'm going to return it to the article. Let's discuss issues on the article talk page before deleting additions and contributions. Please remember, Wikipedia is a joint effort -- the desmesne of one. ItsLassieTime (talk) 21:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Please be more patient, as I noted on the talk page, I was putting the quote back, but it took a few minutes as I had to fix the format and the reference link first. For the guidelines, there is only one Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/How to write about television programs. (tee hee...that sounds so Matrixy :P) Collectonian (talk) 21:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:SM problems

I'm going to state this becuase I feel it needs to be said and should be noted that these are my personal veiws and don't reflect anyone elses. Unitl you pointed it out Collectonian, no one in or out of the projects (SM or Animanga) were concenred at all. I belive there is a rule that states to ignore rules that get in the way of improveing the articles. From my point of veiw, that seems to be the rule we're following. From what I've seen you seem to have a Black and White view of the rules and it seems to annoy you that we're in the Grey area. Causeing Me (and maybe others) greif isn't going to help you at all. I suggest you do what I'm doing ATM and take a step back and see how things unfold. I have personally found that when your at the center of something like this, that is the best course of action. Lego3400: The Sage of Time (talk) 18:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

People turning a blind eye to breaking the law is not something I will do, and really you are the only one complaining about the removal of links to copyrighted material. I will continue to push this issue as it is beyond time such problems were dealt with instead of being quietly ignored. As for causing grief, the only people it should be causing grief to are those who dont' care about the quality fo Wikipedia articles or honoring the series properly, by working to give it high quality, factual articles instead of filling with fancruft and rumors just because no one was watching. Collectonian (talk) 18:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
We've done our best to honor the series, we aren't dubbies (Though some of us have had to wach it for comparison purposes *Shudders*) I'm not complaining anymore As I said I've taken a step back from the issue until it's resolved. I just wanted to remind you that the grey area exists and sometimes, you have to compromise or just step back. (Next time, Please inform me if you respond with a message on my talk page please)Lego3400: The Sage of Time (talk) 17:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
There are no gray areas here. Those sites are blatantly violating copyright. Personal choices are one thing, and I'll be the first to admin I have copies of Stars, but this isn't the place to push a personal agenda, nor is it the place to act (or edit) based on those personal preferences. As editors, we must put aside our feelings and edit within the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. There are many times I'd love to offer my personal view on a series, but I know that is against the guidelines, so I refrain and leave that to my own blog. That's part of being a good editor here, being willing to put aside those personal views to acknowledge that while you might like a site, or use a site, or even run that site, it may not meet Wikipedia guidelines for reliable sourcing. Collectonian (talk) 17:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Stuff.

Are you still doing TV article assessments? I've got an article, Kamen Rider Blade, that I posted a request for months and months ago, and no one's looked at it, I figure. It's probably only Start-class, but I'd still like someone else to say so. At the very least, it'd look better to have some of that backlog killed off, right? Howa0082 (talk) 23:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I took a look at the article, and yes it was only start class. Much of the information that should be covered is sadly missing, while the article itself was full of a bunch of fancruft and excessive in-universe detail that didn't belong there. I've removed a huge amount of it, which will probably annoy someone. But it is now ready for the real information that should be there, as per our MOS. Collectonian (talk) 01:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Arigato. Howa0082 (talk) 03:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
No prob. I have heard of that show before, so hopefully the article can be expanded with some well-referenced material. Pretty sure there should be at least some out there. :) Collectonian (talk) 04:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

{{reflist}}

I noticed you reverted my edit to Omamori Himari when I used {{reflist}}. I don't really understand why. Is it because there are no refs in the article right now? I've seen it used in a lot of anime and manga related articles and thought it was preferred. Am I wrong? --Eruhildo (talk) 03:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

It depends on how many references there are. When there are 0-10 references, <references /> is preferred to reflist. Once there are 10 references, then reflist would be an appropriate choice. If more than 20 well formed references, then it would be time to consider {{reflist|2}}. See Wikipedia:FN#Resizing references for the basis of that guideline. :) Collectonian (talk) 03:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Euhildo probably uses IE 7 too, Collectonian/Archive 4, maybe you should bring up the link you once showed me. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually I use IE7 as little as possible. I use Firefox 1.5 at home and IE6 at school. So, is reflist not preferred when there's few refs 'cause of all the extra code it throws in there? --Eruhildo (talk) 22:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
My guess is because reflist makes the font smaller, which really isn't needed unless there are enough references that being smaller make more visual sense. In general, it takes around 10 refs for the list to be big enough that going smaller is visually appealing (particularly in smaller articles where the refs would begin taking over).Collectonian (talk) 23:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I never noticed that before. Thanks for explaining it to me. --Eruhildo (talk) 22:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism?

Where you saw vandalism in Article Xena? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.72.7.136 (talk) 02:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Continuing to add non-free images after being repeatedly told not to is vandalism. Changing between accounts and anon-IPs does not negate the warnings. Collectonian (talk) 02:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Those images are potentially acceptable fair use provisions. Don't label something as vandalism when it isn't, such as this: [1].--Father Goose (talk) 04:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
This person has been at it for over a week. At this point, it is no different from vandalism and the images are not acceptable at all. They blatantly violate WP:NONFREE and its tiresome having to keep removing them because this person keeps readding them from different IPs and usernames. Collectonian (talk) 04:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Even if the images are not fair use, most of the text you removed could not accurately be described as vandalism. At a minimum, the "Casting" section you removed could be a potential improvement to the article, with some rewriting, and the ASCAP award info could probably be retained as well.--Father Goose (talk) 07:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
If you want to clean up the cruft and put it back, feel free. I'm sick of trying to police the thing. I've reported two more as probably socks, but I'm sure they'll just keep making more anyway. Collectonian (talk) 14:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: ArbCom

The requisite 4 net votes + more than 24 hours have passed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2/Proposed decision, so can it now be closed and the injunction lifted? Collectonian (talk) 02:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no four net votes to close — four in support and one in oppose equals three net votes to close, short of the required four ("Four net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")"). Daniel (talk) 02:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
The oppose was only for a day or two, though, and that time has passed? Collectonian (talk) 02:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not empowered to take that into consideration. If you wish to ask Newyorkbrad to clarify his oppose and whether it still applies, you will need to contact him directly. Daniel (talk) 02:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Will do, thanks. Collectonian (talk) 02:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

arbcom

Where are you seeing +4 for close? I see this: After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other Arbitrators, parties and others at /Workshop, Arbitrators may place proposals which are ready for voting here. Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or abstain. Only items that receive a majority "support" vote will be passed. Conditional votes for or against and abstentions should be explained by the Arbitrator before or after his/her time-stamped signature. For example, an Arbitrator can state that she/he would only favor a particular remedy based on whether or not another remedy/remedies were passed. Only Arbitrators or Clerks should edit this page; non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

For this case, there are 12 active Arbitrators, so 7 votes are a majority.

--Cube lurker (talk) 02:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Please see the "Motion to close" section. To quote "As the clerk of this case, I will close it once four net votes are reached". Collectonian (talk) 02:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Motions to close only need four net votes to do so, plus twenty-four hours— to quote, "Four net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")". They do not need a majority. Regardless, there is not presently four net votes to close anyways. Daniel (talk) 02:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I see it now. And I see where you were coming from. I'm not sure you're right that it's closing (you know how arbcom is). But since i was basing my oppose on the indefinate injunction i'll strike as i said. And i do see that whatever our differences, you meant no bad faith and i'll add that comment.--Cube lurker (talk) 02:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks...and it does feel indefinite, doesn't it? :) Collectonian (talk) 02:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
So true, i've struck my comments and appologized, but i can't seem to fix the extra lines if you kno what i've borked up feel free to fix. and sorry, I just read your nom and didn't realize the nom was in anticipation of the ban being lifted, Just thought you were adding to the stockpile. My bad--Cube lurker (talk) 03:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
No prob :) Looks like someone already helped you fix the spacing. Collectonian (talk) 03:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

No comments?

Could you reply to this? I hoped there would be some response by now but there wasn't. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 07:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, that one wasn't on my watchlist, so didn't see the message. Left a reply there. Collectonian (talk) 07:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Young Xena

The User User:NeilEvans said that the image Young Xena.jpg was ideal for Article. See the message:

Go ahead and add the young Xena picture to the Xena article. The image has fair use so it should be ok.--NeilEvans (talk) 01:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

There is an on going discussion about it and the others at WP:NONFREE. No more images will be added until that discussion is finished. Collectonian (talk) 21:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Trinity Blood edits

Just a FYI but making effectively null edits by escaping/unescaping HTML is frowned upon as it is rather pointless. The links worked just fine the way I had them. Q T C 06:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Ummm...huh? I didn't make a null edit, I fixed the code to be exactly what it is in the page. Collectonian (talk) 06:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam Powell

Include Donna Williams (web designer) in that AfD. ScarianCall me Pat 11:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

It probably would've been better to merge it in the Adam Powell AfD, but never mind. Thanks. ScarianCall me Pat 13:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I debated it, but sometimes combo AfDs go weird, so figured I'd have them evaluated separately. :) Collectonian (talk) 18:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Isnt personally founding a company worth $160,000,000 not enough to warrant a single page on Wikipedia these days? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.175.168.194 (talk) 04:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
No. The notability of the company does not confer to its founder. See WP:BIO. Collectonian (talk) 04:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of minor characters in Tokyo Mew Mew

I agree that the admin who closed this was clearly wrong. If you want to re-nominate it, add {{FICTWARN}} to it (so that no one can try and close it early and and say it's because of the ArbCom ruling since they will clearly be wrong) and let me know. TJ Spyke 17:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the thought. It looks like the final vote to close the ArbCom has come in, though, so I may just wait another day or two so the injunction will finally just be gone all together. :) Collectonian (talk) 17:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. TTN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is prohibited for six months from making any edit to an article or project page related to a television episode or character that substantially amounts to a merge, redirect, deletion, or request for any of the preceding, to be interpreted broadly. However, he is free to contribute on the talk pages or to comment on any AfD, RfD, DRV, or similar discussion initiated by another editor, as appropriate. Enforcement of this remedy is specified here.

Furthermore, the parties are instructed to cease engaging in editorial conflict and to work collaboratively to develop a generally accepted and applicable approach to the articles in question, and are warned that the Committee will look very unfavorably on anyone attempting to further spread or inflame this dispute. Please also note that the temporary injunction enacted by the Committee on February 3 in relation to this case now ceases to be in effect.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 23:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi

Let's settle down a little. I was in the middle of fixing the archiving and you decided to fix the archiving and we got tangled up. Can we use the box that is more descriptive as to the dates on the archives? Since we know them and they're in order, I don't think the information needs to be lost. And I'm capable of doing manual archiving - I've been doing it on the page for a couple of years, but was mostly off Wikipedia for a couple of months for the first time just as the page was starting to get long. Dekimasuよ! 02:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

At any rate, I have left the bot archiving on and readded the descriptive box, which just sits at the side of the TOC. Dekimasuよ! 02:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
With the auto archiving, the dates will no longer match, so that's why I changed it to just be a regular archive box. Up to you though. Collectonian (talk) 03:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

food coop

607 777 4258

call the co-op to verify. we are neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tkamins1 (talk • contribs) 18:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

"anarcho-syndicalist" is not neutral language and unsourced. Collectonian (talk) 18:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

anarcho-syndicalism is a political ideology. source it yourself, give the co-op a call. ask "is the food co-op an anarchoo-syndicalist collective?" and the person on the other end of the line will say "yes". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tkamins1 (talk • contribs) 18:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

A phone call is not a reliable source per Wikipedia guidelines. Nor is it necessary to even state. Collectonian (talk) 18:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Blood

Did you read the article? The novels are listed IN THE ARTICLE already. I merely added the infoboxes. 70.55.84.89 (talk) 04:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I saw it later after I started cleaning up. It will be put back shortly. Collectonian (talk) 05:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: DotA

I'd like to know what links you take issue with, so I can find other sources for the info if it's not suitable. I'm also confused about what portions you mind OR. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 00:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I've responded in the FAC. :) Collectonian (talk) 01:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I believe I've taken care of your sourcing issues. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 20:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I've removed "fans", if its the wording you are taking issue with. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 21:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Players is also not supported by the changelong. Collectonian (talk) 21:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I *could* go into the dota allstars forums, and find the users, but then that would be a forum and not admissible, correct? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 21:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Correct. There needs to be something, a news report, something on their site, etc that actually says players/fans created some items. Right now, some of the change logs do have user names, but no context to note that those are players and not just codenames for developers. Did they mention it anywhere else? Promos, ads, anything? I think it is rather cool, but definitely needs a source that says it more directly. Collectonian (talk) 21:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Not really. Artgerm is part of Imaginary FS and while it has the artwork in question, there's no direct connection stated; its more tenuous than anything else. I suppose I could just rephrase it to say that other people have contributed content, would that work? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 21:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
It still wouldn't be supported by the change long though. If another source isn't found, you may have to remove that part. :( Collectonian (talk) 21:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I still can't find a source, so I've removed it for now. If I find something later on, I'll reinstate it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 21:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
SO does that change your !vote, or do you still oppose? Hate to nag, but I think Sandy wants to wrap it up... :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 18:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Has the copyedit been completed? Collectonian (talk) 18:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Dihydrogen and Deckiller both went through, and I made a pass as well, so I think so... Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 21:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I've removed the citations to the sources you found questionable, and the related content. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 17:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Good call on the bit in the lead; somehow I forgot all about it. Anyhow, I added a blurb about what Warcraft is and its World Editor, which allows custom scenarios to be made. Take a look see when you get the chance. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 20:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC) and I think I added in the transition you wanted from Warcraft to the editor. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 23:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for the slow response. That's better, but still needs a little more to go from Warcraft III (and while it may seem obvious, mention Warcraft III is the third in the series) to DoA. I've tried making an edit to the article to illustrate what I mean. Feel free to correct/tweak as needed. Collectonian (talk) 00:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Oops, just saw this note. :P I've tweaked your addition to point out that DotA is one of these entirely custom scenarios; does it read better now? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 19:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes. I left some hidden comments in the development section as well. :) Collectonian (talk) 20:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
←I have no clue when the original map came out (no reliable source, the only thing would be to troll for the original map) but I did address the Frozen Throne query. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 12:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay. I guess DotA is download only then? Collectonian (talk) 17:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Princess Mononoke

Hi,

You've just removed my addition to the "Further Reading" section of the Princess Mononoke article stating that "if relevant, use to expand article and cite; not as "further reading" when its only a small part of the book". I have two objections against that.

01. There is no such a thing as you said. The only thing I've found about that section was "An ==External links== or ==Further reading== or ==Bibliography== section is placed near the end of an article and offers books, articles, and links to websites related to the topic that might be of interest to the reader." If I want to just cite a book or a chapter and not edit the wiki entry, that is, as far as I'm concerned, perfectly ok.

02. Even though it's only one chapter of a book, I think that it's relevant to add it there, specially because there are no books written about Princess Mononoke. I know that I would have liked to see it there. Maybe I could have read it earlier if someone else had already added it.

thanks Evenfiel (talk) 03:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Not really. You didn't "cite" anything, you just basically said "hey, this chapter of a book mentions Princess Mononoke." That book could be better put to use in expanding the article. Just adding it to the further reading section is misleading when the movie is only discussed in one chapter of the book. It is not a detailed book about about Princess Mononoke. Additionally, further reading sections are rarely included in anime/manga articles, or really most articles on fictional topics. They are generally kept to non-fictional topics, and are still relatively rare as something that would be of usefulness is better used as a source for the article than just adding it to the end. If you don't want to bother editing the article to use it as a source, leave a note on the talk page letting others know that the book might be a good resource for expanding the article.Collectonian (talk) 03:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I course I didn't "cite", it wasn't mean to be in the notes section, but in the Further Reading (Sometimes referred to as Bibliography or References) one. Also "Hey, this chapter of a book is about Princess Mononoke" is basically what I wanted to say.
I don't see why it's misleading. The 20-pages or so analysis is certainly a lot more in depth than the wiki article.
I won't discuss why a further section is not used in anime/manga articles, but it is used in a few films, like Fight Club (film) and 2001: A Space Odyssey (film), and in many fictional books, like Candide, Nineteen_Eighty-Four and Fahrenheit_451. Evenfiel (talk) 04:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Only a handful few films and rarely with books. Of course 20 pages of anaylsis is more in-depth than here, we're an encyclopedic and supposed to provide an overview. Having seen the chapter, again, it would be far more useful summarized and added to provide better content to the article. Collectonian (talk) 04:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Sure it would, but I don't see how the article is hurt by adding it to a Further Reading section. The chances of someone to pick up the book, read that chapter and then edit the wikipedia article are far greater if the book is mentioned. Evenfiel (talk) 04:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
It was formated correctly. There is absolutely no need to write the year, month and day when both editions were released, just like there is no need to write the chapter's page number. Evenfiel (talk) 06:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
It was not formatted correctly. The MOS notes it should be a bullet. If you are going to list a book, the more precise the information, the better, and page numbers are certainly worth noting. I don't particularly like how the cite book shows earlier edition dates, but it is a second edition and we need to note that clearly so people don't get the wrong one. Collectonian (talk) 06:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok, but remove "origdate=" and "date=" and use only "year=" (for the 2nd edition). It looks a lot better.Evenfiel (talk) 16:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
The full date remains. That is proper and the most accurate, regardless of your liking or disliking it. Collectonian (talk) 17:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Regardless of the fact that you seem to be the sole soul who uses it? Evenfiel (talk) 04:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not. If you want to believe its better to give incomplete info, that's on you, but don't be suprised when others later correct it. Collectonian (talk) 05:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

There is a difference between complete and irrelevant info. Mentioning the day and month of all editions of a given book is completely irrelevant. Maybe that's why no academic work does that. The year alone is enough. Evenfiel (talk) 15:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Rhode Island Mall

Just letting you know that I cleaned up Rhode Island Mall after seeing your listing it at AfD. The article is now sourced and has a more appropriate tone. I'll be adding more once I'm more awake; just thought I'd let you know that I am doing some WP:HEY work on it. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 19:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

No prob. I'm fine with seeing it get a better fighting chance than the original gave it, though not sure how notable it will be with so few stores. Did just see your note about it being the first two-story mall, though, so that might help. Shame too, because I saw pictures of it on Dead Malls and it looks like it was a beautiful mall. Collectonian (talk) 20:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, even if it is ten stores now, it still was notable, and notability doesn't usually expire. Fort Saginaw Mall and Dixie Square Mall have no stores in them, and there are no questions about either mall's notability. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 03:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
True, if it was once notable, then even being an almost dead mall it stays notable.Collectonian (talk) 03:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

About the 140.117.75.10 edit of Get Ride! Amdriver

Actually 140.117.75.10 is the IP I once used in school (I forgot to log in then), and the edit is to add the information that this anime was once broadcast in ONTV and QTV (both are channels operated by Videoland), but because I'm not familiar with infoboxes, I ended up submitting a poor revision, and got reverted by you (however when I logged in later and add the information about the Videoland broadcast, you did not revert my edit).--RekishiEJ (talk) 21:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah. No prob. Usually an IP that breaks something is a vandal, but glad to know it wasn't. Don't forget that preview button ;) Collectonian (talk) 21:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Does "No prob." mean "No problem"? I don't know. By the way I had used the preview button before hitting submit, and found out that the result is horrible - there's always one blank line among three lines in the "Network" section (I tried my best and consult the SPEED GRAPHER article to find proper ways to add international broadcast information, but the layout result was the same.--RekishiEJ (talk) 07:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, no prob means no problem. Not sure what was causing the blank line, but should be fine now. Collectonian (talk) 07:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


RE: Eyes of an Angel

It wasn't my intention for my edit to look like I was hiding the tags. I've been given the general impression that tags are better placed under their relevant sections, and not at the top of the page, where they may potentially ward off the user. Please remember that no harm was meant here, but I apologize if you thought I was reverting your edits without cause. Regards, Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 15:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

No prob. In general, major tags relevant to the majority of the article should be placed at the top, especially unreferenced. There are some section specific tags, and uncategorized usually goes at the bottom, but in general, tags go at the top.Collectonian (talk) 17:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for understanding. Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 00:06, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Why should it be closed by an admin?

I understand that you don't think the article should exist. There's no way it will be closed as a delete, however, with 1 merge, 2 deletes, and 7 keeps. So why waste admin time demanding that only an admin can state the obvious consensus here?--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

(The article of course being the article in the pre-edited subject line, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of minor characters in Xena: Warrior Princess]).--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Because it is a contentious issue and an admin is better equipped to evaluate the results. It is not just a simple matter of going "okay, 7 keeps, keep" but weighing each comment and the quality of them. If you do not realize that is part of the AfD closing process, you really shouldn't be closing them. Also, non-admin closures are not a norm and should not be done in cases where there is any disagreement. Collectonian (talk) 17:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
It's a matter of looking for consensus. You had two administrators call for a keep, with policy based arguments. Even if you ignore all the other opinions to keep, just that would be enough to disprove a claim of consensus for deletion, which is what AfD demands. It's not really a contentious issue; it's an issue you disagree with, which is something different.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Again, its something to be dealt with by an admin, not a user. There is a reason AfDs should primarily be closed by them. Non-admin closures are primarily reserved for: withdrawals, articles already deleted for another reason (CSDed), or unanimous keep. Not here. Collectonian (talk) 17:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
It's pretty near a unanimous keep. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
"Pretty near" does not equal unanimous. If you're not worried about it being deleted, let it run the normal course and be properly closed. See Wikipedia:Non-admin closure. There IS contentious debate, so it should not be closed by a non-admin. Editor who closed is NOT qualified to make a proper closure. If an ADMIN closes it as pure keep, fine, but not someone who doesn't even know how to properly close an AfD and who is not qualified to evaluate the discussion appropriately. Additionally, 7 keeps does not mean automatic keep. There have been AfDs that close as delete even with more keeps because the deletes were based on policies and guidelines, while the keeps were "I like its" and other baseless remarks. Collectonian (talk) 17:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
So you think that a page is going to be deleted after two admins expressed a !vote to keep, plus 7 out of 10 !votes being keep? Are you implying that those admins' remarks were baseless "I like it"s? Or is this completely a WP:POINT behavior, where the bureaucracy has to be followed whether or not it achieves anything?--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
It seems to me that you are "pissing into the wind" on this one. 7-3 for keeping is consensus. An admin can only count it as 7-3 (something called democracy, I believe). I asssume you proposed the deletion, but there's no point trying to flog a dead horse!
We do not work by democracy, but consensus. They are different. Collectonian (talk) 18:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
And the consensus was to keep the article. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
This is NOT a contentious debate. The editor who closed made a correct and responsible closure. 7 keeps from good faith editors and amdins if nothing else reflects a non consensus, but certainly not a delete, especially when the delete "votes" were essentially "I don't like it" in nature. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Wrong. There has been on-going and contentious discussion. Stopping it is NOT appropriate. The delete's were backed by policy and guidelines. Some of the keep's also mentioned cleaning and/or merging. The closing admin may make that suggestion as part of the keep. Also, an admin's keep has no more power than anyone else's. If closures could be done by anyone, we wouldn't need admins and AfDs would be pointless. Let the admins do their work, which they are far more qualified to do. And running around leaving "Keeps" on all my AfDs is so not mature. Collectonian (talk) 18:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Only two editors are making it a contentious discussion, you and Percy Snoodle. Everyone else believes it has merits. Two against 7 is not contentious. Stopping it is entirely appropriate. The deletes were all "I don't like it" in nature, whereas the keeps are backed by policies and guidelines. Only attempting to delete articles does not benefit our project. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Generally, non-admin closures are only appropriate when you have a clear WP:SNOW keep situation. This isn't it. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 18:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The way it was going, it certainly appeared as if no one new was being convinced that the article should be deleted, so it really was beginning to look like a snowball closure for keep. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
With every oppose being contested, a delete rationale given backed by policy, and the "keep" situation not blatantly apparent, WP:SNOW doesn't apply. An administrator providing a rationale for the disregarding of the deletion rationale and why the rough consensus should apply is best. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 18:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
The opposes were weakly contested with "I don't like it" delete rationales, whereas the keeps were backed by policy. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I hardly think WP:N, WP:NOT#INFO, and WP:DEL amount to nothing more than "I don't like it." Per above, an administrator close is best. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 19:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
They do when they're cited incorrectly and just used to sound as if the argument is backed by policy when it really isn't. The non-admin keep closure was the right call. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
And, Sephiroth, if you had reverted the closure, I wouldn't be having this argument. But the non-admin nominator reopening the AfD, with apparently the belief that the closing as keep was not the right thing to do, to the point that he will revert twice on the same issue, is frustrating. If it is to be left to admins, then he should leave it to admins.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't matter that I am a non-admin or even the nominator. You never should have closed it as a non-admin yourself. I'd have done the same if I weren't the nominator. And stop calling me "he". Collectonian (talk) 19:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I didn't close it myself, so that accusation is completely wild.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, you're right, you didn't. Then why are you even complaining? The person who did close it hasn't said a word and he was online for hours after so he knows it was reversed. Both complainers are keep voters. Wonder if y'all would have complained about the reverse if he'd said merge? Bet not. Collectonian (talk) 21:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Wow, way to assume good faith. Of course you would have done the right thing, but my question about why you would demand an admin to close an article (and in an area that currently has a backlog0 when the non-admin made the obvious call obviously had to be motivated by bad faith. If the people had been arguing for a merge, then I wouldn't have objected a merge-closure.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Tag question not answered by your userpage...

...which is nonetheless very informative, and frankly, we're very much alike, if your userboxen are to be believed. :) Now: About Caillou. Since I have a whole mess of PBS shows on my w/l, and since all of them have that very same list of funders, I ask: what would you recommend we do to convert that into prose? I honestly can't imagine anything except a big ugly comma splice (okay, okay--I'd use semicolons, but the principle holds) to do that. In other words: "Caillou was funded by X from 1995-1996; by Y from 1997-1998..." Which is...kinda pleh. Any other ideas?Gladys J Cortez 01:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh...by the way (whispers): you have a t-y-p-o on top of this page...it says "are you hear about an edit". Sorry!Gladys J Cortez 01:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Take a look at Degrassi: The Next Generation#Executive producers, script-writers and directors for one example of how they handle the current funders in prose. It is currently a GA article getting prepped for FAC. :) For historical, it should be worked into a production section as part of the show's development and history. For example: When Caillou premiered, it was funded by X. In the second season, Y took over funding of the series." etc etc (with sources, of course). (and thanks for the heads up! Fix *grin*)Collectonian (talk) 01:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
That'll work. :) I suspect I will come up against a horde of other editors with different ideas, but that's half the fun of WP. (The other half is mercilessly crushing vandals. bwahahahaha....)Gladys J Cortez 16:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Tsukihime

Discuss and cite support for your claims. And don't shove idiotic templates up my talk page. --SABEREXCALIBUR! 13:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

While my position in the argument hasn't changed, I felt that I should take back the not-so-friendly wording I chose in impatience. --SABEREXCALIBUR! 14:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Soprano List

Have a look now. See if you approve.–FunkyVoltron talk 15:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

No, and I've undone. Each season header should be a standard header, without the extraneous formatting. This is consistent with the established format as per numerous featured episode lists and consensus amongst multiple projects. I'm glad the list is finally getting cleaned up to use the episodelist table, just please leave the season headings as they are, as they are correct. Collectonian (talk) 15:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, I'm not tampering with the headings anymore and my edits no longer break links, I fixed that. However, removing the "Part 1" and "Part 2" links from the Season 6 actually DOES break some links.–FunkyVoltron talk 15:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, just noticed that and fixed. With a year break, you'd think they'd have just called it season 7, but all fixed :) Collectonian (talk) 15:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Uh, well, your edits are not really helping that much. Now you inexplicably split the sixth season into two parts. It's really one season, it was just aired in two parts as seasons sometimes are. I see you've replaced the broken links within the article but they're still some external links to the first and second part of season six that's not leading anywhere anymore.–FunkyVoltron talk 16:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I also would like to keep the colored headings for the season tables because they help with visual identification. Several featured lists use this undeniably smooth technique.–FunkyVoltron talk 16:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree the regular table headings should be colored. That can be done by setting the style for the headers. I've done season 1 as an example (though I changed the color for it as black and black does not read well) :) Feel free to change it to something else if you don't think it fits, it just needs to be something the text can be read on. Collectonian (talk) 16:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I know how it's done. I chose the colors to correspond with the DVD releases.–FunkyVoltron talk 16:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Ahh...alas, some are to dark to be read on, so may need to go for lighter versions of those colors. Collectonian (talk) 16:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
That's why I use the color of white for the text in the headings! See, white on black is quite visible. Funny how that goes. I now fixed it and tried to undo some of the damage you did. I will use white for all the headings. For the fourth season, I'll choose a darker shade of grey so it contrasts better. The box is actually much darker than that.–FunkyVoltron talk 16:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Suit yourself...the list probably wouldn't pass FL right now, but oh well. I'll give time for the issues I tagged it for to be dealt with before sending it for delisting. Collectonian (talk) 17:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Of course it wouldn't, hon. That's why I'm working to improve it.–FunkyVoltron talk 17:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Re:AFD

I feel that the closure of this AFD was correct. The only deletion comment left on the discussion was changed to a keep. Dustitalk to me 19:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The AfD was only 3 days old. It didn't even have the normal five days of discussion time. It was not appropriate at all. While its only an essay, this is noted in Wikipedia:Non-admin closure#Inappropriate closures Collectonian (talk) 19:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Reverting a closed discussion

You know, its actually improper to reopen a closed AFD. I'd rather you renominate it if you're going to overturn a speedy keep, ahttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Collectonian&action=edit&section=16 Editing User talk:Collectonian (section) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedias I'm not interested in reverting you're revert. This could have been discussed first mind you. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 03:33, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

You aren't an admin and never should have closed it as a speedy keep. Per discussion on the talk page, reopening it and noting it was inapprorpiately closed was the proper procedure. Collectonian (talk) 03:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I dont have to be an admin to close a discussion such as this one. Its also bad form to reopen a discussion you yourself nominated. I'm not sure where you are getting you're procedural knowledge from, but can you please provide a ref? SynergeticMaggot (talk) 03:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
See the talk page, and you own where you have already been warned before that non-admins should not be doing speedy keeps. Collectonian (talk) 03:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Um, Which talk page, and what are you referring to exactly? Where have I been warned? Also, if you're going to nomination a category I'm in for deletion, you should really let me, and the other editors in the category that you have done so.
The AfD talk page. There is absolutely no obligation to inform anyone in a category that it is up for CfD. Not my job to watch your stuff for you. Your warning: User talk:SynergeticMaggot#Closing AfD discussions. Collectonian (talk) 03:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Thats another non admin telling me to amend my closing rationale to tell others I'm not an admin as well. Its not warning me of anything other than that. You're the only one who wanted the article you nominated left open. Lets just stick to that ok? SynergeticMaggot (talk) 04:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
"Note, from WP:SK: "Although closing AfD discussions that end with an outcome of 'keep' can be done by non-admins, it is recommended that only administrators close discussions as speedy-keeps. Normal users are encouraged to recommend a 'speedy keep' instead."" is not a warning about revealing the fact you aren't an admin (which you also failed to do). Collectonian (talk) 04:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes I'm aware of the paragraph. And I'm not a normal user, per say. I'm closed many, many AFD's. Non have been overturned or reopened. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 04:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Get over yourself. You are a normal editor. You are not an admin and shouldn't be doing speedy keeps. Collectonian (talk) 04:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Please calm down. Yes, the speedy-keep closure after such a short duration was inproper. That said, non-admins are perfectly correct to perform speedy-keep closures, provided they follow the guidelines in Wikipedia:Non-admin closure and Wikipedia:Speedy keep or Wikipedia:Snowball clause. Your last comment ("Get over yourself.") might be read as borderline incivil. The bottom line: Yes, it was wrong to speedy-keep this rapidly, no, even non-admins can speedy-keep things. CharonX/talk 04:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I know it was a fast keep. :) I just used the word speedy as its defined. It was my call, and I feel it was done rather well. The article will be kept (eventually), as enough concensus was gathered to close it. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 04:38, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Reflist

Does {{Reflist|2}} become {{Reflist|3}} after 80? Or is it up to judgement? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

80!!! At that have a party! :P Good question though. Even in articles with 100+, I've still seen ref 2 used. I think ref 3 tends to be much more rarely used because it gets too squished in for quite a few folks. If the refs are all well formed, though, and it looks okay with it, then I think its fine to keep. The Lupin one looks good to me on a laptop monitor since all the refs appear to be well formatted. Collectonian (talk) 20:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Around what number can you suggest? To me, there isn't much (if any) difference. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:54, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm...I can't even really think of one, though I'd probably say at least 60. Still, I agree that between 2 and 3, there isn't much difference which is probably why 3 isn't used that much. Collectonian (talk) 06:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:LOTD

The voting time period is half way over. Your feedback would be helpful.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 03:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I decided not to continue participating in/following LoTD. Collectonian (talk) 03:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Violation or not?

Hi. I got your message regarding linking to the description of the fansubbing process. I just want to make sure I understand things right here. You wrote: "When adding links to material on an external site, as you did to Fansub, please ensure that the external site is not violating the creator's copyright." The creator of what exactly? I linked to a specific page containing only text written by a member of that fansubbing group. Now it is correct that elsewhere on this website, you can find links to torrent files. Is this the reason you considered the link a copyright violation? JoaCHIP (talk) 18:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. A fansub group's website is never an appropriate link as the site itself violates Wikipedia's WP:COPYVIO policy. Collectonian (talk) 18:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Peer review

Hi! You might have noticed that Degrassi: The Next Generation made Good article status over the weekend, and I was hoping that you would be able to comment at the current peer review to make it even better, ready for when I take it to FAC. All the best, -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 23:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Will do! I left a first round of remarks going through the first two sections and the lead. I'll take a look at other sections later. Collectonian (talk) 00:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for what you've done so far. It's all appreciated. Peter left me alot to be getting on with. I'll start addressing them either late today or tommorrow (real life and all!) -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 19:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
LOL, I saw! I wonder if he left anything for me to comment on, but will try to look some more tonight. :) Collectonian (talk) 19:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Recent Reverts

I didn't change the kanji titles in question, I added to them. I felt they were more in keeping with the logos themselves. If you look in the logo for Full Moon, you'll see "full moon" written in katakana just above the kanji that would otherwise read "Mitsuki" or "Mangetsu". The Initial D logo is written that way as well. As I indicated in my Naruto edit, the video games based on Shippuden all have the English name as part of the title. In the Japanese Gundam Wing logo, you can see "wing" written in katakana.

So don't insult my intelligence by reverting edits that are meant to help the pages in question. They technically are correct; again I was adding to them to make them more in keeping with how the actual logos appear. Ever heard of WP:AGF? I am not trying to harm these pages. As such I also don't feel I deserved to be treated as such.

I'll leave them be, but only because I don't want to start a war. Brittany Ka (talk) 17:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

We do not use the logos as a source for the kanji. Logos are stylized and not accurate for the proper way to writ the title. If I weren't AGF, I'd have rolled back all of them as vandalism and gave you a warning instead of what I felt was a polite note. And I didn't insult your intelligence, I undid what I presumed were innocent and uninformed mistakes. Please remember anything you put in Wikipedia may be mercilessly edited or undid by any other editor and try not to take it so personally. Collectonian (talk) 17:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: This discussion

After reviewing the contents, I have decided not to reopen the discussion. If you wish, you may take the article to Wikipedia:Deletion Review. If you have any further comments, please direct them to my talk page. Thanks, Dustitalk to me 16:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Blade character list

Sorry, I ended up reverting you a bit on that. Some of those people were legitimately important characters who appear in most episodes, or are important in some other way. Probably some more can be tossed from the list, but y'know. Tokusatsu articles are awful for this kind of absurd attention to detail, so it wouldn't surprise me to know a few more characters could be axed. Howa0082 (talk) 22:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the series, so I just went by the descriptions and tried to figure out who was and wasn't major. :) I've left a note on the article talk page to start a discussion on the need to clean them up and maybe send the rest to a List of article. Kinda amusing...the character list is horribly too long, while the plot is badly in need of expansion :P Collectonian (talk) 22:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm a little confused about what kinds of categories you think are appropriate for the article. "2004 in television"? I don't do much categorization, so... Howa0082 (talk) 15:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm...usually you have some regarding when it aired, genre, maybe production company. Unfortunately, it seems like the tokusatsu series have been getting the short end of the stick, despite having their own project and that maybe Kamen is the only one that can be listed. Blech. Collectonian (talk) 15:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah. Seems a little pointless to cat it as a tokusatsu, when Kamen Rider is toku by definition. It's a pain, believe me. Trying to improve the articles for these shows is hell on earth, so I just chip away slowly over time. Nothing's more awesome than seeing two articles for the same character. Howa0082 (talk) 15:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Trust me, I do know that feeling. I'm currently working on the mess that is Tokyo Mew Mew. Three articles for what is really one character. *eye roll* Might be something to bring up in the Tokusatsu projects, though. I'm not super familiar with tokusatsu to know if there are subgenres. If nothing else, I think you can put in the category for year of debut and ending. For year of debut, its usually Category:XXXX television series debuts with XXXX being the year. For ending, Category:XXXX television series endings. No idea why Japan doesn't have its own cat for those when Korean television series do, but maybe something to bring up with project Japan. Collectonian (talk) 15:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Talk:Anime

There is a defaultsort. What is the purpose of this there? It's the first time I see it on a talk page. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, it was removed. It didn't do anything in the first place, did it? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
My guess is that it was added so that the talk page would appear in the various categories under A for Anime instead of under T for talk. It isn't something I normally see either and I don't think its anything that is actually need anymore. Maybe remnants of an older version of the software? Collectonian (talk) 00:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Dunno. Thanks anyway, Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Ummm

You said on my talk page:

Why on earth did you revert my removal of vandalism from Wikipedia:Reliable sources and call it vandalism?[1] Did you not look at what he had done? Collectonian (talk) 22:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

This looks like a horrible error on my part, probably due to the occurrence of some sort of distraction while I was speeding through my watchlist hits and drinking my morning coffee. Sorry. Mea culpa. Apologies. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 23:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

LOL, no prob. After undoing I realized that probably what it was :) Collectonian (talk) 00:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Patrick Zurek notability tag

It's not appropriate to tag for notability when the article has just survived AfD with a clear consensus to keep, especially where references addressing your original concerns were added during the process. It's important to abide by consensus decisions, even in cases where one disagrees. Regards, Espresso Addict (talk) 06:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

There was no clear consensus at all, but an inappropriate speedy keep by a non-admin based on unexplained statements that all bishops are notable. It is nothing wrong with tagging it notability with nothing in the article yet meets notability by WP:BIO as far as I'm concerned. However, do as you like. I give up. People will just argue keep because he is a bishop as though that automatically makes him notable irregardless of what the actual guideline says, and its not worth the headache of dealing with such zealots. Collectonian (talk) 06:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Seeing as I am the one who closed the AFD first, and you still do not wish to let it go, I'd like to address the matter in a more direct way, and lets see if you can understand where I am coming from.
  • Snowball clause closes, where it is absolutely obvious that no other outcome other than keep is possible. Recommended criteria to use: (a) six or more participants have supported keeping the page; (b) no editor other than the nominator has opposed keeping the page or even supported another outcome, left a comment, or asked a question which could be interpreted as hesitation to support keeping the article;
My close satisfies two of the criteria. And Espresso Addict is merely pointing out that it appears to be retaliation to place a tag on the article you just nominated for delettion, especially a tag that goes against a consensus on AFD. I hope this helps out. Cheers! SynergeticMaggot (talk) 06:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Funny how you STILL forget that whole section of the same page that says that non-admin's should NOT close anything as Snowball Keep. But whatever. I tagged the article as the AfD was badly and falsely closed, which is well within my right as there was no real consensus. But keep running around playing like you are an admin when you aren't if it makes you happy. I find it sickening myself that you are allowed to get away with it, but oh well. I guess consensus also sees no problem with it since such actions are being allowed. Now please just go away. You can quit rubbing it in that you are allowed to do so even though its wrong. Collectonian (talk) 06:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Just noting that in contrast to the previous incident I commented in, this was a pretty good WP:SNOW situation. That and Ten Pound Hammer has more AfD experience than most administrators, and I highly trust his judgment in that regard. Let it go. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 06:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I still disagree, considered even speedies are supposed to get 24 hours, but I didn't bother arguing because I know its pointless. Somehow bishops are magic people who don't have to meet WP:BIO, so someone should go update that guideline because nothing in there says it. Collectonian (talk) 06:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
This is taken directly from the procedure section on speedy keep:
  • Although closing AfD discussions that end with an outcome of "keep" can be done by non-admins, it is recommended that only administrators close discussions as speedy-keeps. Normal users are encouraged to recommend a "speedy keep" instead.
I've highlighted the section that tells me and anyone else that it can be done by non admins. And please remain civil. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 06:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Try the real point: "Although closing AfD discussions that end with an outcome of "keep" can be done by non-admins, it is recommended that only administrators close discussions as speedy-keeps. Normal users are encouraged to recommend a "speedy keep" instead." I CAN speed down the highway going 100 mph, but that doesn't mean I should just because I can. The point is obviously that while yes, you CAN do it because nothing stops you, you should have the restraint not to. Collectonian (talk) 06:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
There is no enforcement of policy that says I cannot close a clear keep/speedy. I've had prior experience in closing these and understand your frustration. But I am not a normal user in the sense that I cannot make decisions such as these. And I will continue to do so. I need no restraint, as it helps admins do the harder tasks, such as no consensus, tough calls and deletes. I admire your spunk though. And I hope you can soon relax and not be so angry. :) SynergeticMaggot (talk) 07:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to raise this can of worms again. As this dispute seems to revolve around whether the AfD was properly closed, let me just state for the record that I'm an admin and agree with both closures. As long as the closure is made properly and in accordance with consensus, it doesn't really matter who does it. Close as keep can be performed by any experienced user, and User:TenPoundHammer is one of the most experienced non-admins around at AfD. If you disagree with the outcome then the appropriate venue for challenging it is deletion review, rather than either reopening the AfD or tagging for notability with the stated intention (per your user page) of taking it to AfD again if no-one improves the article. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I tagged for notability because I still don't feel the article gives any indication of notability. Is there another policy or guideline I've missed that gives bishops blanket notability? Collectonian (talk) 22:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not aware of a specialised guideline for religious figures. Given the existence of specialised encyclopedias covering the bishoprics, it would appear to be covered by the first pillar, "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs", as pointed out by Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles. The present article also appears to meet WP:BIO in terms of coverage by secondary sources. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 23:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Operational sex ratio AfD

Hi, I'm wondering if you'd care to withdraw Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Operational sex ratio, perhaps after searching for "Operational sex ratio" in google scholar. After taking a look at your edits questioning the notability of Tim Clutton-Brock I feel perhaps you might want to consider taking more of a "measure twice, cut once" approach when nominating articles on scientific topics for deletion. Best regards, Pete.Hurd (talk) 22:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Is the term notable enough to be its own article though? Even in your keep you note it should be part of a larger sex ratio article (which if it did exist, I probably would have just recommended a merge, but it doesn't). Additionally, if it is so widely used and notable, the article should reflect this rather than it having a single source and being orphaned. As for my questioning the notability of Tim Clutton-Brock, that is a different issue and related to my knowledge of him as related to Meerkat Manor and my being unaware that all FRS have blanket notability (which I feel is partially because WP:BIO does not give a good pointer to WP:PROF for those of us who automatically look to WP:BIO when evaluating people articles. Collectonian (talk) 22:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, when you're wrong you're wrong... I just thought I'd suggest what seems an appropriate course of action. Pete.Hurd (talk) 22:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, and I admitted being wrong about Clutton-Brock and considering the dealings with its creator, I'd rather not have someone else rub it at me that I was wrong. Nobody's perfect. As for this term, I'm not convinced its notable enough outside of being a dictionary term myself. But that's me. Nothing has been done to the article yet to establish the claimed notability, so I prefer to let the AfD run its course. Collectonian (talk) 22:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:LOTD

As a nominator, you may want to vote before voting ends as soon as I get to it after the end of the day on the 20th.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 04:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Resizing references

You are free to add comments at Wikipedia talk:Footnotes#Re: Resizing references so that we may build consensus on the issue.--十八 19:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Hold up, please

Hey there. I'm taking a look at the above issue; there's a small potential for notability in the fellow involved (he's got several books and a number of academic references on Google Scholar), so I'd suggest that if you feel there's a notability issue you take it to AFD instead. I'm going to tell the other editor to back off as well, and leave a firm warning not to disparage other editors in the process. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

If an admin removes the notice, that's fine as that is how CSD should work. This guy has ignored no less than seven warnings not to remove the tag himself, as well as throwing around the insults (see above and below). As someone who took all three Meerkat Manor articles to FA/FL status, I didn't feel he was notable at the time to make an article for him and nothing in the stub shows he meets WP:BIO, hence my CSDing. Additionally, until someone does something about that person, he would just remove the AfD tags the same as he is the CSD. Collectonian (talk) 20:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, an admin has removed the tag. =P He's been strongly warned, and one more shot and he gets blocked. The guy's got a couple hundred Google Scholar hits and nearly 10,000 on Google, a couple of books, etc., and claims of being involved with Meerkat Manor suggested to me that there's at least a claim of notability. I'd suggest giving it a shot on AFD. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm working on it. If he keeps up, I may protect the page for a period. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. :) I was gonna work on it some, see if notability can be established, but think I'll go take a break first to take some deep breaths. *grin* Collectonian (talk) 20:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Excellent idea. I actually have other things I should be doing myself, but I'll keep eyes on this for a bit longer... Tony Fox (arf!) 20:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks again...nothing like a strawberry frapp and shopping for GPS units to reduce WikiStress. :D Now to go study the rather skimpy biography guidelines because I'm not particularly well versed in doing such articles. :P Collectonian (talk) 22:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Tim Clutton-Brock

Please see WP:PROF; FRS alone would meet points 1, 2 & 6. It's the most prestigious British award for scientists. As I recall, AfD outcomes for UK scientists who are FRS are 100% keep. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. That's very helpful. It would be good if WP:BIO noted that. :P I have removed the tag and will work on the article some this evening to try to expand it, then since it falls with the realm of Meerkat Manor, but first I need a break after having to deal with all the insults and pointless edit warring over my having tagged it. *sigh* Some days I gotta wonder why I love Wikipedia so much...Collectonian (talk) 20:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Commas

What's the decision of commas in dates? Bloody Robin is removing them again, and Irish Lass is saying she's correct. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 21:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) and particularly, per the talk page (specifically Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Concern: commas and dates, commas should be the default. I've restored and noted that. Collectonian (talk) 21:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Shamrock, TX

Thank you for looking. I do appreciate you taking the time to check. Also I would like to know how one may stop vandalism of this nature (if it can be regarded as such). Thanks. 76.113.99.153 (talk) 22:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

You didn't remove the references, you only removed the reference section. References do not have to be periodicals to be references. They can be newspaper reports, websites, books, etc so long as they meet the reliable source guidelines. The sources listed are from US government sites, which are certainly reliable sources. One reference was bad, which tried to put a bunch of links into a single reference and I have removed that. You can't stop people from doing it, only undo people putting in NPOV statements and false statements and leave the appropriate warning on their talk page. Collectonian (talk) 22:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

TMM

Hi Collectonian.
Seems like you have had an interesting day...
What is your opinion regarding my comment? This is why I actually prefer to draft articles in sandboxes, it gives one a lot more freedom to move content around:)
Issue is, according to WP:SS we need to provide more than just a basic summary in a parent article, so what would happen in practice is that the list would probably give all relevant information within 2-4 paragraphs (the minimum amount that would have remained if the article had been split off properly), rendering the sub-articles obsolete.
WP:DUE also plays an part in this: We cannot provide more information in the list about supporting characters than about the major characters; even if the major characters have their own articles.
What would probably happen is, if subarticles are needed; that it would rather follow the example of Solar System#Inner planets and Terrestrial planet; being that the main section in the list (e.g. Antagonists/...) would have a subarticle that covers the antagonists/... in more detail, as opposed to each antagonist/... having an own article (Though in this example, each planet, being notable by itself, have their own article, as well:) (which is not linked via {{main}} in either article).
This would allow us to summarise common factors, and avoid having to duplicate the same information over and over in each characters' article.
Regards,
G.A.S 05:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Note: Feel free to move this discussion to Talk:List of Tokyo Mew Mew characters

More like a very stressful and depressing day. :( Sorry I forgot to reply. I left an answer there. I still feel it should be done all at once, which is how we usually do it when dealing with such work. Collectonian (talk) 05:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to hear. Can I propose a compromise? Maybe it would work if we use a sandbox, in the list's talk namespace: It would allow some more freedom in coming up with a final product, as we can do all of the editing for all of the characters in a single page (starting by copying all of the content), then cleaning up and re-arranging, then decide how it should be split, if needed. The following templates could come in handy: {{Workpage}} or {{draft}} on the draft page, and {{Rewriting}} on each of the characters' pages, and list's page. Regards, G.A.S 06:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I can understand your view, but for this type of work, I prefer to work straight in the articles and tackle systematically after consensus is reached regarding merging. Each character can be handled one by one, starting with the more minor, then going up to the major ones. I tend to only use sandbox/workspace for stuff I plan to spend a length about of time working on. This shouldn't take that long. If you look at List of Fruits Basket characters, you'll see the same thing is being done there, primarily by one editor, in the same systematic fashion and its working fine. Doing one a day, it would take about 20 days (19 for the characters, another for final clean up and working on the lead). Minor characters could be handled in even less time.
(Edit conflict) As long as it is done one at a time, I believe it could work. I am concerned that if it is done all at once in the live article, information might get lost, or that the list would end up being too long. I am also concerned that, given that the AfD decision on the minor characters was no consensus, merge decisions on the 5 major characters will fail unless the quality of the merge process into the list has been sufficiently proven. — G.A.S 07:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Also, we need to be careful about just copy/pasting the existing stuff. From quick checks, the ISBNs appear to either be wrong or for the Japanese editions. Don't know about you, but the only ones I've read are the English ones so we need to be sure we cite those unless its something specific/unique to the Japanese volumes (and properly format them). As an example, Ucha is now merged in. Took me less than 20 minutes. It will be 30 by the time I add in specific page number references, but hopefully you see what I mean? Collectonian (talk) 06:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I believe that the ISBN's are for the Japanese volumes. I do not think that there is a problem with citing the original source (esp. since there are translation differences — eg. ノドジロルリインコ (Vini peruviana, Blue Lorikeet) in the Japanese version vs Ultramarine Lorikeet (Vini ultramarina コンセイインコ) in the English version), if needed, we can add the English citations as well. — G.A.S 07:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually, we should primarily cite the English sources, as both are available the English is preferred. The Japanese ones should only be cited to denote a difference. Unless we actually have the Japanese volumes on hand, in reality we are looking at the English adaptations so we need to cite what we are using to ensure accuracy, particular with page numbers. Meanwhile, Ucha's section is now done, with page specific citations. Thoughts? (I have removed his main because, in reality, he doesn't even actual have article, it was just a paragraph in Masha's and the list's paragraph is now better). Collectonian (talk) 07:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with that Ucha's edits. Regarding sources: I believe where sources are already given, they should be kept, unless proven wrong, but where new ones are added, we provide that which is available. Also see my second remark above (marked "edit conflict"). G.A.S 07:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Note: Please note steps 5 and 6 regarding on Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages#Selective paste merger (equally applicable here). G.A.S 08:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
For the sources, I believe they need to be properly formatted, updated to use the English versions for accuracy and truthfulness, and in some cases rechecked. And, of course, the fansite refs must be replaced all together. Collectonian (talk) 15:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you OK?

RoninBK T C has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

I just noticed your closing statement on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Operational sex ratio. I'm a bit concerned about the level of frustration you're apparently going through. If there is anything I can do to help, I'd like to help out. If at any point you want to talk about it, feel free to leave a note on my talk page -- RoninBK T C 15:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

You know

I edited the article before you did, so this is untrue. If you're in a bad mood for whatever reason take a break, I'm not a person with enough patience to endure WP:ABF because of your issues. --SABEREXCALIBUR! 16:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Um, let's see, your first edit to the article was March 19th, by your diffs. Mine was December 19th. I'm the one who cleaned it up and put it in its current state and I don't appreciate you suddenly deciding to come mess with it and try to mess up the good work that has been done. I assume bad faith because until after you got annoyed at me, you never touched that article and really have done nothing constructive but try to nitpick it. So why not go back to working on the stuff you usually do and quit picking on it.Collectonian (talk) 17:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Ugh, obviously I referred to edits done within the last day. Your last edit before this was over a week ago, and I've got better things to do than stalking you through your edit history. Anime is only one of my major interests and I write articles about Japanese railway transit, American volcanologists and German disasters on a different language version. Here I cruise through pretty much all categories and fix only small things. Escaflowne is a good series and having geographic locations as subheaders to characters was illogical, which you hopefully can admit. It'd be very helpful if you could treat me as a somewhat intelligent person without sinister intents. If it were up to me we wouldn't WP:EL to anywhere but official sites, licensor's sites and ANN in Japanimation articles. --SABEREXCALIBUR! 17:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

General comments

I think you have a lot to offer Wikipedia. You're obviously quite knowledgeable about a decent number of subjects, especially anime. However, I've noticed that you seem to frequently employ a rather abrasive method of editing, including reverting people without any discussion (and no, I'm not bringing it up just because you've done that several times with my edits), and giving an appearance of not wanting to discuss issues or assume the other person may know something you don't. Now, I'm bringing this up in the hopes that you will take it as constructive criticism and see if there might be some ways in which you might be able to reduce the number of incidents you seem to have with these types of things. It's great that you are very enthusiastic about making articles better here, and I strongly applaud that, but I fear you are steamrolling over people without paying attention to what they are doing (other than that it's something you disagree with) or why they are doing it. Hopefully this information will be taken and considered in the spirit it was given. Thanks for all your hard work. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Meerkat Manor FT

Going to try for a Meerkat Manor featured topic consisting of Meerkat Manor (FA, main), List of Meerkat Manor episodes (FL), List of Meerkat Manor meerkats (FL), and Kalahari Meerkat Project (possible GA)? Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 06:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

First let me take some deep breaths and tries to remember why I loves editing Wikipedia, cause as you can tell from above, my temper is up. :( But yet, Featured Topic is my big hairy audacious goal. I need to spend some time working on KMP's article, but I suspect some of the best info on the project background will be in the Meerkat Manor book. It was published in the UK in November, but won't be here until next month. Once I can get that, I'm going to try to spend some time getting KMP's article up to at least GA. It is difficult as well because I haven't really been able to find articles of a similar topic that are GA or FA that I can use to help figure out what sort of content should be there. I needs me a MOS :) I'm also planning on doing an article for Oxford Scientific Films, which produces the show, though not sure if that one would/should be included in an FT or not. Meanwhile, been reading the FT criteria, and so far I think I'm on track with the three Meerkat articles being well linked and all FA/FLs :) Have you done any FT's yet? Any suggestions for things to watch for? Collectonian (talk) 07:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I've done three. The biggest thing is that they're all linked clearly using a template or in-article links, preferably using "main" or "see also." I don't think the production company is needed for the topic,or that Kalahari Meerkat Project is really needed either per se. I didn't include Konami as part of Wikipedia:Featured topics/Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow or Viz Media/Shueisha as part of Wikipedia:Featured topics/Naruto manga chapters for instance. The relevant point is the topical scope - if you define it as the show itself, then you have the two major aspects of the show as supplementary articles: the episodes and the characters, which in my opinion, comprises a completed topic. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 07:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Please stop removing verified local information from the Shmrock Texas page.

Why do you insist on continually removing verified information from the Shamrock Texas page? These facts are VERIFIED with state and federal courts and link to the public versions through cerrtified local media outlets. There is nothing "fraudulent" or "personally biased" about the linking of facts that accurately reflect conditions, "personality" and "flavor" of a given area. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.167.133.217 (talk) 00:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Stop vandalizing the article. Nothing you are adding is verified by a reliable source at all and all of your edits use non-neutral language that distort the actual facts and violate multiple Wikipedia articles. Collectonian (talk) 00:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


Did you bothr to read the information from the US Department of Justice that was in the references? If DOJ is considered "not verifiable", what is? (No doubt you'll have this labeled as "harrassment"...)

I can see that we will need to hitr people to keep our listing accurate...

216.167.133.217 (talk) 00:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Harassment will not be tolerated. --Kralizec! (talk) 00:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

re: Shamrock, Texas

Just so you know, I have fully accepted Kralizec's response on the talk page. You may read my final post on their talk page if you like. Cheers, Berg Drop a Line ޗ pls 02:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem :) He did a better job explaining why I called it vandalism than I did :P Collectonian (talk) 02:20, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Happy First Day of Spring!

Happy First Day of Spring!

--Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 02:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:LOTD

I see you are online, so I will ask before I close down the polls. No votes?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 00:50, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

No. As noted before, I've decided not to participate on the LoTD anymore. Collectonian (talk) 00:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Blade, again.

This confuses me. What kind of expansion is needed? Howa0082 (talk) 16:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The series section should discuss when it premiered, on what channels, and DVD/VHS releases in Japan. It should also include discussion on English licensing and releases (if any), and brief mentions of airing/licensing in other countries. Some of this is in the lead already, but it also needs to be in the series section, with additional details and, of course, sources. :) Collectonian (talk) 18:35, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
If what I added is the kind of stuff you meant, feel free to remove the tag. Howa0082 (talk) 19:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that was what I meant. I did a little tweaking and added the DVD release dates before removing the tag. :) Collectonian (talk) 21:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Even though it may be a image on TTL

I just don't want it deleted, okay? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johndorian41 (talk • contribs) 22:20, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:LOTD

List of Meerkat Manor episodes has been selected as a list of the Day for the month of April. Let me know if you have any strong date preferences before March 26th. Since it placed in the top 5 it will be recognized on two days during the month.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 07:12, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Cool and no, I have no strong date preferences. Collectonian (talk) 07:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Alright then

I have created Category:Science fantasy. And I'll be getting to discussing the genres on Fullmetal Alchemist, mainly because I feel the science fantasy genres belong there. But right now, there are a few things I want to talk about on Tokyo Mew Mew. Should conversation take place on your talk page or over here? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Either one is fine, though may want to put in article talk as there is at least one other editor who is actively watching the page and joining in the discussions. Collectonian (talk) 00:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I'll leave a note there tomorrow, if given the chance ;) Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 07:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Alrighty :) Collectonian (talk) 21:58, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Clow Cards

The source of the images I uploaded is www.bebo.com/Profile.jsp?MemberId=17595634 and http://www.bebo.com/PhotoAlbumBig.jsp PageNbr=1&MemberId=17595634&PhotoAlbumId=4024478993&PhotoId=4024481054.

You should find there that all the images I posted are reliable. please contact me if you discover the contrary.

Patronum

PS: please put the images back on the article. please

No. As has already been pointed out to you multiple times, individual images of the cards were removed from the article in compliance with WP:NONFREE. Having individual images violates Wikipedia's copyright policies. The list has two images and they are the only images necessary and that will be allowed. Collectonian (talk) 00:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


I know I am actually being a big pain-in-the-ass but what if i uploaded ONE image of ALL cards? Patronum (talk) 21:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
No - see this Question from the FAQ. Black Kite 21:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Category:WikiProject AfD closing participants

Hi, the deletion discussion for Category:WikiProject AfD closing participants has been closed (see here). I want to notify you of the closure in case you are not yet aware of it (the discussions was moved from WP:CFD to WP:UCFD). Black Falcon (Talk) 19:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks...guess I'll try MfDing the project, though most of the time the answer seems to be "ah, just mark inactive and let it sit there" :( Collectonian (talk) 20:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I think that may be a relatively recent phenomenon... As I remember, there used to be more selectivity at MfD regarding which pages had historical value and deserved to be kept. The "keep all WikiProjects" opinion, which seems to have become somewhat common in MfD discussions, was virtually non-existent about a year ago. Black Falcon (Talk) 20:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, there seems to be some disjoint in there somewhere. When I first found a long dead project, I asked how to get it deleted and was told MfD, then took to MfD and a few people commented that they don't belong there, just mark historical and let it sit there forever. That seems odd to me, and not sure why it seems to have become the new view. Collectonian (talk) 20:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Crocodile (2000 film)

Hello Collectionian, I knew I would probably receive a reprimand for my edit in 'Crocodile'. But did you ever see this film? Apart from tons of other implausibilities, one of the teenagers at the end of the film is actually eaten by the monster, only to be coughed up whole and unchewed some minutes later. After a bit of reviving he jumps up brandishing a sprayer and shouting something not unlike my secret tip. So it was not a pointless edit after all; maybe I could have worded it without irony and adding more of the happenings in the film. But there was truth in it, and it was not, in fact, vandalism. Soczyczi (talk) 11:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I have seen it, multiple times. Being a fan of b-monster animal movies, I've seen it enough times to almost have it memorized. Your remark did make me laugh cause I knew exactly what scene you were talking about, but it was still inappropriate and technically a vandalism (since we would call the same done by an anon user vandalism as well). :P Collectonian (talk) 18:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, if you know it so well, maybe you could extend the story and its various happenings for all Wikipedia to enjoy? That is, if you have some spare time. I really enjoyed the jumps of the dog and the crocodile - and of course the Snatching of the Sheriff. Soczyczi (talk) 19:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  • grin* It is already on my to do list...its just that list is rather long so will probably be awhile yet, and I want to get the DVD since Sci-Fi always does a little editing when it airs stuff. :P Collectonian (talk) 19:15, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll keep a weather eye on Crocodile 2000... Soczyczi (talk) 23:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Kino's Journey edit

Please explain this edit a bit more, as I am unsure exactly what you meant in the edit summary.--十八 20:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I was just working on a message to try to explain that more. Edit summs are too short sometimes. :) In general, a series article has one image in the infobox (in this case, the light novel which is the primary work). The second light novel cover adds to the knowledge of the series, as Tokyopop radically redesigned the cover (though that section also needs to be updated to provide sourced discussion). Beyond that, though, an image shouldn't be added to a section if it has a main article/list. For example, a character image would be fine because there is no character list, but if a character list were created, the image would go there and be removed from the main. For the anime, there is a main, the list of episodes, which focuses soley on the anime release and the contents of the DVD release. Other sections, such as the art books, CDs, etc, could have one image each, to represent each section, but if they were ever broken out into sub-articles or lists, then the images would go there and be removed from here. Do you see what I mean? Collectonian (talk) 20:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Uh, no, because even FA articles like Serial Experiments Lain use images in multiple articles. The image in the infobox in the main article is also used in the media list article. Where does it say you can't have the same image in two separate articles?--十八 20:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I didn't say you couldn't have the same image in two articles. The infobox image can be used as the main in other articles too, which is done with Kino's and its chapter list. I'm saying images from other sections. (also, note that SEL is tagged for having excessive images, so it isn't a very good example). Collectonian (talk) 20:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Are you really thinking about going for FA for Kino?--十八 20:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Hmm? Shouldn't FA be the goal for all of our articles? Some may not be able to make it, but it should still be kept in mind. At minimal, GA isn't outside the realm of possibility. The main drawback on Kino's is the lack of the remaining volumes in English and I'm not sure how much production information can be added. Collectonian (talk) 21:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Solitaire external links

I think you might have interest in the following discussions, and I'd appreciate your input if you have time:

Thanks. Rray (talk) 21:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I took Spider off my watchlist after my earlier attempts to clean the links. I've left some remarks at EL. Collectonian (talk) 22:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

About dates

I did this edit to Death Note per what we discussed on retaining original date layouts. I thought there was a consensus back here. What became of the opposing user's conclusion? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

No idea...he hasn't said or done anything since then about changing the table. From what he said, though, the comma should always be included. *sigh* Sometimes, editing is so confusing. :( Collectonian (talk) 02:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
What do you suggest for List of Rurouni Kenshin chapters then? It initially had commas. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
If it initially had commas, then it should still have them, I think. Collectonian (talk) 03:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Guess I'll be getting to that page later. And I have to hold off on Tokyo Mew Mew, unfortunately. I'll just be doing a few more edits and then will hit the hay :( Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
No prob :) Have a good sleep! Collectonian (talk) 03:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Your bright idea

Collectonian,

Thank you for your recent, timely and useful advice regarding the Blue Heelers articles. I have noticed you around Wikipedia a few times now and, I have to say, it was a pleasure to deal with you. It was a fantastic idea and I think it deserves to be implemented as soon as possible. Thank you also for your offer to help with the codes etc. Hopefully, if all goes well, I won't need them but, I'll know the offer's there. Thanks again and I hope to see you around Wikipedia again soon!

Because of your fantastic idea, I award you the...

What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
Thankyou for your ingenious idea.
I would have never thought of that!
Thanks, Daniel99091 (talk) 09:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC).

Daniel99091 (talk) 09:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC).

Aww, thanks :) Collectonian (talk) 13:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Binghamton University

I appreciate all your work in trying to bring the Binghamton University article up to WikiProject:University standards! Wsanders (talk) 18:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem and thanks for tacking the clean up of the Student groups and other sections! Collectonian (talk) 18:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Bob Ross

I've tried to find the info that you're asking for but Bob seems to have been a rather private person. His signing off every episode with God Bless though does imply that he believed in God though. 20:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)Blackeagles (talk)

No, it doesn't. I was an atheist for 20 years, still said the word God. Some wiccans also say the phrase "God bless." It was a catch phrase. Without an actual source denoting his religion, you can't say that it wasn't anything other than a marketing gimic (unlikely, but not provable). He was a very private person, and his religion is not a defining characteristic when one can't even say he was one religion or another. Trying to categorize him one way or the other is applying your interpretation to the meaning behind the phrase. Collectonian (talk) 20:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
When you were an atheist did you often say "God Bless" to people? --Blackeagles (talk) 20:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Yep, I was raised in the south, twas an automatic response in many situations. Even prayed when necessary for family peace. Doesn't mean I actually "believed in God(s) or that one can call upon God(s) to aid people", by your own words. Collectonian (talk) 20:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Help (Blue Heelers)

Collectonian,

I may now have to call on that help that you offered! I have had a good looked over the "Lassie system", and I have created some pages for the Blue Heelers articles. I have:

  • I have started the Blue Heelers (season 13) article, mainly for testing this new idea (this is copied from the version on my userpage);

The problem is, even though I have pretty much copied the system from the Lassie articles, I can't seem to hide the short summary section in the main episode list tables.

Your help with this matter would be greatly appreciated. From looking at all your user boxes on your userpage, you seem to be very skilled at this web development/computer science caper.

Thanks, Daniel99091 (talk) 23:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC).

In Template:Episode list/Blue Heelers, you accidentally put in the name of one of your user pages instead of List of Blue Heelers episode for the if statement. I change that and its working great now. :) One minor suggestion for the lists, while you're working on each season, would be to remove the redlink titles. It tends to encourage people to make episode articles, which really shouldn't be done unless every episode can be found to me WP:EPISODE. And, don't forget to put each season article in the proper projects as you work ;) Collectonian (talk) 00:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Cool, thanks Collectonian. I will also remove those links. Daniel99091 (talk) 01:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC).

List of Naruto characters revamp

See discussion here. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 07:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Merge complete. See discussion on stuff to do here. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 02:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Revision to List of Blood+ characters

By this revision, the date in the following sentence was changed (the change being in parentheses)

James became one of Diva's chevaliers in 1845 (1945) in Berlin, Germany during the second World War.

Normally I revert unexplained date/numerical changes on the assumption that they are attempts at vandalism (as most are), but I don't know enough about the series to make that judgement here. Figured that I should at least point it out, as you seem to be able to make this call, at least better than I can. OverSS (talk) 17:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I double checked and it was my typo and should have been 1945. :) Collectonian (talk) 18:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Nuku Nuku Tv

Is this redirect even necessary? The article it targets doesn't make any reference of the "Tv" bit. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean it should be deleted? I redirected because it was a single talking about the Nuku Nuku anime, which is already covered better in All Purpose Cultural Cat Girl Nuku Nuku#Anime. Collectonian (talk) 23:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I suggest {{speedy}} with the reason as either WP:CSD#G2 or WP:CSD#G6. Which do you think? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I'd be fine with either of those :) Collectonian (talk) 23:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Tsukihime

Can you please leave the source about fan translation there? And also, don't remove fan translation part of article, since it's needed there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enerccio (talk • contribs) 19:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

No, it is not a reliable source and unnecessary. This is a long running issue under discussion on the Reliable Sources noticeboard and in the Anime and Manga project. It should not have been added until consensus was reached, which thus far says no, it is not a reliable source. Collectonian (talk) 19:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
But there IS a translation already made. --Enerccio (talk) 19:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
That doesn't matter. There has been extensive discussion that is still on going as to whether it violates WP:COPYVIO to link to a site that links to the downloads, whether a fan-translation should be mentioned at all when we do NOT mention fansubs and fandubs in anime articles nor fan-scanslations in manga articles, and what qualifies as a reliable source if such mentions should be made. Please don't start an edit war over this article without knowing the full issue at hand. Collectonian (talk) 19:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh please! Even if it's copyright violation, it was there for a so long time, and no one cares. Everybody knew (and companies too) that there are fan translations and if they operate on patch level, no one cares. Also, shii link is reliable source, since it's the truth. What other source can be more reliable, when you can download the patch itself???--Enerccio (talk) 19:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I suggest you read the relevant policies. Wikipedia's copyright policies are much stronger than the governments, and attempts to respect copyrights in ALL countries, not just the US. An shii does NOT meet WP:RS, regardless of the "truth." Collectonian (talk) 19:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Are you out of your mind? Why that souce is not valid for WP:RS? Also, then remove every article and everything in whole wikipedia to prevent unauthorized copyright violation. I can fire up Google and get all this things, I just need the names. Then remove them too.--Enerccio (talk) 19:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I suggest you learn to watch your tone. You are pushing WP:CIVILITY. The site does NOT meet Wikipedia's requirements for being a reliable source. We do not just link to any old website as a source. There are limits and rules. Your arguments are beyond overblown and as it is pointless to argue with a child, I'm not going to bother. I've brought the attention to the project for further discussion and will let consensus deal with it. Collectonian (talk) 19:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Old? Look at the last added translation. What date it says? 2008-02-22 Far from old site, even if the design look old. WP:RS is guideline, not a policy. All information regarding tsukihime is verifiable on that website. Therefore the source is verifiable too, therefore all according to WP:V. --Enerccio (talk) 19:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
And you ask if I'm out of my mind. As for your note on reliable sources, it shows you have little understanding of Wikipedia. Reliable sources is part of the verifiability policy. That site does NOT meet reliable sources and can not be used to verify anything. Collectonian (talk) 19:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Moreover, even if it's not a good source, the information is still valid and true, therefore it should be included on the wikipedia.--Enerccio (talk) 20:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia's focus is verifiable information from reliable sources, not "the truth" or "validity." I know lots of stuff about stuff, but as it can't be sourced, it doesn't get added or if added, can be removed. Collectonian (talk) 20:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
How that is unverifiable? The patch itself is downloadable, there at least two other web pages that mentions it, what you need more?--Enerccio (talk) 20:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Verifiable per reliable sources. Fansubs exist, we don't discuss them in any anime articles because a - they can not be reliable sourced and b - not something that needs to be mentioned as it is not encyclopedic and borders on advocating illegal activities. Collectonian (talk) 20:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Then remove every illegal article such as Child Pornography or Lolicon. Both are illegal, therefore as you said it should not be mentioned here. So only verifiable source is official one? Why? I can make claim that I am licensor of the English port of tsukihime. Will that be reliable? The most verifiable source is the truth itself. --Enerccio (talk) 20:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  • sigh* I give up trying to discuss anything with you. And no, you claiming to be the English licenser would be a blatant lie and your saying it is beyond non-verifiable. Collectonian (talk) 21:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Let me give you better example. You said in other discussion page that there is nothing about tsukihime English tr. patch in news. So only believable source is news? Then watch this video [2]. Now tell me, is this a valid source? Is there a Church of Anonymous? Because from what you said it is. But there is no such a thing as 'Church of Anonymous'. Therefore the truth is most valid. And moreover, why do you care about that so much? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enerccio (talk • contribs) 17:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
A YouTube video is not a valid source. Whether there is or is not a Church of Anonymous is irrelevant. Without significant coverage, it shouldn't have a Wikipedia article. My street exists, I drive on it every day, but that doesn't mean it needs an article nor does it need mention in my city's article. Why do I care? Because I care about the quality of the anime and manga articles and think its high time we get more featured series articles. It has been almost TWO years since we've had one, and poor sourcing like this is one big reason for it. Thus far, you are the only one supporting this addition, so why do you keep insisting on adding it back. I know you don't care if the article becomes FA, but others do so why ruin it. Collectonian (talk) 18:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
For one point, anime version of Tsukihime is the worst anime ever. Or rather, there is no anime. Tsukihime is game and nothing more. While I care about FA, I care more about people playing the game instead. And link that informs them about English patch is very important.--Enerccio (talk) 09:13, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
NPOV much? The Tsukihime anime, which obviously does exists, is highly praised by critics and fans alike. Tsukihime is not just a game and nothing more. If you believe what you just wrote, you honestly should consider stop editing at Wikipedia and go somewhere else. Caring more about getting people to play the game than actually having a good, accurate, and comprehensive article is not an acceptable attitude for a Wikipedia editor, nor is outright denying the existance of the more well known form of Tsukihime. Collectonian (talk) 15:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

It looks like you are not very internet meme person but whatever. If you want to know, follow this (unverifiable and not good source) link [3]. --Enerccio (talk) 20:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm not, and I don't particularly care what some other wiki says. And you are right, it is not a reliable source at all, and nothing more than niche fancruft. Collectonian (talk) 21:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Request to explain reverts on related talk page

Hi Collectonian,

May I request that if you do not agree with (my) edits that you explain in detail why you do not agree with them on the talk page? It would help much more than my trying to figure this out from the revert's edit summary.

King regards,

G.A.S 17:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought I'd been clear enough in the summary. I'll try to be more detailed in the future. :) Collectonian (talk) 20:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

DYK Successful

Updated DYK query On 28 March 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article U-Drop Inn, 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.

--Hersfold (t/a/c) 19:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Those edits...

were, to me, unacceptable. I've left a sharp comment; if there are any more issues, keep me updated. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks :) Collectonian (talk) 20:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Template:Texas county photo instructions

"Wikipedia requested photographs in Texas" includes subcategories for the county photo reqests. Adding "Category:WikiProject Texas" to Template:Texas county photo instructions is causing the county photo request categories to appear in both "Category:WikiProject Texas" and "Wikipedia requested photographs in Texas". Since "Wikipedia requested photographs in Texas" already appears in "Category:WikiProject Texas", it seems duplicative to include the county photo request categories in both locations. Thanks. GregManninLB (talk) 22:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

No prob. Didn't notice that, and since the project doesn't have a cat specifically for its templates, I'm fine with removing the project cat. Collectonian (talk) 22:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. If need be, the template still can be located via Category:WikiProject Texas by following the photo request subcategory there. GregManninLB (talk) 22:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • It turns out that, if I use <noinclude>xxxx</noinclude>, then the category can be included on the template page without the category being transcluded into downstream pages. GregManninLB (talk) 16:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi

Hi, Collectonian. I was just minding my own business and looking at the history for my user page when I saw that it said an anonymous user, 75.85.112.149 vandalized my user page. Did that user really vandalize my user page? Please respond on my talk page when you have time.Kitty53 (talk) 01:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

666 Satan page move

I think just the other day we were conversing this and someone was finally bold enough to request a move to O-Parts Hunter. So, here is the discussion. Maybe you could share your thoughts on what little you know of the subject? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

U-Drop Inn‎

Maybe you shouldn't flaunt your disregard for 3RR quite as much. --87.189.65.193 (talk)

Undoing vandalism, which includes messing up an article format, is exempt from 3RR. Collectonian (talk) 19:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I think this very discussion makes it clear that my changes are much more than vandalism. If you don't like tha changes I made, discuss them on /Talk, that's the way it is done here. --87.189.65.193 (talk)
You didn't make any changes except to take the bullet from the EL (against MOS) and remove the spacer under the claim of "cleaning up." You continue reverting your bad edit despite numerous warnings. This discussion doesn't make it clear that you are doing anything more than low level vandalism and that you believe you can continue ignoring the warnings to stop and will just keep redoing it for no reason. Collectonian (talk) 20:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I did a lot of changes. If your browser does not display the changes sectioned, you should consider getting another one. I myself prefer Firefox, but you might prefer something else.
Your warnings don't apply, because I didn't vandalise. Again, if you don't understand my changes, ask on /Talk or just go elsewhere. You should also seriously AGF. --87.189.110.194 (talk)
I am using Firefox, thanks (and that should be obvious as TW only works on Firefox). The only changes shown are those. Nothing else was changed. I AGFed the first four times, when rather than explain what you felt your other edits were, you kept rv saying I just didn't understand them. The diff shows nothing done but those I already noted, both of which were inappropriate. Your edit summaries give absolutely no explanation to counter this, nor do your remarks here. I also gave you ample chance to stop reverting and attempt to state your case in leaving you warnings. You refused and instead continued reverting, hence that IP now being blocked. If you revert again under this IP, it will be blocked as well. Collectonian (talk) 20:16, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry that I am too stupid to know TW. My apologies.
Maybe you want to update to a more recent version? (Or is TW running only with the latest version?) My diff clearly shows a number of sections that were changed. Now, if you don't see what's changed within those sections, that's probably because my changes were small, tiny even. Still no reason to just ignore them.
I'm sorry that my edit comments were short, I just didn't feel like honoring your rude behaviour with a elaborate answer. You were the one reverting without knowing what's even changed ("what did you clean up?").
So AGF and don't fear what you don't understand. --87.189.113.214 (talk)
TW is Twinkle and it is always running the latest version. It is what reverted your edits and left you the nice warnings. Your changes were so tiny as to obviously been invisible and pointless, while the visible ones were inappropriate and disruptive. As for rude, you are the one leaving thinly veiled insults in your edit summaries and remarks here. I AGFed, but it has its limits and you crossed it by continuing to revert for no reason. You also have shown, with your remarks here and your continuing to evade a block (and flaunting that you are doing so), which shows you have no actual intention of being a productive contributer to the project. Collectonian (talk) 20:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Response

Sorry. Didn't know that. I'm not fully experienced with Wikipedia.Kitty53 (talk) 21:31, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

No prob. In general, if someone vandalizes Wikipedia, a warning should only be left if it is caught relatively quickly (within a few minutes or hours at most). :) Collectonian (talk) 21:45, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

List of The Bellflower Bunnies episodes

Hi. While this is still going on, I've just made my final touch-ups on the list for a little known French/Canadian children's cartoon called The Bellflower Bunnies. I think I am the only Wikipedian who knows so much, so far, about the show and its original book series material.

I'm also willing to submit this as an FLC in a few days. Tell me what you think of the page, and I'll address concerns soon. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 00:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I've left some remarks on the peer review. Collectonian (talk) 01:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


assessment for Noble House (TV series)

Hi, would you mind doing an assessment for the article Noble House (TV series)? I left a message on the assessment page, but I don't really know what to do next and I kind of don't like waiting. Sorry to bug you. Thanks! LonelyPker (talk) 23:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Done and left at stub. It needs at least two major MOS sections before it can be considered start. I'd recommend looking at both Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/How to write about television programs and WP:MOSFILM for ideas on the sort of sections and content a television miniseries article should have (which is a blend of TV and film).Collectonian (talk) 23:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Great. Thanks a lot! LonelyPker (talk) 23:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Re:English airdates

Put whatever time they first were aired in English, regardless of where it was (note where it did air obviously). As an example, List of Agent of the Shinigami arc episodes in Bleach and List of Soul Society: The Sneak Entry arc episodes in Bleach show the Bionix airdates rather than the Adult Swim airdates since Bionix aired first. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 21:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Texas Atlas

I know for a fact that the Texas Atlas version is missing at least some information, because it omits the author and date of preparation of the text, which is in Section 11 of the NRHP documents. Have you looked at any PDF files of NRHP documents, say in the South Carolina examples? And what you quote from Texas is that they assert they don't modify it in any serious way, implying that they do modify it. So that makes it a different animal. It is no longer the U.S. National Park Service who is the original publisher of both the NRIS database data and the NRHP text document, which Texas takes and mixes together. I am not saying Texas is not a reliable source. You can use it to document the REFNUM and the date added for the site, for example, instead of or in addition to a reference to the NRIS database system that also provides those data. I have not encountered this Texas source before, I don't know of it being cited in any other articles (note, the Texas list of NHLs is very undeveloped, relatively, in wikipedia; i have worked on many other state lists of NHLs but not on Texas). So, it would be helpful if you would get the actual NRHP document. You are not aware of sections and types of information that is often in the NRHP document. I can't promise it will have a ton more useful info for this particular site than is presented in the Texas site, I don't know if there is not so much info in the Texas presentation because they left out good stuff or because there is not any more good stuff in this particular NRHP site's document, I have no perspective to evaluate what Texas does. Okay? doncram (talk) 17:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I did look at some of the SC documents, though they most seemed to be for multi-building places. I also looked at some other documents from the Texas site. The Texas site may be relatively new. It seems to have launched around 2006. It does note that if something appears to be missing data or truncated to report an error. For edits, I know part of it mentions they do not include archeological information to protect the sites. Collectonian (talk) 17:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

TMM

I have decided to take a break from these articles for a while, to focus on items closer to home. As such I am leaving them in your capable hands. I will still watch the talk pages, so leave a note if necessary, and I will try to help. Please leave a note on the main article's or lists' talk page if you are planning major changes (such as new mergers). Regards, G.A.S 20:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Alright and no problem. I'll work on the character article mergers as soon as my copies of the manga arrive. Beyond that, no major worked planned for awhile other than working on the already noted clean ups of those bad sections (CDs and reception). :) Collectonian (talk) 20:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Good luck! It will probably be necessary to assess the articles (other that the main one and the list) for good article potential (or peer "audit" potential), if featured topic status is to be achieved; as action would have to be taken accordingly. G.A.S 20:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, once work is done my plan is Peer Review -> FAC/FLC as appropriate. When all are featured, then go for Featured Topic. Collectonian (talk) 20:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

procedeural question

I really messed up on the AfD's, sorry :(

A question of clarification, I'm sure its somewhere in one of the AfD related pages, but I'd feel better hearing it from an actual admin. Are non-sysops not permitted to close ANY AfD or only AfDs with a delete consensus? Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 21:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Non-admins are not allowed to close any AfD if it may be closed as a delete. In general, an AfD should only be closed by a non-admin if there is a very clear consensus for a keep and generally non-admins should stick to closing backlogged AfDs. For more information on non-admin closures, see WP:DPR#NAC (guideline) and Wikipedia:Non-admin closure (excellent essay and instructional guide). Collectonian (talk) 21:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Question

Hi, could you tell me what parts of Rurouni Kenshin require clean up? Thanks.--Tintor2 (talk) 15:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The things I noticed that caused me to tag: The MOS needs to be applied to get the sections in order and better formatted. The character section should either be prose or a bulleted list with 1-2 sentences per characters. Summary renamed to Plot or Synopsis (and expanded to cover major plot points from beginning to end). The Origin needs to be renamed to Production. Reception moved above Media. The sections on sakabatō and Hiten Mitsurugi-Ryū seem completely out of place. I'd suggest they be moved to Kenshin's character article. The media section should be ordered chronologically. The novel section needs formatting. Either the movie needs a separate section like the OVAs, or they should all be in the anime section. Right now it looks inconsistent. Collectonian (talk) 15:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Could you also check Edward Elric? I have been trying to clean it up but I would like some advice. Sorry for bothering. There is no hurry ^_^.Tintor2 (talk) 16:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

About the Hiten mirsurugi ryu, Kenshin maybe the most famous users but there are some more in the series incluiding his teacher, a filler character and Yahiko imitating it. The sakabato is also used by Yahiko in the end of the manga.Tintor2 (talk) 16:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know. However, for the sakabato, at least, its passing to Yahiko is one of the final scenes, so it can go into Kenshin's article with a note on Yahiko's, I'd think. For the Hiten style, I'm not sure. Kenshin is the main user, with his teacher and the filler being only a short time apperances. Yahiko combines it with the Kamiya-style into his own thing, so part of it could also be noted in his article. In either case, both seem very out of place where they are now...not sure how else they could be incorporated into the main....Collectonian (talk) 16:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I see. ThanksTintor2 (talk) 16:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

And I forgot, do you have any advice to me with Edward Elric? Thanks.Tintor2 (talk) 21:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, waited to look at that this evening after work ;) It looks like its on the right track. Section formatting is good. The main thing is filling in the real world stuff (creation/concept and reception), and working on sourcing everything in the fictional sections. :-) Collectonian (talk) 00:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Conception is something that I have been looking for a lot. I couldnt find anything in different interviews of the author and in my country they dont sell the databook of fullmetal. Do you know any user that is related with fullmetal a lot? Thanks (again ^_^.--Tintor2 (talk) 16:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately no. Its been a relatively neglected set of articles of late. May want to ask in the project to see if anyone has the book. Collectonian (talk) 16:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I will.Tintor2 (talk) 16:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Due to its length I have added the 60 day trigger and box in Talk:List of Saint Seiya characters. Its the first time I make one, could you check if its ok? Also, I have been making Rurouni Kenshin per your advices, I will keep with it later.Tintor2 (talk) 01:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Yep, code looks good :) Collectonian (talk) 01:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Imges of Naruto Charecters

I added some external links of different Naruto Charecters yesterday. And those links were removed and my contribution was marked as vandalism. I am the owner/Admin of that linked site. What should i do to show that i am the owner of that site? And I added those links because there is no proper or bigger image of each characters. Please let me know.

Jeehan Ahmad (talk) 14:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the links were removed because it is considered spam and linking to copyright violating sites like yours is against Wikipedia policy. The links do not belong and will continue being removed if added to any Wikipedia article as vandalism. Collectonian (talk) 14:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Your GA assessment of Karas

Hi, thank you for assessing Karas (anime). I agree the lack of tertiary sources is major enough to fail the article, but would like you to clarify other points. I think this would help others to improve their anime articles (or get an inkling of what is to be avoided at the least). Please check my comments following your GA Review. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jappalang (talk • contribs) 17:28, 1 April 2008

But of course :) Collectonian (talk) 22:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

a question for ya.....

You write "This user prefers Internet Explorer." Yet you also write that you use Firefox. In my experience, the only people who use Firefox are those who distrust the Active X controls in Internet Explorer. What are your reasons for using both?
NBahn (talk) 01:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I use Internet Explorer for most of my net browsing. I prefer IE's features and feel in several areas. I also browse with IE locked down, so Active X and other security issues are not as much of a problem. :P I started editing with FireFox because Twinkle and Friendly do not work with IE and I wanted to use them. Editing on Wikipedia is the main time I have any desire to use tabbed browsing as well, which I find annoying while doing regular surfing, but quite useful for checking sources, doing bulk assessments, etc. At this point, I probably use IE and Firefox about 50/50, and I'm usually using them at the same time with me editing and researching for Wikipedia in IE and doing everything else in IE. :P Collectonian (talk) 01:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

external links

why are links to IMDB okay but not links to Tv.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by MissRaye (talk • contribs) 07:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm? Links to both are fine so long as they are useful. It is the link to a fansite that got you warned (twice now). We do not link to fansites. Collectonian (talk) 14:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

whose authority?

Just a question on the Inuyasha synopsis, which i consider to be very missing some introductory fundamental points, which include the act of inuyasha's and Kagome's initial betrayal which sparks the series. On what grounds do you feel my additions to be vandalism, and on what authority do you have to put a bot up that automatically replaces anyone's changes back to what you want? I don't mean this as an insult, but at first glance, it doesn't seem fair that only you can make changes to an article unless you were given some sort of special priviledge from wikipedia.summguy1 (talk) 15:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not the only one who can make changes to an article, obviously. Several regular editors work on that article, as do the occasional random editor. In fact I rarely do much editing to it at all, primarily watching it for vandalism and foolishness. I do not have any kind of bot. Bots only revert vandalism when its blatantly obvious, based on word usage or totally blanking the pages. Your edits were considered vandalism because you continued readding excessive plot detail after it was removed multiple times with the explanation that is was unnecessary, excessive, and badly written. We do not do blow by blow plot summaries, we do actual summaries. The full events between Inuyasha and Kikyo are already more and adequately covered in both of their articles as well as in the more detailed episode and chapter summaries. Perhaps you should take the time to learn more about editing on Wikipedia before making so many incorrect assumptions and before continuing to try to force in unwanted additions. Collectonian (talk) 19:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
As soon as I added the change to the synopsis, I linked back to the article and noticed it wasn't there , immediately right after I added it. I thought at first that my changes weren't saved. after a couple of tries, I went to the history section and noticed they were manually removed. I figure you were monitoring this article and have the original text saved and replaced my additions with it as soon as you saw a change, because in a matter of seconds, my additions were reverted back. If I am incorrect please give a reason how this was done. Also, the additions A made to the synopsis are not "vandalism", and the fact that you call it that is somewhat insulting. Since iSwant to add to the synopsis but my changes are being removed, please advise me how I can do so.summguy1 (talk) 15:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
You are very much incorrect as to how it was done. I simply undid your removal. That is a very basic and simple function of Wikipedia. When I notice someone doing what you were doing, namely putting back changes you were already told was inappropriate, I will keep a close eye on that article so such changes can immediately be reverted. Your additions to the synopsis are unwanted, as you were told multiple times. They will continue to be removed if you continue trying to bloat the main article. As noted above, detailed plot summaries are already covered in other pages of the article. In the main article, we only have a brief summary of the series not a blow-by-blow summary. This is in keeping with Wikipedia policies and guidelines.
Also, before leaving comments in a discussion you have no clue about, such as you did here, perhaps you should bother yourself to actually learn more about Wikipedia policies. Despite that person's question, a very detailed message had already been left on his talk page explaining that under no circumstances are links to websites that violate copyrights appropriate additions to an article. He just doesn't want to comply because he thinks its okay to spam articles with links to his website. Collectonian (talk) 19:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
he did not realize it, and you felt you had the right to remove someone's changes without giving a reason. Again, somewhat insulting. Regardless, my changes are not vandalism, and you have given no reason why you feel that they are. Please do so, or please permit me to add to the synopsis.summguy1 (talk) 15:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Then read my reply again, because I have already explained why your changes were called vandalism. You continued putting them back after they were removed with an explanation as to why they were not appropriate. And no, your addition to the synopsis will not be permitted. It violates our MOS and WP:PLOT, is excessive, and detracts from the quality of the article. Collectonian (talk) 19:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
It looks like you think this article is yours and all contirbutions must be approved by you first, regardless of the rules. Quoting the rules today in this talk section doesn't justify your removal yesterday of a contribution with the reason "vandalism" when A. it's not and B. That's not the reason why you removed my contribution (and you don't even address the additions I made in accordance to the rules you quote, which BTW I firmly disagree on. my additions do not violate the Wiki rule you quoted, but I don't wish to get in a rule debate with you on this page). Your edits either discourage those who wish to actually contirbute real content or otherwise instigate more vandalism. While i don't care much whether my own contributions are added or not, when I see an article commandeered and controlled by an individual, it leads me to suspect that wikipedia isn't as free as i thought. summguy1 (talk) 15:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Your contribution was only called vandalism when you continued doing it after being told not to. At that point, yes, it is vandalism. I do not think the article is mine at all, however contributions to Wikipedia are monitored and must comply with our policies and guidelines. At the bottom of every edit box is the statement "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." and this is very true. Wikipedia is not free as in "you can do whatever you want." Yes, anyone can edit, but you are not alone and other editors may change your edits to fix issues or remove them if they are not appropriate for the article. That is part of being a Wikipedia editor. Excessive plot details is not "real content." Our focus is not on the minute fictional details but on the real world aspects of the series. Collectonian (talk) 20:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Just to clarify why i initially posted this, the inuyasha synopsis currently does not mention the initial betrayal or inuyasha and kagome. It is not mentioed later in the plot section. How inuyasha and Kagome initially fall in love and their betrayal of each other. This gives the reason why Kagome seals inuyasha to the tree. My contribution was adding this part to the initial synopsis. It is part of the key plot of inuyasha and i believe it is necessary to understand what inuyasha is doing pinned to the tree at episode 1. When i added this contirbution, it was immediately removed by Collectonian, and i recieved a message after trying to add it four times that my contribution was vandalism and that i was on warning.summguy1 (talk) 16:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't need it. That is what the episode, chapter, and character articles are for. It is not critical to understanding every last aspect of the earlier events to understand the series. Also, Kagome didn't seal Inuyasha to the tree, Kikyo did. Collectonian (talk) 20:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your correction. As for your edits, I don't wish to get into an edit war with you, and this will be my final post. one might argue that your removal of my contribution is the real vandalism here. I could make a bot that would continually try to add my contribution indicating that you are committing the vandalism, and you could do the same to remove mine, but that wouldn't get us anywhere, and i don't care enough. After all, this is Inuyasha, we're talking about, and I have a full-time job and don't have the time to spend bickering with you on the validity of a contribution to an anime article on wikipedia. Clearly this is more important to you than me. I hope you find some sort of satisfaction in it. summguy1 (talk) 16:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
No, you couldn't. Bots have to be approved by an administrator to run on Wikipedia. An attempt to use an illegal bot would result in permanent blocking from editing. As for the rest...it isn't really needed remarks. I also have a full-time job, so what? And yes, I take a great deal of pride in working Wikipedia, and I'm satisfied when my efforts pay off. I enjoy working on articles and work hard to bring articles up to high standards. I rejoice when several articles I worked on reached featured status and I hate to see low quality articles suffering from neglect. Collectonian (talk) 20:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Civility

This edit summary is totally and completely inappropriate. You are not allowed to disregard Wikipedia's policies just because you have an opinion; a lot of people have worked hard on that article, and you have just slapped them all in the face open-handed. Are there problems? Absolutely. But there are countless ways to point out those problems without making this whole project emotionally painful for others to participate in. Show some basic respect. --Masamage ♫ 21:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Shrug. It may not be worded the most politely it could be, but isn't totally and completely inappropriate. It is not a B class article in any way shape or form. Similar articles have been AfDed from other series, showing it is inappropriate and useless.Sorry if I get frustrated with people running around giving their article B ratings when they aren't, which to me is disrespectful to the project and to those who actually work to create B class articles.
As for your note on the project talk page: "Meanwhile, I suspect that if you, Collectonian, put half the energy into actually editing these articles that you do into aggressively insulting them we might make some real progress."
I'm sorry, but my experiences with the project so far have made me a bit bitter and disillusioned to the idea. I doubt attempts to really clean up the articles would actually be allowed, considered the fight from the project to actually argue that fansites and sites distributing illegal downloads are reliable sources and perfectly fine to link to. I honestly don't believe the project should even be allowed to exist, and if there were a process to do so, I'd recommend it be forced to be dismantled and, at best, made a work group under the Anime and Manga project. But that won't happen, anymore than it will happen with the Gundam project. I've yet to see any sign that the project is making any real attempt at making Sailor Moon articles good articles that follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines, rather than what it is now: a fancruft filled set of articles of little encyclopedic value. So I, instead, will concentrate on working on those articles where clean up can be done and the potential to take the articles to FA and FL quality exists, such as Tokyo Mew Mew. It had quite a few of the same issues as the Sailor Moon articles and the clean up is taking a lot of work and time, but its worth it, to me. Fortunately, most of the editors involved support the work as they realize it is necessary to follow Wikipedia guidelines and policies. I look forward to it being a featured topic one day. I put a ton of energy editing articles, ridiculous amounts really along with time. I've learned not to waste my time on some though. Collectonian (talk) 23:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
You are 100% wrong about the project resisting change. We have restarted these articles time and again to try to be better, but every time we get through about five of them the guidelines change again, so we have to start over, and meanwhile the ones we never had time to get to just lag behind. This is unfortunate, but it's also a completely normal process of events, and it has nothing to do with people being insane, stupid, or whiny. Your assertion that we're unbending or clingy about this stuff is downright insulting. I have personally rewritten some of these articles from scratch as many as three times. I have thrown away old sections (many that I wrote) that didn't fit. I have spent hours finding images and then deleting them because of tightened fair-use rules.
I'm not some kind of rebel, and neither are the other editors; you have no right to saunter in at the eleventh hour and declare that everything was stupid until you showed up. It's just bloody hard to keep track of this many articles. That's why it needed a project, and the improved organization has helped immeasurably. Here is the "Ami Mizuno" article before the WikiProject was formed. If you don't think there's been improvement, hard work, and drawing-closer to the guidelines, then I do not know how to communicate with you. (You might also find it educational to look at the others from that era. They're absolutely nothing alike--except that they all talked about yuri fanfiction and were mostly lists. Oh, and every single minor villain used to have their own article. Also many of the items.) The fact that it's called a WikiProject and not a Work Group is pure technicality, because it was founded before work groups existed. We certainly look to WP:ANIME for overarching guidelines and goals; the name is kept purely out of a sense of identity.
Your experiences have been unfortunate, but you're just one person, you haven't been paying attention to us very long, and you've let your treatment by a small handful of our members mutate your entire perspective on what's going on. Back off a little and try to remember we're all after the same goals here. --Masamage ♫ 03:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
"try to remember we're all after the same goals here" hmmm...perhaps you should tell the rest of your members that. I have seen all of 2, maybe 3, so far who actually seem to believe what you state: that the group is still under the Anime and Manga project and should follow the AM MOS, and one of those is you. Let's look at Sailor Moon (English adaptations), since that was one that caused this discussion. It is extremely NPOV, with very little in the way of reliable sourcing. What sources exist are mostly fansites. The EL section has inappropriate links, including COPYVIO violations. I tagged the article for having original research, being non-neutral, and to question its notability. The notability tag was removed rather quickly, despite the fact that two other such pages for series that had the same adaptation issues (Tokyo Mew Mew and Cardcaptor Sakura) were deleted in AfDs not so long ago. The reason for removing "This article is pretty notable, judging on the fact that the English adaption is well remembered for being twisted so much." which has nothing to with notability on Wikipedia at all, and gives undo and unfair focus on the issue. Would you say such an article is an appropriate thing for the Sailor Moon pages?
Am I to believe it is really necessary to have FIVE story arc articles (story arcs which are not declared within the main series), in addition to an episode list, instead of just having a nice, normal episode list with good summaries? Worse yet, the episode list actually has a fansub as a reference as well as a glut of unnecessary external links??? Are efforts being made to fix those up as well so the series has a more proper episode list, or is the current one considered okay? I don't see any discussions in the project on fixing up anything. Recent discussions include arguing against the copyvio issue I brought up, trying to figure out how to add OR regarding Usagi's name changes, noting the official website was changed, and of course the template issue. When notice was posted about the updates to FICT, I see no discussion on how to bring pages into compliance at all. Collectonian (talk) 05:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Dunno why.....

.....but it seems as though user:Hazelcake may -- just may -- be inching towards an edit war with you on the Fruits Basket article page.

NBahn (talk) 00:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

They may try, but I only AGF the first time. Changes now will be considered vandalism unless they prove their claim. Collectonian (talk) 01:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
i dont know how to use talk or whateve you might call this bit atm, so bear with me if this is written wrong or something basically i would like to mention about the fruits basket thing, that there definately IS one reference to the baseball cap in the anime. I have watched this series hundreds and hundreds of times and im completely sure that its in there somewhere. To find you the exact episode would take me an extremely long time ¬¬ i will find it if you really do need it, but i dont see why you cant just accept that its in there? >< im not trying to be rude or anything but its kinda annoying me ^__^; i forgot to sign in so this isnt posted under my user, sorry -hazelcake 90.206.192.39 (talk) 18:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Because I have also seen the series multiple times, and I don't remember any reference to the baseball cap. Wikipedia requires things be verified. Since you are making the claim, it is up to you support that claim by giving the exact episode where this single reference occurs. You may want to read the Wikipedia tutorial. Here is the page regarding how to use talk pages: Wikipedia:Tutorial (Talk pages) Collectonian (talk) 18:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


Mew Mew-related

The Chimera Anima seemed to be too major for the show to be merged...especially with there being a whole lot of them that won't fit on the character page. If you'd like, you can contribute seperate articles to this Wikia: http://tokyomewmewpower.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page It's in need of articles. Rtkat3 (talk) 11:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

No, it isn't too major to be merged, or it won't be once appropriately cleaned up. Such level of fan detail can go in that wikia, if you want to transwiki it before the merge. And thanks, but no, I have no desire to work on such wikias. Collectonian (talk) 16:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Reference Library request

Could I please trouble you to look up your copy of "The Anime Encyclopedia: A Guide to Japanese Animation Since 1917" for Sailor Moon-related information? -Malkinann (talk) 08:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I'll take a look when I get home this evening and let you know what it has. Collectonian (talk) 13:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Cheers. :) Please don't feel like I'm rushing you, or that it has to be done right this minute - just whenever you've got some time to spare on it. -Malkinann (talk) 20:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
No worries :) Meanwhile, if you have access to a copy, I'd highly recommend checking out "Anime explosion!: the what? why? & wow! of Japanese animation." As I recall, it has a whole chapter on Sailor Moon. My local library carries it so I can get it if you don't. I got a ton of great production info from it for The Vision of Escaflowne and need to get it back to finish the film anyway. ;) Collectonian (talk) 20:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Ohh, really?? Awesome!!! :D Unfortunately, I can't get my hands on a copy, (and it doesn't seem to be in the WP:ANIME reference library...) but thanks for the heads-up and offer.  :) -Malkinann (talk) 21:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
When I go check it out again (or finally buy a copy LOL), I'll let you know and get the info to you. :) Collectonian (talk) 22:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Wow, it has nearly a page worth of stuff, including the start as Codename Sailor V, commentary on the various seasons through Stars with summaries and some ratings and reception info. It also mentions teh movies, and comments on the failure of the English dub. I can scan both pages and save as a PDF, if you want, so you can through as I suspect it would be useful in several articles as there is also some character commentary. Collectonian (talk) 22:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Ooooh, yes please!!!  :D -Malkinann (talk) 22:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Here ya go :) [4] Hope it helps! Collectonian (talk) 23:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Got it, thanks heaps!!  :D Would I cite it like this using cite book? Are there any chapter titles? Is that a full enough citation? Clements, Jonathan; McCarthy, Helen (September 2001). The Anime Encyclopedia: A Guide to Japanese Animation Since 1917, first edition, Stone Bridge Press, 337-338. ISBN 1880656647.  -Malkinann (talk) 23:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Nope, no real chapter titles beyond front and back matter. Slightly tweaked version I used to cite it: Clements, Jonathan; Helen McCarthy (2001-09-01). The Anime Encyclopedia: A Guide to Japanese Animation Since 1917, 1st ed., Berkeley, California: Stone Bridge Press, pp. 337-338. ISBN 1-880656-64-7. OCLC 47255331. 

Thanks :D -Malkinann (talk) 02:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Carrie

I noticed that you removed the WikiProject TV tag from the film article's talk page. I think it was there because it was a TV movie. Is there a different reason why the tag shouldn't be included? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Woops. I think I did it confusing it with the other Carrie movie, then forgot to put it back after realizing it was a failed TV pilot. I've put it back now. Collectonian (talk) 13:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Great, thanks. :) Hope that the other editor is amicable to dialog about plot information in that article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

reflist

Where does it say that it is only appropriate to use the {{reflist}} template only if there is more than 10 references? -Mike Payne (T • C) 01:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:FN#Resizing references. When there are 0-10 references, <references /> is preferred to reflist. Once there are at least 10 references, then reflist would be an appropriate choice. Collectonian (talk) 02:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I see where it says to use the reflist template if there is more than 10 because some aditors like smaller fonts for refereces, but I don't see it saying anywhere to not user reflist otherwise. The references are not as important as the rest of the article and should hence be displayed smaller. -Mike Payne (T • C) 02:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
The references are just as important as the rest of the article as it VERIFIES what's there. Verifiability is one of the core components and missions of Wikipedia. If tiny fonts should be the norm, references would look like reflist. Collectonian (talk) 02:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
reflist is tiny? They're 90% of the original size! Since when does a 10% reduction make them tiny? -Mike Payne (T • C) 09:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
They are very tiny to me :P Collectonian (talk) 15:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Post Oak Mall

Being a resident of College Station, Texas I was outraged at the simply wrong reports given. I originally changed the cinema closing date in the first place because the given reference did not mention a theater at all. It gives vague closing dates and I can gather better proofs through photos (Post Oak Mall had a 20th anniversary display last year) and other mentions. Most of the items are merely reworded though the post summary was inappropriate. The only reason why I can't just whip out some references right now because I am in Florida attending a funeral. Once I return next week, I will give the article a new rewrite and better references. TheListUpdater (talk) 00:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm also a resident, and all of the references are more than reliable and confirm exactly what is written. The article does not need a rewrite. If you have new information or have reliable sources that conflict with what is written then post them to the article's talk page for discussion. Your "knowing" is not a reliable source per Wikipedia policy, and the company that owns the mall saying X was there and the writings of the Brazos Historical Society are certainly considered far more trusthworthy than one person's memory. Collectonian (talk) 01:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Maple Town

This may seem silly, but the edits of Maple Town that you reverted have basis. http://johnnorrisbrown.com/classic-nick/mapletown/index.htm The one you reverted referred to the Nick air and end dates. Could this somehow be put in the template? Indeed123 (talk) 01:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I could have sworn I answered this. If those the change was to the original Japanese air dates, that's fine, however a better source needs to be found for that (John Norris Brown's website is not a reliable source. As the person who changed them left no edit summary to explain their changes, I reverted and questioned. Collectonian (talk) 18:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The Littles

The reason I added info about the French dub was because it's just as relevent as the English version since DIC was originally a French company. In any case, I put back the "Other Languages" section because I felt that was "important". Also I clicked on the German and Spanish links, but those articles are non-existant in their respective Wikipedias, so I removed them. Brittany Ka (talk) 00:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Dic may have been originally a French company, but unless the series was originally in French, this is the English Wikipedia. As such, we generally only mention the original language and the English translation. Additionally, when we do mention such things, we ONLY mention in terms of "the series was also broadcast in X, Y, Z" and it must be sourced. We don't just give a list of the title in other languages. As your addition is completely unsourced and is nothing but a trivia list without context, I have removed it again. Collectonian (talk) 01:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Advice

Just as a tip, it's usually a good idea to inform people when you start an ANI thread about them. I recommend placing a brief courtesy note at Kei-clone's talkpage with a link to the disussion. That lets him participate, plus it might also be a nudge for him to fix things himself. :) --Elonka 13:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Woops...I thought I had, but guess I got distracted. Collectonian (talk) 13:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Non-free image tags

I would've thought that NFimageoveruse is more accurate and easier to understand than {{non-free}}? BKNFCC 15:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

In this case, no. {{NFimageoveruse}}, besides being harsh, says there are too many images, period. {{non-free}} says there may be too many and is just a little friendlier. We're still working on it, after cutting it down from 15-20. {{nonfree}} also seems to be more the standard one to use. :P Collectonian (talk) 15:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Medabots

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this the page for #5? RC-0722 247.5/1 16:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but 5 is a sequel to the original Medabots[5], which is the one related to the anime (though not sure if one is based on the other or not). There are two other manga sequels to the original 5, plus a spinoff. The anime also has a sequel that probably should be mentioned. Its rather confusing, as a whole :P Collectonian (talk) 17:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
OK. I didn't really follow the manga that well. What's the sequel to the anime? RC-0722 247.5/1 17:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Medarot Damashii, which has 39 eps. It looks to be a straight continuation, so should be able to just go in the main Medabots article with an infobox and section. Collectonian (talk) 17:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh yeah, that's true. I always viewed it as an alternate reality or something like that. Also, you might want to add the english translation, Medabots Spirit. RC-0722 247.5/1 18:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Medabots Navi

OK, I did a google search and I coming up with the conclusion that Navi is a game. Thoughts? RC-0722 247.5/1 19:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Wait, so its a game, not a character? If so, ax from the character section and add appropriate info on the game (platform, type of game, who made, release date(s)) to the video game section. Collectonian (talk) 19:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, I'm not sure, but it looks like that. I'll do it anyway, then if we find out it isn't, we can revert it. RC-0722 247.5/1 19:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Yep :) I'll check to see if my anime encyc has anything on the series that may help as well. Collectonian (talk) 19:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Real quick

Question, should we be allowed to use Gamespot as a source? The reason I ask is because it is user maintained (much like WP) and according to WP:REF, we aren't allowed to use user maintained places as sources. RC-0722 247.5/1 15:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

It depends on the part. The Gamespot editor reviews are usable as a source, and I believe the basic game information pages as those parts are not user-maintained. The user maintained aspects should not be used. Collectonian (talk) 15:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, just checking. RC-0722 247.5/1 16:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Reassessment of Medabots

Would it be OK if I put Medabots up for reassessment? RC-0722 247.5/1 03:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Reassessment for class? It is still start class, though much better than it was before. Remember, start is a very broad class, so it encompasses a great range of articles. Collectonian (talk) 03:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, that's true. I'll start work those tone issues. RC-0722 247.5/1 03:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Cool...I've removed the OR tag as well, since I think that's all gone. I'll try to help out with the last bit of format clean up this week, but for tonight, gonna work on my neglected manga reviews for my own site :P Collectonian (talk) 03:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
"Spanning 52 episodes, the series originally aired on TV Tokyo from July 2, 1999 until June 30, 2000." I thought the original series was 52 episodes, not 91, as that would include the sequel. RC-0722 247.5/1 00:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
You are correct, it should be 52 (and the infobox fixed). I just looked at the infobox when writing that part, didn't think to check, doh. Collectonian (talk) 00:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Akemi Mokoto

Just since I'll be inconsistently on the Internet for the next few days (as I'm visiting Princeton and Columbia), could you keep tabs on this user? I deleted an image on his/her talk page that was blatant advertising for an anti-lolicon group, and then ironically found this post, which I reverted also. If this continues, leave messages on his/her talk page, and take to ANI if it persists. Thanks, Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 09:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Will do. Enjoy the visits :) Collectonian (talk) 13:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Anti-flame

Image:Antiflame-barnstar.png The Anti-Flame Barnstar
For your patience and cool-headed nature in the conflict surrounding MyAnimeList and a certain Otaku. Keep up the good work! swaq 16:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks :) Collectonian (talk) 16:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism on Scanalation Page

For the record, Comics are not the only thing scanned. Gaming manuals, box artwork and magazines are also scanned. This article was discussing the act of Debinding. Since I have written a detailed article on my Wiki about how to properly debind a perfect bound magazine...I believed it was relevent to the discussion on this wiki page. While I could care less about you removing it, placing a vandalism tag on it is a bit of a stretch. Go Google "Debinding Comics" or "Debinding Magazines" and you will see that my site is at the top of both of those pages....even beating out Wikipedia.

-Phillyman —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.55.45.19 (talk) 17:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Link spam is considered vandalism. Wikipedia is not the place to promote your site.Collectonian (talk) 18:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
While running a wiki myself I realize the nature of link spam, inserting an on topic link to enrich a wiki article is really not link spam. I will not argue the point any further, but in the future you may just want to remove the link and not cite it as vandalism. I was only trying to add value to the wiki page in question, while it does serve me in adding slight traffic to my site, it does not change the fact that it was on topic and hardly vandalism. -Phillyman —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.106.97.90 (talk) 18:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
You added a link to your site that did not meet WP:EL and does not enrich the article in anyway. It is pure self-promotion, hence spam. If you want links to your site added, as it is your site, you should never add it yourself, but suggest it on the talk page and allow neutral parties to judge the site.Collectonian (talk) 00:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Got a question for you...

What did you see as vandalism here? [6] Just curious....Gladys J Cortez 18:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Deliberately entering false information is vandalism. :) Collectonian (talk) 18:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
My Meerkat Manor memory must be fading, then; that would have gotten right by me. Thanks!Gladys J Cortez 23:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
No prob...I probably spent far too much time watching the series while getting the list of FL :P Collectonian (talk) 00:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Images

I might be uploading some pics for Medabots later tonight. Can you think of any that might be helpful for the article? RC-0722 247.5/1 01:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

At the moment, not that I can think of. Per WP:NONFREE, the article should not have a lot of images unless its to illustrate something critical to understanding the work. The one added to the plot, for example, would probably have to be removed before a GA or FA attempt. Later, when the sections are expanded and the lists in place, the cover of the first manga volume and a cover of one of the DVD releases would be good. If a cover of the original computer game could be found, that would be awesome. If not, the second game would also be good. I also need to remember to check the second edition of my encyc, because I'm wondering if that 1977 date is a typo in my current one and if Medarot: Kuwagata Version is the game it was speaking of. Collectonian (talk) 01:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I'll look into, but there's no guarantees. BTW, that one in the plot is kinda critical, as it gives readers a visual of what a medabot is. RC-0722 247.5/1 01:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
That isn't actually considered critical, depending on who is looking, similarly to many plot sections not having images of unique characters and creatures of the series. It may seem odd, I know, but that's usually been the case when I seen it coming up to GA and FA. For now, its fine. Collectonian (talk) 02:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
True. BTW, I did a quick Gamespot search and found out that the earliest medabots game (in any language) came out on November 28, 1997. RC-0722 247.5/1 02:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Also found some more that show 1997 not 1977. Fixing  :) Collectonian (talk) 02:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Belldandy

Thanks for your comments. I don't own the manga, but I should be able to pick up up soon, so I'll use that to source the plot issues. Once that is out of the way, is it worth making a shot a GA, or should I work on other areas more? I think the reception is better than most of the character articles, but the rest isn't so clear. - Bilby (talk) 01:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd work on tightening up the plot sections first, and making sure the creation/concept and reception sections are as comprehensive as possible. Belldandy is one of the biggest anime characters in the English speaking world, with lots written about her and the dynamic of "she's a slave" versus "she's a perfect woman." While the current section is nicely filled, I'd suspect some more might be available in other sources as well. Maybe search Lexis Nexus (if you have access) or a similar journal DB, and search Google Books to be sure all relevant book references have been found. Also, I'd probably get it copyedited to take care of any problems with prose flow, grammar, spelling, et al. :) Collectonian (talk) 02:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Plot was some of what I'd inherited with the article, but I'll see what I can do there. As a general rule, do you prefer original sources for plot, or secondary sources? I tend to prefer primary sources academically, but Wikipedia seems weighted the other way. I've been through Google Books and most of the databases, but while she's heavily discussed outside of academia, like most of anime/manga the academic discussion isn't as good as I would like (with Perper and Newitz as the two best counter-examples, each having devoted a lot of time to her). I may focus more on the non-academic sources, then - hopefully something else will turn up. :) - Bilby (talk) 02:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
For the plot sections, the primary sources are sufficient. For the rest, it needs to be secondary sources, with supplementation, as appropriate, from materials from the author, production company, and novels/manga/anime releases. Yeah, when doing your own research, primary sources are often good because you are doing your own synthesis. With Wikipedia, since original research is a bad thing, editors primarily report/summarize the work of others. :) Collectonian (talk) 02:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I'll annoy you with one last question, then, as you seem to be a great source of advice. :) Manga or anime? I have the TV series somewhere or other, but given my work I don't generally reference anything other than papers and the very occasional books. I'll probably end up picking up the manga, though, so if that's a better source I'll hold out. Technically I could reference everything from both, but that might seem a tad like overkill. - Bilby (talk) 02:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, both is partially right. :P The manga, being the primary work, should be used for most of the sourcing and doesn't need to be backed up by the anime. However, where there are differences between the manga and the anime, or where the anime may expound on something the manga didn't, those should also be noted as appropriate with citations from the anime. You can see some of how that works in List of Tokyo Mew Mew characters in the sections on Pie, Tart, and Deep Blue if that helps illustrate what I mean. :)Collectonian (talk) 02:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks muchly. :) On the plus side, this gives me an excellent excuse to watch the series again, while still justifying purchasing the manga. That looks suspiciously win-win to me. I'll try and leave you be again, but thanks heaps for the advice. - Bilby (talk) 02:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
No problem, glad to help :) Collectonian (talk) 02:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Sailor Moon info

Hey, just wanted to let you know I went ahead and ordered a copy of Anime explosion!, the other book I told you about. When I get it (should be within a few days), I can scan in the pages on Sailor Moon for you if you haven't been able to get a hold of it yet. Collectonian (talk) 03:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, that would be very helpful. :) -Malkinann (talk) 08:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

List of Magical DoReMi episodes

I was in the midst of changing the color of that searingly bright pink table in List of Magical DoReMi episodes but hit an edit conflict - looks like you beat me to the punch. Your color choice was better anyway ;-) AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 05:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

LOL, yeah, my eyes were crying over that pink! :P Just did some more clean up for formatting and content. Collectonian (talk) 05:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

As long as I've got your attention...

Now and Then, Here and There is in need of some formatting and expansion. I largely rewrote the characters section and lead, more out of necessity than anything else. The article doesn't get many edits these days. Care to help out? AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 05:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I can do some quick MOS formatting. I've got too long a back log for doing much work on it myself right now, though I'm happy to answer questions and provide guidance. Collectonian (talk) 05:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
If you could once over the article, I'd appreciate it. Thanks! AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 05:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Done. I'll also fix the infobox image to add the missing FUR so it doesn't get deleted. :) Collectonian (talk) 05:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Wow, it seems so empty now. Thanks for the help. I'll have to re-write some sections. I am interested to know which policy explicitly states the associated soundtrack doesn't belong in the article though, because I've seen a boat load of anime articles that include such information. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 05:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I know, a lot have them because so many articles need cleaning. Its been 2 years since we've had an FA :(, though working on some possibles myself now. We have had some GAs though, and you won't find the lists in those. It isn't a policy, but an editing guideline and part of the MOS. It was agreed upon in multiple projects (TV, Film, Anime/Manga, Music) several months ago that soundtrack listings should only be in an article about a specific CD. I believe they are actually debating whether to even have them there, though don't know how that one ended as I never work on CD articles so didn't keep up with it. Collectonian (talk) 05:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and what about the seiyu's - shouldn't be including the article now either? I noticed you cleared that too. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 05:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
They are still there. I reformatted the character list in keeping with the MOS, which puts the voice actors at the end of each character description and utilizes the anime voices template :) Collectonian (talk) 05:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
OH! I see them now. Sorry, it's getting late. *^_^ AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 06:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
LOL, that's okay. After all that neon color, my eyes are tired too. ;) Collectonian (talk) 06:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

{{R from alt name}}

Using Talk:O-Parts Hunter, I was able to tag many manga-related redirects which were alternate titles. How do I figure out which ones I'm missing? There a category or list which aids in this type of sorting? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Good question! I've been trying to find a list for the Ep/Char redirects to make sure each had a show name and couldn't find a single list. Not sure where to even begin looking for an answer.Collectonian (talk) 05:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Re:Chapter list, ANN remover

For the chapter list, listing the chapters, cutting down the plot summary, and removing the kanzenban section would be the items that immediately come to mind. The latter item is since the table for the extra volumes looks really sparse, and might be better represented by simply a sentence in the lead. For the ANN remover, I'll try to keep tabs on him as much as I can. His stance is pretty arbitrary on the matter and it's clear he has zero experience in the matter. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 14:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking the same on the kanzenban section. I'd list the chapters, but either they were unnamed or Tokyopop removed the divisions in their printing, so I'm not sure how many are in each volume and not sure how I can find out. :( Collectonian (talk) 15:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Yay, found the break down of chapters by volume and have added it to the list, along with the cover characters to balance out the table. Collectonian (talk) 02:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Medabots external links

Hey, are you sure that link was spam? RC-0722 247.5/1 16:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, its just someone's personal anime fansite. Collectonian (talk) 16:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Undo/revet tool

I really dislike when this tool is used in reverting edits that are not vandalism. You may want to use soft revert in the future. :) -- Cat chi? 02:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I used "Undo" Collectonian (talk) 02:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Wisden Cricketers of the Year

Hi. Spotted your support of the FLRC for this, so wondered if you'd review the article which has been polished and taken to FLC once more. Cheers. --Dweller (talk) 22:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

([7]) Sorry, I think that was my fault. --Dweller (talk) 09:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I think most, if not all, of your concerns have been addressed. Would you mind revisiting the article and, if possible, hiding your comments which have been dealt with since the FLC is looking a little bloated already! Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 07:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Erk... I can't work out what the outstanding issues are either. Can you do some hiding or striking? Ta! --Dweller (talk) 15:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Collectonian. Your patience and diligence with this review are greatly appreciated. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
You were probably otherwise engaged, you said you'd add some notes yesterday. Is there anything else outstanding or would you be prepared to supports it's reselection as a featured list? Thanks again for your time. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, feeling a bit under the weather. I've added the notes and made a few suggested tweaks to the list :) Collectonian (talk) 16:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Well not a problem, I'm sorry to hear you're not feeling well. I've moved the links to a See also (from the lead) and moved the full stop. As for the selection of only one player, well I guess it's similar to the selection of six or nine... It's entirely up to Wisden. I suppose the individuals were pretty significant, like W.G. Grace who effectively created cricket, like Wisden who created the alamanack. I'm not sure anything beyond some WP:OR will definitively explain the ideas of the Wisden editors... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Feel pretty ropey myself today, perhaps I've got wiki-flu! Sorry to sound like a broken record but have Dweller and I (and others) done enough now to obtain your support or are there any other issues we need to deal with? All the best, hope you're feeling better! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, due to the block below, I can't come update my comments until tomorrow. I think everything was addressed except the slight awkwardness of the lead. Wee you able to find a copyeditor to give it a quick going over? Since that's the only real prose, I think someone could hit it pretty fast. There is a list of copyeditors at WP:1FAPQ#Project resources who are willing to help on FA/FL stuff. Collectonian (talk) 20:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

April 2008

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule . Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. ScarianCall me Pat! 10:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I have blocked your and User:JTMcDonald for edit warring on the NaturallySpeaking article. You should have stopped yourself from reverting as soon as he broke 3RR. ScarianCall me Pat! 10:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

unblock|Yes, I realize that and acknowledged it in my report. I'd honestly lost count until I did the report and stopped to look at the history, since I'd also been doing other edits to the page inbetween the reverts. I can understand the block, since I should "know better" however I feel 24 hours is too long, since its the same given to JTMcDonald who was also vandalizing the article in removing clean up templates with no reason, and who continued his actions when another editor also twice reverted his reglutting of the article. I did attempt to open discussion with him, but he completely and blatantly ignored all such attempts, as well as the other attempts, and just continued. This is far worse to me, than my own regrettable losing count and going over while trying to clean up an advertising sounding article. Collectonian (talk) 17:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

  • 3RR doesn't really care who is in the right in a case since the violation is simply to do with behaviour and disruption. I'm glad to see that you accept that you went to far but I generally feel that words like vandalism are used too freely and without sufficient regard to what vandalism actually is. The missing element from the request is an undertaking not to edit the article in question for the remainder of the block and a promise not to break the 3RR again. Spartaz Humbug! 18:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
    • I won't be editing the article again for awhile. I mostly just wanted to clean out most of the advert reading stuff as no one else was addressing the issue and I don't think anyone else is really doing anything on the article at all. It needs sourcing and stuff, but I'm not going to bother with that as I have some other stuff to edit, like the lists I'm trying to get ready for FLC. I will continue working on not breaking 3RR when dealing with such issues (and I have gotten better about breaking off than I used to be). This time I really did just totally lose count until I went to leave the warning for him, and I fully accept I should not have reverted after that. I can't promise I will absolutely never break 3RR again, though, because I don't believe in making a promise that I am not 100% sure I can keep. I can only promise to work hard not to break it, and to be more careful in the future. Collectonian (talk) 20:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

I don't think you should be counting reverts at all. Better to be using the talk page and discussing but I think there are sufficient undertakings to allow us to reduce this one to time served

Request handled by: Spartaz Humbug! 22:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! Hopefully when his block expires JTMcDonald will respond to the requests to discuss the issue, but if not I'll let someone else deal with it. :) Collectonian (talk) 23:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Same old broken tunes..

Hi Collectonian. I've tried to rework the Wisden lead a little but your suggestion for improvement is a little too nebulous for me I'm afraid! I hope it's a little better but I'm now at a loss as to what you find wrong with it. I guess if you can't isolate more specifically the remaining problems then they'll just have to stay and you'll have to withold your support. Thanks for you time and effort. I'm sure regardless of the result of the FLC, the list is in a much better state than it was when it was delisted. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I've made some suggestions in the article. I generally try to avoid doing it because my grammar isn't the best either, but hopefully it at least shows what parts I found awkward. Feel free to change if it doesn't read well to you, and to fix any mistakes I may have made with British English. Collectonian (talk) 11:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I've left most of it as you did but I did reinsert the clause explaining the players who had an impact on not just English cricket. The way you'd re-written it implied that non-English players had not been eligible before 2000. They were, but the point was they had to have had an impact on the English season the year before. I hope that's tidied it up! Are we done (phew?)!?! The Rambling Man (talk) 12:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
That works for me and glad it helped :) Collectonian (talk) 12:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

List of Trinity Blood charaters

Great, so how am i be able to keep it now. OgasawaraSachiko (talk) 13:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

You don't. They should be deleted as they are non-free images that are not being used. Collectonian (talk) 13:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Fullmetal

I have been cleaning a bit Fullmetal Alchemist. What other parts require clean up? Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 15:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The character section needs some clean up. We don't generally divide by manga/anime only, but mention that in the text. The list also seems a bit long considering the almost insane number of see also links in the section. However, I suspect that may be a larger issue do to the horrible state of the character lists (and lack of a real main List of Fullmetal Alchemist characters, so there may not be a lot you can do. Other than that, the anime section in media needs some clean up. DVD releases should be a basic table with only the original Japanese and any English language DVD release dates. I personally find it works better to have the table with details on the episode list and a prose summary in the main, but that's totally a personal preference. The opening and ending theme section, however, also needs clean up. The basics of theme music goes in the episode list, with the soundtracks and other image music needing to be converted to prose and put in a single CDs section. Novels and Drama CDs also need reformatting. For the novels, you can use {{Graphic novel list}} (take a look at Blood+ to see how to deal with the volume titles) to give it a cleaner look. Wee! :) Collectonian (talk) 16:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

He he, yes I think made some problems. Sorry...Tintor2 (talk) 19:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

No prob :) You just were missing the closing }} on the header :) Collectonian (talk) 19:42, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

How should CD Drama be formatted? Is there an article you recommend me to use as example for the CD dramas?Tintor2 (talk) 20:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Usually its done as prose unless there are a lot of them. With only two, a paragraph for each would be good, just mentioning title, who released and when, summary (if available), etc. I can't think of any good examples, right now. Collectonian (talk) 20:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

What should I do with the soundtracks?Tintor2 (talk) 23:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm...none appear to be notable enough to pass WP:MUSIC, so I'd merge in the three that currently have articles (sans the opinion and track listings), add some sourcing, and convert to prose with the image CDs in a single section. See Blood+, Wolf's Rain, and The Vision of Escaflowne for some examples of articles where there was done. Depending on how long the section ends up being, one or two of the CD covers can be included in the section.Collectonian (talk) 00:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

CDs and images

Done. I still need to ref the cds. However, those soundtracks can be taken to AFD without problems. Now I ll see the CD Dramas.Tintor2 (talk) 18:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Awesome, you're making great progress! For the CDs, if you can't find anything else, CDJapan usually is acceptable alternative for referencing. :) Oh, one thing I did notice: don't forget to keep the date formats consistent. Americanized dates month d, yyyy seem to have been the first used in the article, so that should be used consistently through out instead of missing americanized and international (d mmmm yyyy). Collectonian (talk) 18:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
How does the manga image need to be fixed?Tintor2 (talk) 22:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
From my understanding, composite images made of non-free images tend to be frowned on, so it would be better to have it as two separate images. Then double image can be used to put side by side.Collectonian (talk) 22:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Wouldnt that increase the number of non-free (and a possible tag)? The article is already using 4.Tintor2 (talk) 23:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, because its a composite, it is considered to be two images. In this case, the image illustrates an important point about the English version so no worries about it (or them) being removed. Five is a bit much, but I think it is fine for now. If/when a character list is made, then that image can go, but otherwise should be good. Could also replace the image in the infobox with the cover from the manga, which would be more fitting since its the original format. That has both main chacaters, so the image in the character section would no longer be needed. :)Collectonian (talk) 01:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Done (I had to make like 4 four edits, he he). I have no idea what are those cds drama about but I got info in this official japanese site. Could you tell me what it says or if its a complicate japanese tell me what user is skilled in japanese? Thanks.Tintor2 (talk) 19:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I wish I could tell you want it says, but alas my Japanese reading is limited to running through Babelfish :P For someone skilled in Japanese, hmmm...I can't think of anyone (and wish I could). We really should put together a list in the project, but for now, maybe post in the project, or browser Category:User ja-3, Category:User ja-4, or Category:User ja-5 to see if someone in there would be willing to help. Collectonian (talk) 14:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Manga chapters and light novels

I tried to add to the infobox the list of manga chapters but it seems it has a problem. Could you check it?Tintor2 (talk) 00:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Will do. Is any other information about the novels available, maybe enough to write a whole paragaph like with the manga and novel section? Collectonian (talk) 00:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Are you talking about the summaries or the introduction of the novels section?Tintor2 (talk) 01:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
The introduction of the novels. Right now its just two sentences with no sources. Take a look at Blood+'s novel section to see what sort of stuff I mean. Once that is filled out some more with sources, then it might be good to consider a List of Fullmetal Alchemist light novels or List of Fullmetal Alchemist novels, depending on whether they are light novels or regular ones. That would give spaces for novel summaries to be added, while also helping reduce the size of the main article a little bit. Collectonian (talk) 01:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I will see that tomorrow. I dont understand what is the difference between novel and light novel.Tintor2 (talk) 01:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Light novels are published in smaller format (pocket size really), and are illustrated, usually with color and black-and-white images. When they are released here, the color images are usually stripped to save costs (though Seven Seas is promising to keep them and has done so with Ballad of the Shinigami). They also tend to be written in simplier language to be a faster read and for a greater range of audience ages than regular ones (well, except Ai no Kusabi which has got to use the most overly wordy convoluted language ever :P). Collectonian (talk) 01:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I think I wouldnt be able to know that since in my country they dont publish fullmetal due to economical problems (Argentina).Tintor2 (talk) 01:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Ah, no prob. I'll see if I can find one, though I suspect they probably are since most novels tied to anime and/or manga series are. Collectonian (talk) 01:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
[[8]] there is something improvised I made of the novels.Tintor2 (talk) 17:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Looks like a great start to me! Will need a little grammar/wording tweak, but good info :) Collectonian (talk) 17:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Yep, but for that I cant help (I still need to study more English).Tintor2 (talk) 17:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
No big worries. Not to bad really, and I'm happy to help tweak once you have it in the article :) Collectonian (talk) 17:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Done.Tintor2 (talk) 18:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Ditto :) Collectonian (talk) 18:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Names

There is something I have been wondering, is it okay to use Ed and Al (instead of edward and alphonse) in the wikipedia? I see it kind of inappropiate.Tintor2 (talk) 14:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm...I think I'd use the full names except when dealing with direct quotes. While they do use Ed and Al, especially among themselves, as short forms, Edward and Alphonse are their full names. I would note in the respective character descriptions, though, that they are often called "Ed" and "Al" respectively. BTW, total side note, but I noticed you'd stated adding some of the refs from the manga and episodes (yay!). One thing I have noticed in GAs and FAs, though, is they are wanting page numbers for manga references rather than just the volumes. If you can add those, it would be great. Collectonian (talk) 16:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I will do that (especially since its a monthly manga and chapters have like 40 pages).Tintor2 (talk) 20:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Cool. I saw you put some in already. Don't forget to put p. or pp. in front of the page numbers (p. for single page, pp. for multiples). ;) Good luck with it! I know doing those individual volume references can be a rather draining part of working on an article.Collectonian (talk) 20:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
What you mentioned of giving the novels an article may be useful now (73 refs, WOW!). What do you think?Tintor2 (talk) 22:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Probably not quite yet, since the rest of it isn't too long. Once someone starts adding novel summaries, then it will need probably need to move off to a list. Collectonian (talk) 17:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Copyediting, per request.

I'm going to do some editing of the eight detailed sections of the article, but you really need to think about some big picture issues here:

(1) It's not clear to me that it's appropriate to separate List of Marmalade Boy chapters from the main article, Marmalade Boy. Combined, the article would be lengthy, but it wouldn't exceed the length of a lot of FAs.

(2) I don't understand the title at all. To me, a "chapter" would be what appeared in a single issue of Ribon Magazine, just as many of the novels of Charles Dickens were serialized by being printed, one chapter at a time, in English magazines of his time. What you've done is summarize the volumes. So a better title would be List of Marmalade Boy volumes, or even better - because when we talk about "lists", in Wikipedia, we normally mean bulleted items or - at its most complicated - wikitables, not sets of narratives - call it simply Marmalade Boy volumes. In short, a book (or volume, or tankōbon) consists of a bunch of chapters. (And, even more confusingly, you use "volume", in the lead section, when describing the six-volume set, but the article is about eight things - volumes, books, whatever). -- John Broughton (♫♫) 22:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. For the first, it is appropriate and called for in the Anime and Manga MOS (Wikipedia:Manual of Style (anime- and manga-related articles)). We generally split out a chapter list for manga with this many volumes with summaries. For the name, I have to admit that I also wonder about that. However List of X chapters is the standard name used by the project, and the article is using the standard format for a chapter list. See List of Naruto chapters (Part I) for our most recent FL of chapters. This particular one is missing the list of chapters in large part because Tokyopop doesn't make it clear in the English editions how many are in each volume. I hope that helps answers your questions some?Collectonian (talk) 00:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
You've clarified somewhat, except that the example you gave - List of Naruto chapters (Part I) - actually does list the chapters, making the title appropriate both because the article is much more of a list, and because there are (how can I say, this?) chapters listed. If your article in fact listed chapters, then I'd have no problem with the title. But I don't see how you can follow the standard naming convention when you're not following the standard format for the contents of the article (list). If the contents are non-standard, then why not use a (non-standard) title that actually matches the content. Or (and I know this is difficult), why not use the chapter information from either the original magazine publication or the Japanese eight-volume set to figure out the chapters that are in each of the eight parts. We are talking about comics here, yes? So it's quite possible to figure out, looking just at pictures, what is included in what volume, yes? -- John Broughton (♫♫)
I'm actually working on that now :) Looking at the original to determined what chapters are in which volume. :) I'm glad Tokyopop has mostly stopped ignoring those breaks though! LOL Collectonian (talk) 01:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Update: Chapter list added. Collectonian (talk) 02:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Much better. I withdraw my suggestions for a change of name to the article. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks :) I'm glad I was finally able to find the list (though after finding it, I relooked at the volumes and could then clearly see the chapter divisions though they were unnumbered) :P Collectonian (talk) 17:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)