User talk:Collectonian/Archive 5

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

FLC

Hi there. I replied to your comments at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Los Angeles Police Department officers killed in the line of duty. I explained there why the city marshals are included, and answered about Ian Campbell. I'll get to work on making the edits tomorrow, as I'm about to go to bed, but you might want to reply before I do. Regards, and good night! -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 06:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I saw the issue you had yesterday, so I understand why you didn't get back to this. I would appreciate it greatly if you could reply to my replies so I can understand better how you would like the third point addressed. Thank you, -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 05:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Shamrock, Texas

I have temporarily reverted your removal of this content. Please, unless you have a good reason, do not remove information or text from an articles talk page. If I have made a mistake, please let me know on my talk page. Thank you and happy editing. Dustitalk to me 18:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

This IP has a history of vandalizing the article to turn it into an attack piece. He finally left the article alone, but continues attacking the city in the talk page at random. I felt it best to remove the entire vitrol laiden mess to an archive rather than continue to allow it to sit in the main talk page where it is likely to scare of most editors and feed the issue. I removed the newest comment, along with another, as they had nothing to do with the topic at all. This is allowed under WP:TALK, however it can also just be moved to the archive. Collectonian (talk) 18:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Why not contact an Admin or go to WP:RPP to request semi protection. This will prevent IP's from editing the page. Dustitalk to me 18:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
It just came off a month long protection. As soon as it was lifted, the comments started again. :( I may ask for permanent semi-protection, but as he's so far sticking to the talk page, not sure if it would be granted. Collectonian (talk) 18:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
If you would like, I'll ask a friend of mine Keeper to protect it. Dustitalk to me 18:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
After thinking about it, I went ahead and put in a new RPP request, noting its previous protection status and that the anon just waited until it was lifted to begin again. Blocking won't work with him because he's always changing IPs, so hopefully protecting the article itself on a longer term, to indefinite, will take care of it and maybe with that, and the stuff off the talk page, others will feel more comfortable coming in to do good edits. :) Collectonian (talk) 18:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Protection was declined due to there not being enough activity yet (though a block of the IP range was suggested if it gets out of hand again). BTW, I noticed you said you were going to examine the issue, in which case you may also want to look at the earlier history behind it all and this editors earlier contributions. He's used several different IPs: Special:Contributions/216.167.143.152, Special:Contributions/216.167.133.217, and Special:Contributions/216.167.143.152. Collectonian (talk) 19:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

More on Bleach archiving

The reason the bot didn't archive some of the threads is that the final response was within the last 60 days, and it bases its archiving on that rather than on the time of the original post in the thread. That's also caused it to be archiving the threads out of order. I still think manual archiving is the best option, and I'm still willing to do it myself as I had been for a couple of years - if you're okay with turning the bot off. Dekimasuよ! 04:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I've changed the bot to use a thirty day trigger. That should take care of it. It doesn't really archive "out of order" as it puts them in the order of last response rather than first post, and since the talk headers now have plain archive links, trying to list by date would require duplicate links. Collectonian (talk)!

Editing Trinity Blood Characters

I don't know if you remember me from before, but I was the guy who was helping you complete the Trinity Blood Character Article. I just think that Antonio should be re-added to the characters section because his suggestion launched many of the problems during the Ibilis story in the novel. (Having the Inquisition go to Carthage made a big difference in the mess in Carthage) He also appears in some of Thores Shibamoto's original illustrations for the novels, implying a more involved role in the future of the novels.

In case you have a difference of opinion, I also wanted to mention that Susan von Scorzeny does not appear to have any relavancy at this point, and it might be a good idea to incorporate her information into Sister Kate's character description. She can still be mentioned, just not as a major plot character. Just a suggestion.

I'm not an expert on citing, but that fact about the Inquisitorial Department concerning the way that they are raised should be cited as Volume 2: The Iblis. It is mentioned in passing during Caterina's conversation with Francesco and Antonio.

--AndrewD4R5 (talk) 00:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I haven't read any of the second set of novels, not wanting to jump ahead, so I'll take your word on it and put back for now. Agreed on Susan. Collectonian (talk) 00:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Please remember to provide sources for your additions. You made a very big addition to the main Trinity Blood article that has no sourcing at all. Please provide a source, including page numbers and chapter name if it is from a book. Ditto for the addition to Radu's section in the character list, as the information added is not in the current source for that section. Thanks. Collectonian (talk) 21:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I added something from Trinity Blood: Reborn on Mars: Volume 2: The Iblis. Like I mentioned before, I'm not particularly good at citing. I just felt compelled to mention it because it is a general fact about the Methuselah mentioned by Abel in the original novels. (Even though it is not particularly explored in the other adaptations of the story) The author is quite good at explaning things like that.

--AndrewD4R5 (talk) 02:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

If it isn't very explored, and something only specific to one or two vampires in the story, its better to just leave it to their character sections. Collectonian (talk) 02:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Fine, I already mentioned it in Radu's section recently, so that's basically covered.

--AndrewD4R5 (talk) 02:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Yep. It still needs a citation though. :P If you give me the page number(s) its mentioned on, and the name of that chapter, I can add it for you. Though you really should work on learning how to do them as it is an important part of editing. :) Collectonian (talk) 03:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay... I believe that I already gave you the novel title. Chapter name: Visitor's Evening, pg. 38.

--AndrewD4R5 (talk) 22:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

BTW, any particular reason you changed to a new account? Collectonian (talk) 00:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't know where that came from, but I've always had this account while editing this website. --AndrewD4R5 (talk) 03:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

When we last talked, you were using User:AndrewR5D4. :P Collectonian (talk) 03:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

It might have been awhile ago that I made 2 accounts, so I guess you're right. According to the website, there doesn't appear to be a page for the other profile. Well... whatever then. Thanks for bringing that to my attention.

--AndrewD4R5 (talk) 00:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Degrassi

Hi! Me again! I already commented at User talk:Collectonian#FLC above, but this is about something different.

I started a discusson at talk:List of Degrassi: The Next Generation episodes#Summaries regarding the need of summaries on the main episode page now they're all there on their own season articles. A few other episode FLs have also removed them in favor of putting them on season articles. I was really bold and made the change once already, but a user who had never edited the article reverted it a few days later. Now I'm seeking a consensus, and as a contributor to that page, would appreciate your view on it. I'm hoping at some point in the near future to put them up for Featured Topic, and IMO it's probably best if they were removed before I do that. Regards, -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 07:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Notes left and I'll keep an eye out to help get it done. :)Collectonian (talk) 20:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

-Il Teatrino- episodes

I have no opposition to the merge, but I would wait until the remaining summaries are filled in (I'm having difficulty finding the episodes) before performing the actual merge. Having the present poorly written summaries (with several of them empty) on a featured list is essentially asking the article to be taken to WP:FLRC. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 08:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that. That's one reason I just tagged instead of doing the merge straight off, since I didn't want to ruin the Gunslinger Girl FL. :) Once its ready, though, definitely should be merged, I think, cause its just the 2nd season of the same series, even if it was done by another company. Collectonian (talk) 15:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

2.4 Children

I've made a start in my Sandbox. With the aid of a number of websites I've expanded on the summaries somewhat, hopefully they're not too long though. Let me know what you think so far. I'm considering on removing the director and writer columns though, because most are written and directed by the same two people. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 02:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Those look like a good length to me. 150-300 words per summary seems to be about right. I'd also agree, since the director/writer seems to be pretty consistent, there is no need to have them listed for every episode. I think you may have your episode numbers and production codes backwards though ;) Collectonian (talk) 02:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I wasn't sure how to present those. The British television industry uses "series" instead of "season", so it isn't possible to give a season number and a series number. S1E3 refers to Series 1, episode 3, whereas the 3 would eventually be the overall episode number, increasing all the way to 53 or whatever. I don't think S1E3 would work as a production code though as I'm pretty sure it isn't. Prod codes aren't often given on British shows like they are at on closing credits in the U.S. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 02:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm...probably use programme instead of series for the series number. I personally never liked that column being in an episode list, and don't have it in any of my featureds, so it could be left out and just have the regular episode number. :) Collectonian (talk) 02:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Re:Featured chapter lists

The summaries still look really thick. See List of Naruto chapters (Part I), which provides summaries in a more concise style. Try not to cover the story by noting every specific event, but rather provide a summary of the major events that makes it so a reader can gain the gist of what is occurring. And I'm guessing that the individual chapters have no titles? Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 02:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Correct on the titles. :) I took out a bunch of smaller events to try to tighten, but I'll see if I can shorten up some more. Collectonian (talk) 02:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Quick help

Can you lend a hand over at Talk:Princess_Tutu#Ahiru_vs_Duck..I'm no good at explaining MOS stuff. Editor is asking why the English names should be used in lieu of the Japanese ones. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 19:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Note left :) Collectonian (talk) 20:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. The current article revision doesn't use "Duck". Didn't know if you saw that. I haven't had a chance to change it, and I think there may have been too many intermediate edits to simply revert? AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 20:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Grrr...how did I miss someone undoing. I've restored the proper version. Collectonian (talk) 20:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your quick response. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 20:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
No prob, now back to Beyond the Beyond. :) Collectonian (talk) 20:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, looks interesting. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 20:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Its an interesting series, but it seems like it might have stalled in Japan. A fifth volume finally was released last year after a two year hiatus, though, so hopefully the author is still continuing. I'd hate for it to end in the middle! :P Collectonian (talk) 21:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Haven't had much time to read manga as of late. There's one I've wanted to read where everyone dies at the end of each volume in a predestination paradox. But I can't for the life of me remember what the name of it is. Considering how helpful you are, you probably know and can tell me! Edit: Something about cicadas, that's all I can remember. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 00:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm....now that's one I can't think off of the top of my head, but let me see if I can find out. :) Collectonian (talk) 00:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Found it! Higurashi no Naku Koro ni (When Cicadas Cry) -- looks like this guy needs an article name change too. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 00:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering if that was it, but wasn't entirely sure from the summaries. :P That was the answer I got when I asked some other folks. And yes, it looks like it could use a rename. Collectonian (talk) 00:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Looks like the story deals with time loops rather than predestined paradoxes, still piques my interest though. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 00:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I have suggested the name change. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 16:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding borderline sources

Hi, in your GAN review of Karas (anime), you considered DVDActive.com and DVDFuture.com as unreliable sites. It seems Wikipedia Movies consider reviewers listed by Rotten Tomatoes (which the two mentioned are) as reliable. You might want to check out the FAR for Cannibal Holocaust in which sites listed on Rotten Tomatoes are brought up. This could be useful for sourcing anime reviews as Rotten Tomatoes keeps track of several animes reviews. Jappalang (talk) 07:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd never use those site myself, and they only do a relatively small number of anime reviews. If they have passed review at the RS noticeboard, then their use in the article is fine, and those two alone didn't cause it to fail. Collectonian (talk) 14:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
My intention is to inform you of what others have considered as reliable sources which could be of help to others in Wikiproject Anime. I never raised an issue with the failure of Karas as a GA (which I agree with primarily due to lack of tertiary sources). As such, I find it curious you are on the defensive raising up the GAN failure here. From your view expressed above, you believe only sites approved by the RS board are reliable. As such, is there a published list (on Wikipedia or otherwise) where we can refer to for reliable sites, or is every editor required to send all their referred sites to WP:RS for approval before going through GAC or FAC? Jappalang (talk) 01:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I thought you were pointing out in disagreement with the failure, and sorry if my wording came off as defensive. I don't think I stated what I was trying to say. I don't believe only sites approved by the RS board are reliable, but where there they seem borderline, its a good place to confirm. Those two seemed borderline to me, and I've never seen it said that any site Rotten links to for reviews is considered RS, so I said that if they have been declared RS by the noticeboard (or some other group discussion), then that's fine and I'll keep it in mind in the future. Collectonian (talk) 01:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for Avatar: The Last Airbender (Season 1)

I saw your name on the Peer review volunteers list so I wanted to ask if you could look at Avatar: The Last Airbender (Season 1) and give some advice on it. Thanks a lot. — Parent5446 (t n c k e l) 02:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I'll try to take a look at it tomorrow. Collectonian (talk) 02:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Television/doc

Thanks for your vigilance on this page. I've semi-protected it. Toddst1 (talk) 06:06, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

My watchlist thanks you :) Why that person seems to like doing those vandalisms to that page so much that he made two accounts and keeps changing IPs...who knows. *scratching head* Collectonian (talk) 06:10, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Your userpage

It was a Grawp pagemove vandal. We deal with him all last night (and after I went to bed apparently as well). If/when you'd like the move protection removed, let me know. seresin ( ¡? ) 17:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Geneon logo

Dear Collectionian: This morning, I attempted to add the Geneon logo to the Wikipedia article on the company. You quickly deleted it, saying it was "too small to be useful". Fair enough; it wasn't the ideal size, but it was the best version that I was aware of at the time. However, after you deleted the first logo, I remembered that a larger version is available at http://animeondvd.com/images/logos/geneon.gif. I've tried to upload this multiple times, but for some reason it's not going through. Could it be because I got it off a fansite? I'd like to know what I'm doing wrong. Any advice you could give me would be greatly appreciated.--Mark Lungo

Hmm, not sure why it wouldn't let you upload earlier but I was able to get it to upload and replace the smaller one. I've put back the image in the article. :) Collectonian (talk) 22:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Re:Episode list warring

I realize it's frustrating, but I can't really say anything other than deal with it. If he starts to edit war, the worst thing you can do is edit war back, which only escalates the situation. I'm going to leave a note on his talk page on the matter focusing on how he should engage solely in discussion if he has problems about the page. If he continues to revert, then escalating blocks are simply the way to solve it. If you edit war with him, however, my hands are tied in the situation, and I'll either be forced to block you both or neither of you for the sake of fairness in the matter. You might want to alert WP:TV about this to generate some knowledge of the situation, and if you really want to, WP:RFC, WP:3O, and other venues are open. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 19:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Left the message. Again, the worst thing you can do is edit war with him. I know it's hard, but having consensus sort him out is the best way to do this. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 19:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm trying to resist the urge to revert, because I know its not the proper way of dealing with him. I just get so frustrated when it looks like he listening to discussion, then just suddenly reverts again. :( That's one reason I've asked the TV project to deal with the lists instead, so I can then just step away. Collectonian (talk) 22:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Robin

Have you come across User:Robinepowell? She keeps removing the DVD bit from List of Degrassi: The Next Generation episodes. I've answered her on my talk page. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 04:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I have not come across her before. I left her a warning for her almost total blanking of the list. Been here since 2006 and should certainly know better by now. Collectonian (talk) 04:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Your response

Sorry. I just had a bad evening. I'm not fully experienced with Wikipedia, anyway.Kitty53 (talk) 05:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm very sorry for violating the rule again, Collectonian. I am not 100% experienced with Wikipedia. I sometimes can't help myself.Kitty53 (talk) 06:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Its okay, but you should learn not to rely so much on the help me, as others may lose patience with it soon. Have you read any of the tutorial pages for Wikipedia? They can help a lot with the basic editing information. Collectonian (talk) 06:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Merge discussion

See the discussion thread concerning the merging of Akatsuki (Naruto) here. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 06:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I've left my thoughts there. Meanwhile, feel free to weight in on the List of Degrassi: The Next Generation episodes issue and Robin's repeated removals of the series overview table and DVD listing (as partially noted below. She's removed four times, despite two editors telling her to please stop and to provide evidence of her claim that the release dates are wrong. Collectonian (talk) 06:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

You're WRONG!

I don't think i OWN the page. Your tag will be removed AGAIN because it is inappropriate. Synopses don't need references, none of the Keeping Up Appearances episodes have them. As for the remaining points in the tag, they will be addressed. Edito*Magica (talk) 21:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, the page does not need a "clean up" and what "expert"??. I will add to the lead, but if there isn't much else to put i don't see why lines should be filled up for the sake of it, or just to please you.Edito*Magica (talk) 21:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
My next point is the colour scheme you have reverted on the One foot in the grave episode page. There was no need to build up consenus because nobody disagreed with me, except you of course. Please do not revert edits to deliberately spark controversy, you aren't being helpful to anyone.Edito*Magica (talk) 21:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
There is plenty to add to it, except per your own post at Wikipedia talk:Lead section#Leading the way- what the "lead" policy should say., you don't think it belongs there and despite others already telling you there that you are wrong, you'll just ignore them and keep pretending you're right in the face of consensus. I'm not going to get into another edit war with you, nor a war of words. I've already gone ahead and file an ANI about you.Collectonian (talk) 01:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Just noting that trying to change the article even when consensus is against it is disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, which is not looked on kindly. To both parties here, cease edit warring and discuss. As it stands, however, the tag seems to be appropriate - the lead probably should be expanded, an expert familiar with the episodes should work on expanding and fixing the summaries, more references for the related material wouldn't hurt, and as such, general cleanup is required. Trying to work against the overwhelming precedent set by previous featured episode lists isn't really helping your case either. Nevertheless, further edit warring may lead to the protection of both pages. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 02:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Look, the tag you have placed on the 2point4 children page is wrong! It does not need expert attention ,myself and other editors know exactly what each synopsis should be for each episode, and the page still is not complete. I don’t understand how the page needs references- synopses don’t have them! I accept the lead needs expanding, and a tag that implies just this i’ll accept, but your tag simply is inaccurate. Secondly, the One foot in the grave edits I have made are perfectly justified, the colours are distracting and my changes solve this problem, and as no one disagrees with me, why kick up a fuss? And try to accept that every edit does not need a full length talk page discussion, particularly when there is no disagreement! I really don’t want to be involved in any further slanging matches with you, it is time consuming and tiring for both of us, please acknowledge what i have said and do not hesitate to leave a reply on my talk page. I’m trying resolve our disagreement in the most diplomatic and understanding manner possible. Edito*Magica (talk) 03:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
The lists do need expert attention as you have stated clearly and emphatically that you will never properly edit a list to follow the agreed upon format. Project attention is needed to fix both lists, with someone already working on One Foot in the Grave. For 2point4, the synopsis themselves do not need references, but everything else does, including the air dates. The tags are perfectly accurate for the issues with both lists. The colors are not "distracting" except to you. No one agreed with you about the changes either, though you only gave people 3 minutes to answer. If you don't want to get into disagreements, quit ignoring what you have repeatedly been told is the proper format for episode lists and stop running from list to list changing them to what you "think" is correct despite being told by multiple people that it is not good. All your "changes" do is create more work for anyone who might actually want to take the list to featured status. Collectonian (talk) 03:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Well bright green is very distracting actually, and again, there is NO disagreement with my alterations to the colour scheme, hence you are making a big deal out of nothing. And do the air dates really need references when i know they are correct? When i view other episode pages all i see is hyperlinked airdates with no references. I still think your tagging is too drastic, the pages are not in a terrible state, but for peace's sake i'll leave your tagging in place for now.Edito*Magica (talk) 04:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Of course not. You hide your bad edits by working on lists with no other editors. Your personal knowledge is not a reference. Bad referencing in other articles is not an excuse to remove the tag, and if you look at any FEATURED list you will see referencing for the airdates. Anyway, I'll just wait to see if AN/I will deal with you this time, and wait until the redo of the list is done since the whole thing will be replaced anyway. Collectonian (talk) 04:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
No. In fact i have only just begun editing One foot in the grave; there’s plenty of editors involved in the page and not one of them is against the new colour scheme. Is there a mighty uproar on the talk page? No. My edits are not “bad”, they are improving the article for those wishing to use it. Edito*Magica (talk) 04:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
No, they aren't, but keep fooling yourself into thinking that since you seem to think you know better than everyone else who has told you that are wrong. Collectonian (talk) 04:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
And who are these that have told me i am wrong exactly? Do you mean yourself? And if there aren’t any editors involved in the One foot in the grave pages then they will be no disagreement with my alterations.Edito*Magica (talk) 04:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
The many editors who left you messages on the talk page you cleared the last time we went through all this with the other episode lists. The same guidelines apply to ALL episode lists and you shouldn't have to be corrected every last time just because you either conviently forget or just don't care about actually being a productive editor but just want to do things only your way irregardless of what anyone else tells you is proper. Collectonian (talk) 04:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I cleared my talk page because the messages were defunct. There were no messages commenting on the One foot in the grave page that were removed, the one from user “Bob” was the only one commenting, and his comment is on my talk page. I’m also scratching my head as to what “my way” is, as i have not broken any rules or guidelines. Oh well, keep believing what makes you happy. Edito*Magica (talk) 04:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Your way of editing is wrong because you constantly revert people's clean ups of episode lists because "you don't like it," despite the changes being proper to bring the lists closer in line with the preferred format. You refuse to follow the guidelines people have explained to you numerous times before, and using a claim like "well, you didn't say this specific article" is just plain silly. You have ignored an administrator telling you not to revert something multiple times, just because you don't want to listen and, again, you don't like what consensus has already agreed is correct. Then you have the audacity to say you haven't broken any rules? I know you are still just a kid (or at least claim you are), but seriously, that's no excuse at all for such behavior.Collectonian (talk) 05:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Just a kid? Eighteen does not make me a child, and besides, my age is irrelevant. No I haven’t reverted clean ups, just disruptive edits YOU have made. And digging up settled disputes is hardly constructive and has absolutely nothing to do with the current issues surrounding One foot and 2point4. Now just a civilised question, as I’m still unsure what you mean when airdates require references, do you mean referring to when the programme first aired and ended in the lead of the page? I am addressing all your claims in your little tags and will then have them removed.Edito*Magica (talk) 13:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it does, and you are doing nothing but acting yoru age. Those are not settled disputes at all, you just moved on to new victims hoping no one would notice. It has everything do wiht One Foot and 2point4 because you are pulling the exact same crap on those two pages that you did on the others. Airdates require references. I mean every airdate in the table referring to when it first aired. Collectonian (talk) 15:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
And you're doing nothing but not acting yours! Moving on to new “victims”, now you are just being ridiculous. I don’t have any “victims”, I have disagreements, expected on a site with so many different contributors. I think it’s time you start acting your age instead of like a petty eight year old! And I don’t call making justified colour changes and removal of tags “crap”, nor are all of the other constructive contributions I have made. And you’re wrong (again), passed disputes on the Goodnight Sweetheart and Keeping Up Appearance’s pages have been resolved...no disputes surround them. As stated, I will address all issues in the tags you have plastered over the pages and then remove them.
Furthermore, if you can’t settle disputes without twisting the truth and getting vicious, I suggest you consider departing from Wikipedia. All the best. Edito*Magica (talk) 17:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not twisting the truth, you are just ignoring it. You didn't justfy any of your changes, you alone don't like them so you remove them. You remove tags just because you don't like them. That isn't constructive editing, its acting like you own the page. You were told in the GS and KUA articles that colors belong in episode lists along with the summary tables, yet you turn around and remove them from two more lists again because you don't like them. That is just ruining the articles and making more work for other people. If you don't want to actually work in a collaborative environment and yield to consensus, you ae the one who should depart from Wikipedia and go to a place where you can create episode lists in the format that you prefer. Collectonian (talk) 17:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

2point4

Your tag is now inappropriate. The 2point4 page does not need a majior clean up, the lead is fine and the page has been formatted correctly. Obviously more will be added to the page in the future, including more to the synopses and the lead, however the lead is still an adequate length, and “expert” attention is not needed. References yes, thus if you want to label the page, select an appropriate tag. Edito*Magica (talk) 23:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
The expert tag is still needed, as someone is already working on it anyway, as the format has only partially been done and still has issues. The lead is long, but full of fluff and only some of what actually belongs there. However, as it is "long" I have changed that tag to rewrite. Collectonian (talk) 23:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I can you are trying to find any excuse possible to keep your tags plastered across the page. No the information in the lead is not useless, but important cast and crew information, along with DVD releases, no different to the UNTAGGED Keeping Up Appearances lead which features similar details. And be a little more specific, specifically what expert assistance is needed? And to do what to the page? Edito*Magica (talk) 00:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
To finish fixing the formatting, for one, and bring it in line with a good quality, possible FLC episode list. This includes fixing the other issues as someone who is well versed in the project will know how to write a proper episode lead, fix the format, add the remaining missing parts and references, etc. Someone has already volunteer to fix that one and is working on it now. KUA is untagged because I don't mess with it anymore. The lead is badly written, and is missing basic information (and of course references). Collectonian (talk) 00:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
That’s plain bias! You can’t tag one page and not the other. KUA, mostly written by me anyway, is also lacking in everything you’ve tagged 2point4 for. You have even gone to the lengths of complaining about the very colour of the table lines! Yet KUA has no references, you claim the lead needs a re-write and it is untagged??? The tag you placed implies something is drastically wrong with the 2point4 page, there is not. Edito*Magica (talk) 00:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I said 2point4's episode needs rewriting. I haven't looked at KUA in weeks and have no intention of doing so. And yes, I can tag one page and not another. I don't have an obligation to run through every last episode list and tag them all for their issues. If you see KUA has such issues, tag it yourself. Tags do not indicate "drastically wrong" just plain wrong. Almost everything on 2point4 needs rewritten for flow, grammar, and to follow Wikipedia's Manual of Style and editing guidelines. It will remain tagged until all of the issues have actually been adequately addressed, not a quick partial attempt just to try to justify tag removal. Collectonian (talk) 00:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
“And yes, I can tag one page and not another.”and is that fair treatment? Tagging one page with similar problems to another, untagged page? Nonsense and plain bias. You've tagged the 2point4 page because there are limited editors involved, unlike KUA which has a wide base of regular editors. I quote you once more “I don't have an obligation to run through every last episode list and tag them all for their issues.” Well that is exactly what you are doing to the 2point4 page, and no doubt any other page i am responsible for. I will be expecting a tag on the Brittas Empire episode page shortly. A lot of the 2point synopses do need work, mainly because i have not spent enough time on them yet, and furthermore much of the page’s material wasn’t written by me anyway, as the edit history will confirm.Edito*Magica (talk) 00:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
There are TONS of other lists with similar problems. This is just one I happened to notice. And I know you didn't write most of the summaries, that doesn't make them good. I have no idea how many editors KUA has, though last time I checked it only had two which is not "a wide base." You're the one acting like you own 2point4 and seemingly to be unwilling to admit to its problems and just try to correct rather than removing the tags and going "no I won't". And there is no bias, considering I have (and do) tag articles I myself created and/or are working on. Collectonian (talk) 00:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps a “wide-base” of editors is exaggerating, but my point is that is far more editors are involved with the KUA pages than 2point4. And I have being trying to correct the 2point4 page’s problems, hence the formatting i did earlier along with the extension of the lead. I removed the tag because i can’t see how one set of rules applies to one page and not the other (hence one page being tagged, and not the other). And also the tag is inaccurate, there are not multiple issues surrounding the page, which is in a better condition than the TONS of untagged pages. And it clearly seems like you are being bias, when, you have admitted and noticed similar issues surrounding the KUA page and left it untagged, yet you are picking out even the minor faults with 2point4 page such as the colour of the table lines!Edito*Magica (talk) 01:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
The tag is perfectly accurate. The article issues tag just keeps multiple tags from taking up so much space. Multiple tags = multiple issues. It is not in better condition than tons of untagged pages. Indeed, an expert should probably come through and break it out into appropriate season pages since it is seven series long and the list as a whole is too long. I'm not picking on the color of the lines since I already took out your misguided attempt to "hide" them by making them white. I also did not admit the KUA page has similar issues. I said I have not looked at it in weeks, if not months, and I still have not. I said that if YOU see the page has the same issues, tag it yourself. Collectonian (talk) 01:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
“The lead is badly written, and is missing basic information (and of course references).” Are your exact words, so you must have looked at the page to come to such a conclusion. I don’t think there is anything wrong with KUA, but you clearly do. My point is, that you blatantly claim there are issues with KUA but refuse to tag it, yet you do decide to tag 2point4, that is bias. But i think this debate has gone on long enough now. I will once again address the issues, as i’ve done before, and will then remove the tag when i believe it is appropriate. Period. Edito*Magica (talk) 01:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Um, I was talking about 2point4 not KUA. I have yet to say anything was wrong with KUA, only you have. When the issues have been addressed, I will remove the tags myself. Until then, I will put back if you remove before the issues have actually been addressed. Collectonian (talk) 01:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
No, you said 2point4 children’s lead was mainly “fluff”, I told you it consisted of similar information to the lead of KUA, which you then criticised in the way quoted above. (Just to correct you) . But we have both had our say and discussed the 2point4 issues, so this debate/argument does not need to go any further. Bias or not, we’re not going to meet consensus on that issue; as stated i am going to address the issues in your tag and then remove it, which is perfectly reasonable. Edito*Magica (talk) 20:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry you seem incapable of reading and understanding what I wrote, but the quote above was a criticism SOLELY about 2point4 to further clarify what I was saying was wrong with it since you didn't seem to understand it. Your false belief that I was referring to KUA is just that, false. When the issues are fixed, I will remove the tags. You don't seem to even understand what the issues are, so I'd rather you not remove them yourself. Collectonian (talk) 21:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok, then in that case the 2point4 lead is fine and the information isn't "fluff", because it is the same as that in the KUA lead. Edito*Magica (talk) 22:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
No, it isn't fine. The lead has the problems I already mentioned above in the comments you keep tying to say is about KUA. The information is fluff, horribly written, and lacks the real details that belong there. Why don't you go look at some of the featured episode lists and study their leads instead of trying to compare it to another list that could never pass FL? Collectonian (talk) 22:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Right, thanks. So is the page adequately referenced now? Because if it is, a more suitable tag should replace the present. Edito*Magica (talk) 22:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I've changed it to refimprove. Not sure if the "British TV Resources" is considered a reliable source, but I do remember KUA used it as well and its not an issue unless/until the list is taken for an FL attempt. Collectonian (talk) 22:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I've just read your comment before last. Look, either both 2point4 and KUA's leads have issues, or they are both fine. Both feature similar information, and you can't say one is ok and the other isn't. Thus, if you think the lead of 2point4 has issues, then you must think the same about KUA's. Edito*Magica (talk) 10:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't "must think" anything. I've already told you repeatedly that I have not looked at KUA's episode list in months, so I can't offer any view on whether it has similar issues. If you feel KUA has the same issues as 2point4, tag it yourself. Collectonian (talk) 14:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I have stated what you have said. Whether you want to fool yourself into thinking otherwise is your business. We both know the truth. Anyway this debate is pointless and not getting us anywhere, so let's draw a line under it now. Edito*Magica (talk) 18:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
No, you have stated what you falsely want to think I said because then you can attempt to justify your bad tag removal rather than just admit the 2point4 lead sucks. You want to continue deluding yourself, feel free, so long as you don't remove the tags until the issues really are addressed. Collectonian (talk) 18:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be the jack of all wikipedia-trades - care to help?

Not like you aren't editing five million other things, but... ever work on any record label articles? I'm trying to clean up, source, and expand Righteous Babe Records and get it up-to-par with some other record label articles. Any help or insight would be greatly appreciated. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 16:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

LOL, I'm not quite a jack of all trades ;) I haven't worked on any record label articles, though you seem to be on a good start (though not sure on the personnel section - depends on what you have planed for it). Wikipedia:Companies, corporations and economic information provides some good over all guidelines on writing about companies. There aren't a lot, but may want to take a quick look at some of the FA Company articles for ideas on structure and types of content (though other than history, it is also depends on the type of company). Hope that helps :) Collectonian (talk) 17:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! I'll take a look over those links. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 17:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

You mentioned concern over what I would be doing with the "Personnel" section I was thinking something like this A_Ghost_Is_Born#Personnel. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 14:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that would be seen as violating the not a directory thing. Usually what I've seen is the key personnel mentioned in the infobox, then major ones mentioned primarily in relevance to the company's history (changing of owners, important changes in leadership, etc). Collectonian (talk) 15:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Hmm. We'll I'm not there yet in terms of that article section, however, the A Ghost is Born article was GA rated. Thanks for your reply. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 15:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Degrassi

I did explain my reason for removing the DVDs from the episode section. First of all there's already a place for DVDs and secondly the release dates in Canada are wrong. Robinepowell (talk) 06:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

You have already been warned, multiple times, not to remove the list and to explain your claim that the dates are wrong (which, if true, means they should be FIXED not just deleted). Stop removing the table from a featured list. It belongs there as evidenced by the article passing FLC with its inclusion, and by simply looking at any of our many more featured episode lists of this nature. The table belongs there and is a part of the standard format for an episode list. Your continuing to remove after being warned is completely inappropriate. If you want to discuss the dates, do so in the article talk as you have been asked to do already. Collectonian (talk) 06:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Well then do not put DVDs in with episodes not to mention with wrong release dates. Robinepowell (talk) 06:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

That does not excuse your removals. You keep claiming the release dates are wrong, but you have not responded to no less than three requests that you provide reliable sourcing to prove this claim. The current dates come from a reliable source, you need to provide the same to be able to claim they are wrong. Collectonian (talk) 06:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I reported her to WP:AIV here, and was directed to WP:AN3 (Which I saw you already did) and WP:ANI (which I have never done before). -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 08:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I've done AN/I before. Basically just write up a brief summary of her actions and what she's done. I'm suprised 3RR didn't give her a block or warning or something. No reason given either. :( If she keeps changing the dates on other pages and refusing to answer both our requests for the source for her info, an ANI report would be appropriate, including her 3RR resulting in page protection and links to the relevant discussions on your talk page, mine, and the list page where she continues to refuse to provide a source. Collectonian (talk) 14:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


I have given you a source for the DVDs, it's the same as all other DVDs TVShowsOnDVD. As for the Season 7 title it's Jesse, with an "i". http://www.ctv.ca/mini/degrassi2006/Photo1.html?degrassi_708/photo_0.html#photoArea Robinepowell (talk) 19:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

No, you haven't. TVShowsOnDVD is an American site, not a Canadian one. You continue to be disruptive and refuse to actually discuss on the talk page as we have asked. You instead just keep reverting and reverting and refuse to actually talk, only go "I'm right because I said so." I am reporting you, again. Collectonian (talk) 19:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Duh but the creator is CANADIAN. Don't you think if there was a seperate release date Gord Lacey would say so? Apparently you forgot about that part. Also if there were a seperate Canadian release date, why wasn't it mentioned like it was for Season 1?

http://www.tvshowsondvd.com/shows/Degrassi-Generation/4977 Robinepowell (talk) 19:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

You can't claim what someone did NOT say as a source. Collectonian (talk) 19:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

WAF

Regarding this edit of yours: Before you decided to revert and label that IP edit vandalism, you did of course check whether or not the IP had added a valid interwiki link to the Russian Wikipedia equivalent of WAF, didn't you? Dorftrottel (criticise) 11:35, April 21, 2008

Ah, no, was it valid? I saw the post in AN/I about an anon IP adding fake Russian interwiki links at the same time and thought it was the same thing. Collectonian (talk) 14:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Wha?! In that case, sorry. However, I followed the link and it looked authentic enough. I don't know any Russian, so I checked various links in that page and looked at those pages' English pendants, yielding a cross-section similar to that on WAF. Someone in Category:Wikipedians in Russia should be able to help us determine the validity. Dorftrottel (bait) 03:57, April 22, 2008
I just ran it through Babelfish and it looks like it was accurate, so I've undone my removal. :) Collectonian (talk) 03:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. Dorftrottel (vandalise) 04:24, April 22, 2008

Non-Admin Closure

It was my first close. I just clarified that. Cheers.--RyRy5 (talk) 03:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

You may want to read the close instructions, because it seems you've forgotten some steps with regards to the article itself....like removing the template and adding the afd results to the talk page... :P Collectonian (talk) 03:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I'll take a look. Thanks.--RyRy5 (talk) 03:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Help, please

Hello Collectonian,

I have recently been editing the List of McLeod's Daughters episodes and McLeod's Daughters individual season articles and have put into place the suggestions which you reccomended to me previously, for the Blue Heelers articles. I have created Template:Episode list/McLeod's Daughters and have moved the episode lists to the season articles. The problem is, when I transcluded these lists to the main episode list, the short summaries were not hidden. I have checked and checked and have been unable to find out why the main list is not just displaying the basis information, as it did previously when I implemented the system in the List of Blue Heelers episodes. Could you possibly have a look and see what I've done wrong? It's probably something very stupid but I would very much appreciate your help.

Thanks, Daniel99091 (talk) 06:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC).

How odd. I suspect maybe its something to do with the list name, but let me look into it some more and check with the editor who taught me that trick. Meanwhile, don't forget to put all the individual season pages in the TV project as lists. :) Collectonian (talk) 14:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Someone was able to fix it! :) The apostrophe in the list was what was causing the problem. BTW, I did it for the season 1 page, but for the rest the headers of the ep lists should match the line color and colors in the overview table :) Collectonian (talk) 21:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Thankyou very much for your help, Collectonian. Daniel99091 (talk) 00:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC).
No prob, it was User:Happy-melon who got it fixed. Good thing to know for the future though :) Collectonian (talk) 00:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Dates and date inconsistencies

Hi Collectonian (a curious name, meaning?), I would like to open up a dialogue with you about the date conundrum. One of the first things that I noticed in switching from writing aviation, automobile and history articles to film "pieces" was that dates were all over the place with m-d-y, d-m-y and ISO formats used interspersingly, sometimes in the same article. I peronally find that I am constantly translating ISO dating and note that in other project groups, most editors have stayed away from them because of just that reason. Is there any need to use ISO dating (bearing in mind the argument that other users will have preferences set that will still point the way to the date preference set in the browser). Most editors may have the date prefeernce option toggled but the "average" visitor or guest to Wikipedia would invariably not be concerned with such niceities/tweaking. See my comment to you on the film project talk page. Care to discuss further? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC).

Further, you have never heard people having difficulty with ISO fomats? really? do you use this format in your everyday life? does anyone? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC).
Yes, in fact I do use this format in my everyday life, and yes, many people and industries do. And no, I've never heard of anyone having difficulty using it. I deal with a wide range of users, some of whom I consider to be downright dumb at times, and while I've had to explain what a keyboard is, what a browser is, etc I've yet to have to explain to someone how to read an ISO date. Collectonian (talk) 16:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Forgive my sceptecism but regardless the ISO format is not specifically addresed in the citation templates as a preferred or recommended date convention. My point about using different dating systems is that there should only be one date system in use for consistency. Most (nearly all editors) use either d-m-y or m-d-y conventions in the text as the format of choice, so... FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC).
Not really. Most editors actually use full-date formatting. I rarely see anyone using d-m-y nor m-d-y. Even though who don't know the citation templates are supposed to use ISO will usually use either "short month name day, year" or use "year-short month name-day." And yes, all of the citation template instructions do very specifically say that date and accessdate are to be in ISO format. Collectonian (talk) 19:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
When I say m-d-y, I mean editors would invariably write out April 22, 2008. As for citatation template instructions, can you point out where ISO dating is required; I couldn't find that direct specification. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC).
From {{cite book}}: "origdate: Full date of publication of original edition, in ISO 8601 YYYY-MM-DD format, e.g. 2004-06-27. Must not be wikilinked." and "date: Full date of publication edition being referenced, in ISO 8601 YYYY-MM-DD format, e.g. 2006-02-17. Must not be wikilinked." From {{cite web}} "accessdate: Full date when item was accessed, in ISO 8601 YYYY-MM-DD format, for example 'accessdate = 2008-04-22'. Must not be wikilinked" and "date: Full date of publication, preferably in ISO 8601 YYYY-MM-DD format, e.g. 2006-02-17. Must not be wikilinked" and "archivedate: Date when the item was archived (requires archiveurl), in ISO 8601 YYYY-MM-DD format, e.g. 2006-02-17. Must not be wikilinked; it will be linked automatically.". Now, cite web actually has an option if you want to do the format you mentioned:
"For producing a non-wikilinked date of retrieval:
  • accessmonthday and accessyear: Month and day when item was accessed, for example "accessmonthday = May 10", and year when item was accessed, for example "accessyear = 2006". Produces: Retrieved on May 10, 2006.
  • accessdaymonth and accessyear: Month and day when item was accessed, for example "accessdaymonth= 10 May", and year when item was accessed, for example "accessyear = 2006". Produces: Retrieved on 10 May 2006."
However, as no similar option is available for the date field then you would have mixed dates in the ref, though that seems to be acceptable as you may only have the month year of a publication date in which this would apply "OR [other option being date] year: Year of publication, and month: Name of the month of publication. If you also have the day, use date instead. Must not be wikilinked." Those are two of the most used, but every other one I've used including {{cite press release}}, {{cite journal}} and {{cite news}} have the same. Collectonian (talk) 20:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Not to be contrary, but I do not see the requirement that states ISO dates must be used. Just to clarify, the point I am trying to make is that citation templates are not mandated nor are the exact means by which they are used mandated, including variations, conversions and adaptions of templates. Numerous authors/editors whoi are unfamiliar with bibliographical referencing, use the template method as a good alternative. Some (I stress some) editors have been more conversant with cataloging and referencing and have either made adaptations of the template system or relied on conventional "scratch" cataloging. The other point I am trying to make is that use of two different formats for dates is inconsistent and that as the texst is developed, most authors use or establish a preferred system, which I maintain should be the system used throughout the article, right to the bitter end of reference sources. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC).
If consensus supported that view, however, then the templates would all have been changed to support that flexibility. I personally don't agree with the idea either, but that's neither here nor there. I'll keep using the templates as the instructions state, which is to use ISO dates. Also, there are exceptions to the use of different date formats, as ISO dates are also preferred in large tables, while the prose of the pages with those tables should still use regular full date formatting. Collectonian (talk) 20:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

This quote appears to be the actual wording in the cite book: "accessdate: Full date when url was accessed, in ISO 8601 YYYY-MM-DD format, e.g. 2006-02-17. Required when url field is used. Must not be wikilinked. OR: accessyear: Year when item was accessed, and accessmonth: Month when item was accessed. If you also have the day, use accessdate instead. Must not be wikilinked." The way I read this is that there is an "or" (my emphasis) so that an accessyear, accessmonth and accessday is accepted, therefore ISO dating is not the only stipulation. FWiW, I didn't actually come up with all these suppositions, the concepts were hammered into me by many other editors who had prior experience and knowledge about the use of the citation templates. Bzuk (talk) 20:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC).

Accessdate is a different field, but it has the same requirement for ISO format. And fo rth eidea that you can use an accessday, you didn't seem to notice that there IS NO accessday field, only accessmonth and accessyear. :P If you have day, you are expected to use the full date field.Collectonian (talk) 20:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Now nothing prevents you or any other editor from using whatever system you prefer. My only contention was that for consistency, one rather than two date conventions should prevail, and that the Wikipedia guidelines allowed for that. FWiW, there a number of altered templates already in existence and use that accomplish any variety of subtle changes including adding additional authors, placing first and other editions, and even creating a date system that matches the established dates used in the article. Wikipedia has flexibility if nothing else and editors have already "pushed the envelope." Bzuk (talk) 20:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC).
I did say I had a last point or last word, and that is "thanks" for the conversation.
Now to find yourself a glass of milk?!
Now to find yourself a glass of milk?!
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC).

Lassie (1954 TV series)

Greetings, Collectionian-

Here's a nice cup of coffee
Here's a nice cup of coffee

Maybe it's time to remove some of the maintenance tags from this article, now that references have been added and the POV issue apparently is settled — at least, there doesn't seem to be any current discussion underway on the Talk page about a POV dispute?

For your diligent work on this article...

JGHowes talk - 13:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Tee hee, coffee with my cookie *grin* I've removed the NPOV, as you're right, it seems all cleared. I also removed clean up since the format is much improved. I left refimprove, though, as there is an excessive reliance on two sources, and only 11 sources (that we can tell are actually being used) for an article of its length is not enough, particularly for such a notable series. I also left the the lead tooshort tag because...well it still is and I still haven't gotten around to attempting a rewrite either *grin*. Collectonian (talk) 13:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Media pages

After commenting in this AfD and noting the merging of the Bleach media page a while back, I think we need to determine a format for media lists (as we did for chapter lists and episode lists, and one for character lists that hopefully works at List of Naruto characters). List of Kingdom Hearts media is a model, but we often have to take much more into account (DVDs, OVAs, films, soundtracks, etc.), especially in larger franchises such as Naruto, Bleach, Fullmetal Alchemist, and so on and such forth. The present media lists that we have are definitely atrocious though, which is the primary reason for me bringing this up. Thoughts? Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 04:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

My inclination is to discourage them completely. They seem to just become catch alls for all sorts of unsourced fancrufty stuff, most of which doesn't really need to be included (like the track listing for every CD, etc). I don't think the entire media section should ever be boken from an article as a whole unit, only as needed for episode lists, chapter lists, light novel lists, and maybe the very exceptional need for a CD or video game list. Those that do exist need to be merged back in or just deleted all together if there isn't anything to merge. Some have been merged back in with little to no issues, while others, like Bleach, are being argued against by non-editing users and fans, in part I think due to the lack of any project back up at the moment. Unfortunately, considering the attempts to even make a more formal episode list addition to the MoS seems to have been badly received, I'm not sure where or how to implement any "official" word on the media lists in general, though it seemed agreed on in the Mos discussions about it that they were not appropriate. :( All the discussion on making it clearer in the MoS seems to have just died though. *sigh* Collectonian (talk) 04:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The Sopranos

What are you, telepathic? I was just fixing the references for the episode list.–FunkyVoltron talk 21:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I wish! :P Collectonian (talk) 00:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Sopranos

I've made some edits to the lead section of List of The Sopranos episodes, and left comments on its FLRC page.

P.S. I'm still working on the 2.4 ep page in my sandbox. I've been away most of the week because my computer was infected -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 23:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

No probs, I saw you mention that somewhere else. Hope you got it all clean. Collectonian (talk) 00:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
It is, except every time I shut down the computer and turn it back on, none of the websites remember my passwords! Very annoying! -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 00:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
That sucks :( Have you considered trying KeyPass? I downloaded it because of the number of websites at my job that require new passwords every 6 months (including ones I built LOL), and I've found it quite invaluable. BTW, thanks for fixing the lead of Sopranos, looking much better. Collectonian (talk) 00:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. Is KeyPass free? :) -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 00:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Yep, and pretty easy to take the file with you if you use multiple computers. :) It's website is at http://keepass.info/. Collectonian (talk) 00:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

FAC of Degrassi

Thanks for commenting at the peer review of Degrassi: The Next Generation at the beginning of the month. I have now listed it at WP:FAC. Any further comments you have regarding the article will be greatly appreciated. Regardless, thanks for the help with it so far -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 00:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

No prob. I'll try to get some comments posted by this weekend :) Collectonian (talk) 01:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Whoa

What about WP:GAR; one editor can't just judge an article by themselves and delist it from GA. You are overstepping your bounds. And I realize it says at the top "It is not necessary to go through this process unless there is a disagreement about the article's status"; well, I disagree. --十八 21:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Um, no, I'm not. The delisting procedures say that anyone can delist an article if it is clear that the article does not meet the Good Article criteria anymore. Sending it to GAR is not required before a delisting. If you disagree, you can take it to GAR for relisting, but both of those articles badly fails the GA criteria and have thus been delisted. Feel free to complain/discussion at Wikipedia talk:Good article reassessment#Delisting where I have left a note about the situation. Until they say otherwise, however, the delistings stand. Collectonian (talk) 00:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Fine then, I'll play by your rules. If I run it back through GAC and get it promoted again, are you going to delist it again?--十八 01:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
It is not "my rules," BTW. thus far my decisions to delist have been confirmed by at least two other editors who also noted that no, discussion is not required. I left the appropriate comments and followed the appropriate procedures. If it is repromoted, then I would presume you (and others) have fixed the referencing issues and other problems and that it has gone back to being GA quality. I would, of course, expect whoever reviews it to do so neutrally and fairly, and per the GA rules, not be someone who has contributed to the article. Getting upset with me because the article was not maintained so that it continued to meet the GA criteria seems like misdirected anger. Considering the version that passed, its understandable that doing so would require quite a bit of work. Still, if one wants an article to carry the GA mark, it must be done. Collectonian (talk) 01:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
No, I was merely getting annoyed that there was no prior discussion, as I was under the impression that that is why WP:GAR exists, or else GA delistings would be rampant. I can agree on the referencing issues, though I tried shortening the plot, and it is now about 100 words shy of the plot-word-count on a recent FA for a novel, which is somewhat similar in what a visual novel is, and they're both under WP:VG (plus that plot has no sourcing either, so I hope that will not be an issue in the GAC, as it almost never has been in the past). I have tried also to source what I can, and have removed things I can't. I look forward to the renom.--十八 02:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Plot doesn't need to be sourced, so that's fine as long as it has no interpretation (I didn't see any myself). :) The settings/themes do, however, need sourcing as themes are interpretations. GAR is mostly used for when it isn't clear an article should be delisted, if the person who feels it doesn't meet the criteria for delisting isn't comfortable doing it themselves, or when the person who feels it should be delisted can't do so themselves do to having worked on the article in any extensive manner. As you might guess, I'm quite comfortable delisting a GA myself. When I am not sure or I feel I have a conflict of interest, I will take to GAR instead. I've always tried to be fair and balanced in doing any delisting. If the article had just had one or two unreferenced statements, or the issues were otherwise relatively minor, I would have tagged and left a message on the talk page, as I have done for others that just had some little problems that needed to be headed off before becoming big ones.
If discussion were required for all delistings, the system would become unbalanced as GA listing is basically one editors decision. Thus delisting can also be one editor's decision so long as it is done fairly, and based on the GA criteria. Its pretty easy to tell the difference from a legitimate delisting versus one that was done out of spite or as vandalism. I hate having the project lose two GAs, but I also firmly believe that no article should carry that GA class if it does not meet the criteria. They are held up as examples of how an article should be, so when an article that doesn't really meet the criteria is used like this, we end up with more problem articles. Recent discussions in the GA talk regarding having an article symbol like we have for FA/FL prompted me to start looking through our GAs and seeing if any of ours are in need of delisting. The two I delisted today just happened to be the first two in the alphabet. Collectonian (talk) 02:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

RfA?

After seeing your position on The List and your edits, etc., I was wondering... have you ever been nominated (or nom'ed yourself) for an RfA? If not, you really should; you'd be likely to succeed. :) Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 04:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I've never been nominated. Someone else asked if I'd like to be but I declined. I don't feel I'm of the right personality to be an admin as I often seem to rub people the wrong way and tend to have little patience for fans filling articles with "crufty" stuff and what many considered to be "minor" vandalism acts. Collectonian (talk) 04:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Just commenting here as an admin coach, the only thing really standing between you and an RfA passing is civility issues. You've certainly begun to handle yourself better, but RfA regulars will want a couple solid months of that before your RfA will have a chance of passing. Everything else is fine - you commonly edit in administrator areas, you have plenty of good mainspace contributions, and your knowledge of policy is spot-on. Ultimately, it's up to you. It never hurts to have the tools, and even if you're only using them a couple times from then to then, they're still useful. I said at my RfA that I would participate at WP:RPP, WP:AIV, CAT:CSD, and WP:AFD. I think I've closed one AfD, protected like five pages, and only make rounds at AIV or CSD every so often. That and I've only ever received complaints over my activities about twice. Rule of thumb - if you're doing your job correctly as an administrator, you won't have to deal with these interactions with new users that often. If you want to really try for the mop, then my biggest recommendation would be to simply hop on the clear civility bandwagon (go out of your way to be civil and avoid WP:BITE especially), spam "rollback (AGF)" with Twinkle, and never utilize "rollback (vandalism)" unless it's blatant and clear. Again, it's up to you. It's a long, tedious, and arduous process that requires your full dedication to if you want to pass, and you certainly shouldn't be forced into it, but neither should you tackle it half-heartedly. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 08:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Sephiroth. That's very helpful, even for me.
As for you, Collectonian, I'd like to thank you for your previous constructive criticism regarding my edit count; it's for that reason that I have gotten more involved with mainspace editing and have finally reached 1,000 edits! Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 01:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Congrats :) I don't know about you, but it felt kinda cool to me when I hit the four digits :D Collectonian (talk) 01:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/555 95472

Just letting you know that I created List of minor Peanuts characters. If you want to help me flesh it out by merging some of the smaller characters, you can. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 21:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Cool. Guess that works too. I kind of have my hands full with the seemingly coordinated attack on a bunch of anime articles right now though. *sigh* This is insane...be nice if they could just turn of anon editing for a few days to allow these people to grow up. *pulls hair* Collectonian (talk) 21:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

FMA: Sources for production

I have found some interviews that may help to create a production part in the article. Is that website a reliable source? I also found one here, same question.Tintor2 (talk) 23:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Mobuta is a fansite, however the interviews list the original sources, so you can check those sources and use them for the cites. The same for Anime Source, which is also listed at Mobuta. In both cases, the original source is http://books.yahoo.co.jp/interview/detail/08249604/01.html, which is a reliable source and should be the source cited :) Collectonian (talk) 00:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I have added the production section. It may require some grammar tweak.Tintor2 (talk) 02:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

FMA: Reception

Does the reception section need to be increased? I can find more reviews.Tintor2 (talk) 22:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it needs increase at the moment so much as clearer organization. It starts good, with sales figures, moving into awards. Then it jumps to a review quote and a long paragraph of X site said X, Y, Z followed by a another quote. Considering the differences between the two, it would be better to have a paragraph on the manga, then a paragraph on the anime, and probably a paragraph on the novels and other stuff. It needs to be clear what was said about what. Also, I'm not sure Anime Boredum and ActiveAnime are considered reliable sources. You can see some of this in action at Wolf's Rain#Reception, which starts with the ratings success of the anime, moves into the reviews about the anime series and soundtrack, and the ends with the manga adaptation (which in this case is the secondary work, and also significantly different). Collectonian (talk) 00:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I have reread the reviews and most of them talk about general parts of the manga and anime (at the start they are the same but later they are very different). Should it be in reception, one paragraph for general? 2nd for manga? and 3rd for anime? (I still need to look for novels)Tintor2 (talk) 13:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, basically, start with the first media, manga, with general sales and awards, then actual critical commentary. Then repeat for the anime, and for the novels (as available). Collectonian (talk) 15:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Do you mean like [[1]]? I will still reword some parts.
Yep, about like that. I went ahead and tackled the manga paragraph's rewording for you. :) Collectonian (talk) 16:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks^_^Tintor2 (talk) 16:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

FMA: Media

Does the movie and OVA need to be given their own section in the media part? Note: The movie is a sequel of the anime while the OVAs are short spin-offs of the anime.Tintor2 (talk) 01:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Usually, yes, they are given their own sections :) Collectonian (talk) 01:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
But why Wolf s rain doesnt have the ova section?Tintor2 (talk) 12:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Because the OVAs were released as if they were episodes and are numbered episodes 27-30 rather than individually (and aired as episodes in the English broadcast). I should have been clearer there. If the FMA OVAs are a straight line continuation of the series or fit in the series, they can go in the anime section (or if there are only a few of them). If they are alternate time line, distinct from the series story line, etc then they should go in their own section. Collectonian (talk) 15:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
So the movie can stay in the anime section since its a sequel?Tintor2 (talk) 15:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm...movies are almost always put in their own section, particularly if they were released to theaters, however since FMA just has one and only two sentences about it right now, I think its fine to stay with the anime since its just labeled anime rather than anime series. :) Collectonian (talk) 15:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Do these books would enter in the article.? Obviously with a reliable source.Tintor2 (talk) 16:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, those should be briefly mentioned in a section on art and guide books (or can also title it other printed media). :) Collectonian (talk) 17:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Done. Is it guide book or guidebook? Does the lead of the article require an expansion? Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 23:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I believe guidebook, and yes the lead does require a little expansion to better include the additional information added. Collectonian (talk) 14:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
How should the lead be? I would keep the example of Wolf's Rain but it focuses in the anime since thats the first media, while the first media of fma is manga. Could you tell how should the paragraphs be?--Tintor2 (talk) 21:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
The first part of the lead is fine. The last paragraph should have some mention, in brief, of their being artbooks, concerts, and the other merchandise not mentioned. The reception paragraph should also mention some brief highlights of its success as manga. The Vision of Escaflowne shows this some, though like Wolf's Rain it started as an anime. Collectonian (talk) 00:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. When you said "The last paragraph should have some mention, in brief, of their being artbooks, concerts, and the other merchandise not mentioned" were you talking about the second that talks about the franchise?--Tintor2 (talk) 16:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Um, yes, the second would be a better fit :) (brain getting confused) Collectonian (talk) 17:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I will be cleaning the fma alchemist terminology adding terms from their respective articles (but taking care of the length). I guess those articles could be redirected to fullmetal alchemist when its finished. I have a question, do fictional countries and fictional objects require italics?--Tintor2 (talk) 14:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Fictional countries, no. For fictional objects, only if they are books, films, etc (i.e. same things we'd italicize for real items :)). Collectonian (talk) 14:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Site

Is this [2] a fansite? Tell me and I will delete from the Himura Kenshin article (done with the merge of sakabato and fighting style and also reduced a bit the abilities section to reduce the in-universe).Tintor2 (talk) 19:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

~drools~ *ahem* No, not a fansite, that's a pure retail site. :) What is it being used to source? Collectonian (talk) 19:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
It is used to reference that there are sakabato (the sword) as merchadising.Tintor2 (talk) 19:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I think that would be fine for that then. I'm curious, though. I remember reading that the article said that the reverse blade was created for Kenshin, then real ones began being made. Was that sourced anywhere? I've seen several reverse blades at some other swords sites (though that is by far the most beautiful and it is going to be my belated birthday present from my best friend LOL). Collectonian (talk) 19:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
He he. That was sourced in the Rurouni Kenshin article. I added the reference of non-functional from Japanimation.com while another user (dont remember who) added the one of the functional.--Tintor2 (talk) 19:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Ah cool. The way it is now in Himura's article, yep, should be good. :) Collectonian (talk) 19:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Not to bother, but could you pay a look at GetBackers? I think it needs to tagged or something.--Tintor2 (talk) 21:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I've tagged it and its character list, killed the story arc page, and tagged three articles for PROD. Will see if someone else picks up the ball there, since I've never read the manga and can't do too much for the plot parts. Collectonian (talk) 00:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I added a to-do list in Fullmetal Alchemist, but it is wrong made. Could you see it and add about your thoughts?--Tintor2 (talk) 14:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I fixed it for you :) Couldn't think of much to add, but will think about it and revisit it later.Collectonian (talk) 15:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

An anon-users has been vandalizing Sasuke Uchiha. I reverted it twice, would I be blocked if I revert it again?--Tintor2 (talk) 19:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

No, 3RR doesn't apply to vandalism. However, you need to make sure you're leaving warning messages so they can be blocked if needed. :) Collectonian (talk) 19:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Do you think Himura Kenshin has a good article quality or you think something could be improved? (I expanded the conception five seconds ago)--Tintor2 (talk) 21:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I think its in pretty good shape. It passed GA last month, so I'd probably suggest a peer review if you were thinking of trying for an FA. Collectonian (talk) 21:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
WOW! FA is pretty much for me. Could you create that peer review request for me? I still dont know how to make it.--Tintor2 (talk) 22:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Nevermind, I would like to focus in other articles. I cant help in the FA since my English is not good.--Tintor2 (talk) 00:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
No worries. I think a peer review might still be good, as it might encourage someone else to step up and finish it off for a possible FA :) Collectonian (talk) 00:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok, it would be awesome to see the first anime/manga character article FA, so please request the peer review (Im kind of strange today).--Tintor2 (talk) 00:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I forgot, I have cleaned the drama cds. What else need clean up? I would like to improve it until removing the tag and start thinking of GA (although that may be hard)--Tintor2 (talk) 00:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Let me see. Hmmm....character section should probably be bulleted, and the voiced by's fixed to use the {{anime voices}} template. Terminology needs to finish being sourced. The manga section needs to have its ref completed (the first paragraph seems to indicate its sourced from one page, but it isn't really). Any "citation needed"s of course need fixing. Beyond that, probably a peer review and copyedit, then depending on the PR results I'd go straight for FA rather than GA. :) Collectonian (talk) 01:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
See this news [3]. Where would this go? Reception or the trading card game section?--Tintor2 (talk) 01:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm...good question. Technically I'm thinking it would be reception, in a paragraph on the game. Collectonian (talk) 01:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
In the reassesment of Bleach you used fma as example! Now I feel more positive (lol).--Tintor2 (talk) 01:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


Yep, FMA has been vastly improved. Its a shame they don't seem to want to do the same to Bleach :( Collectonian (talk) 01:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


FY fansub citation

Not to bug you or anything, but I feel that the discussion on the reliability of the fansub paper and Sequential Tart for Fushigi Yuugi fansubs has come to a halt, if not a close. Could you please take a look at it to see if you're satisified with the responses? According to the etiquette of the page, I believe that if the originator of the request is satisfied the matter can be tagged as resolved and archived. (and the source can be used in the article.) -Malkinann (talk) 06:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Might as well. Its inaccurate and a false, but since they say it is still a valid source despite that, I'll go with consensus until a better source says otherwise. Collectonian (talk) 16:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Gungrave

My bad, thanks for catching that. Hewinsj (talk) 06:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

No prob :) Collectonian (talk) 16:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Taking over the Buffy FAR

I hope that's ok?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

That's fine, and way better than it being removed because I "have too many." Thanks for stepping in and saving it :) Collectonian (talk) 21:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Degrassi FAC

Hi Collectonian. I've addressed some of your comments left at the Degrassi FAC. There's a couple I haven't, and have just left questions for the moment. Thank you for reviewing so far! -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 22:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Re:Cleanup task force

I entirely agree. The state of some of the larger anime/manga franchises is shockingly bad. The disparity I think arises from the fact that the editors in these franchises are nothing more than well-meaning yet policy-deficient editors who essentially want the series to represent their dream of having an in-universe hub of information. The exception really has become the Naruto articles, which certainly have become increasingly impressive and a model for franchises of similar size to aspire to. As such, the cleanup task force becomes necessary; a relevant model is WP:VG/C sans the requests section, as we're simply going to go through the list of articles marked for cleanup and whatever we deign necessary. Cheers, 02:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Yep. Tintor and some others have done some great work on the main Fullmetal Alchemist article as well, though the Ishbal-Ishval issue is still unresolved and the subarticles still need work. It would be good if we can start point folks to Naruto and eventually FMA and say "look, see, it can be done."  :) On a smaller scale, I'm trying to do the same with Tokyo Mew Mew to get to the point that I can then point to it when Cardcaptor Sakura is tackled to show that yes, the mauled English adaptation can be covered nicely without giving it 5 separate articles. :P Collectonian (talk) 02:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

News of the World, The Star

Me again! I noticed you did a GA review at the beginning of the month, and saw that part of the fail was due to the use of News of the World and Daily Star being used as references because of their tabloid status. I know you're in the United States, and having lived here for a number of years I know how tabloids such as Globe and National Examiner are viewed. However, I don't think NOTW, The Star, [[The Sun], and The Mirror are on the same par as those papers. Sure, they have a lot of scandal-type and celeb-type news stories, but they do produce some good work, too. Also note that The Independent, The Times, and The Scotsman have in the last couple of years moved to the tabloid format (size as well as content), but refer to themselves as "compact" to avoid being stigmatised, and these papers are still regarded as "high brow". -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 22:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

My Edits

Well let's see you reverted 2 of my edits. One of the edits was that I fixed the spelling mistake from the Ending Theme title: 'Ragret' Originally it was 'regret' but I fixed it to 'Regret' until you reverted it back. AND, as for me creating a box for people to add links, I don't see anything wrong with that since the same thing can be found on the One Piece Wikia home page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bon3z (talk • contribs) 22:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

This isn't Wikia, it is Wikipedia, though I have now reported the One Piece Wikia for the links. Those links not only violate basic Wikipedia article formatting, but violates the copyright violation policy and external linking guidelines. They have absolutely no place here at all. Do not add them back, nor try to repeat such actions in any other article or you risk blocking. Collectonian (talk) 22:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Inuyasha chapters

Yes, I planned to finish the rest of them tomorrow. I want to put them all on the same page, but I'll first edit the sub pages first so the task isn't so big. It'll take a while so I can add all the Japanese names in for each.

I like the new look of the Excel Saga page. I typed all the chapter titles for that a month or two back and I think the new layout makes it look less cluttered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grapeofdeath (talk • contribs) 01:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

No prob. I'll move them over for you once you've finished, if you like. I've tagged the chapter list page so people know work is going on :) And thanks on Excel Saga. I'm gonna get that one split, probably today or tomorrow. Collectonian (talk) 01:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
The first 26 are done and I'll do the last 26 in the morning. I'd trim down the manga summary boxes too, but I'm not very good at it. Once that is taken care of the page will look a lot nicer. Grapeofdeath (talk • contribs) 06:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Awesomeness! Thanks again for being willing to tackle it! It really needed it and is already looking much better. :) Collectonian (talk) 06:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I've finished putting all the volumes up, the translations of titles, and all the chapters that haven't been published into tankōbon yet. I don't think there's a need for an expert anymore unless to just keep up with the weekly chapters.Grapeofdeath (talk) 23:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Ya know, its kinda sad that a newer user like yourself was willing to do such a tremendous amount of effort that the long time editors had let go for so long. Thanks a bunch! :) Collectonian (talk) 00:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I've been hanging around wikipedia for many years, but it's only in this last year I finally made myself an account. I spend a good amount of time at librarything.com watching the manga sections to make sure everything is combined correctly. I think I'll work on the Cowboy Bebop manga section next. I'm not even sure where to start with Sailor Moon...Grapeofdeath (talk) 01:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Ah :) Well glad you decided to make and account. For Sailor Moon...ugh...that one is something of a lost cause, I think. Efforts so far have been met with strenous conflict by the SM project, and most in the AaM project just don't want to deal with the stress. :( SM badly needs it though. Collectonian (talk) 01:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Robin...

...has been blocked for two weeks. Would it be considered WP:DICKish of me to cheer and dance? :)

Anyway, I'll try to pop on when I can, if not I'll see you in about two weeks. In the meantime, I think I've addressed all your comments at the Degrassi FAC. Take care, -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 04:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

LOL, only if it would be considered it cause I did ;) Have a good wikibreak (even if not wholly voluntary LOL). I think you have as well, but I'll double check now.Collectonian (talk) 04:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Category:Akira Toriyama

This was probably "inspired" by Category:Rumiko Takahashi and Category:Rumiko Takahashi manga. Would you suggest deletion or does it have potential like the Osamu Tezuka cats? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest deletion. He's purely a manga artist, just like Takahasi. Collectonian (talk) 01:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
That's the thing. Unlike Takahashi, he is also a game designer and sometimes works with anime. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
The lead of his article needs expansion :P I'm still inclined to say delete, but I'm not one for people categories like that. I suspect he'd get more keeps, though, since his category seems to be missing items. Hmmm...would be an on the fence thing. Collectonian (talk) 02:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Uh-oh, this guy has just recreated one of the Rumiko Takahashi cats and Ken Akamatsu‎ (though not sure if Akamatsu's was previously deleted). What should be tagged with {{db-recreate}}? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes on Takahasi. I don't see anything showing Akamatsu's was already deleted, but I'd send to CfD as it is clearly no different from Takahasi. Collectonian (talk) 02:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
BTW, can your "TWINKLE" tool remove the deleted Takahashi cats from various articles? (PS: User:Abtract messed-up the hat at Bleach. Can you revert that one?) Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately no. A bot should have already removed them, or the closing admin. For Bleach, I already did and left him a 3RR (I didn't leave you one since you already gave yourself one LOL). Also left a note on the talk page. Kinda silly to have a disambig at all, but if there is going to be one, a simple one is best. Collectonian (talk) 00:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
One which meets WP:NAMB's requirements correct? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Exactly. The short one is perfect for filling WP:NAMB. I've manually removed everything from the Rumiko cat :) Collectonian (talk) 00:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Ah, thanks. Though I use "POPUPS" for reverting, still haven't figured out the kinks for disambiguating and/or correcting redirects. For instance, I'm trying to "auto-fix" 666 Satan redirects, but can't find the button. Can your "TWINKLE" do that? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I haven't tried popups yet. No, Twinkle can't do much of anything regarding auto-fixing. It can pretty much do rollbacks and vandalism rollbacks (which auto opens links to the user's talk page), leave a wide range of talk page warnings, do diff highlightings, and automate Xfds/Prods/CSDs/page protection requests/and three kinds of vandalism alerts. :) I know there is a program or something that can do it, but darned if I can remember what its called right now. I think its that one you download and install on your desktop. Collectonian (talk) 04:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


SingStar article

A couple months back you commented at Talk:SingStar about a proposal to change SingStar-related articles. The discussion has recently come up again, and I've been discussing with User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles about whether or not we should include track lists for the games. If you have the time, I'd like to get a third opinion on the matter if possible. Thanks, --Tntnnbltn (talk) 17:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Good luck with that. He seems to think that anything and everything belongs in Wikipedia except for a few topic which are personally distasteful to him. He uses almost the exact same arguments, word for word, in every deletion keep vote I've ever seen him do. Anyway, I don't think the tracks lists are needed. They just glut the article, are nothing but game guide material for a game of this type, and are easily available on the official website. It is no different from tracklists of soundtracks, which do not belong in individual film or television articles either, per consensus in both projects (and ditto in Anime/Manga articles). You may want to try prodding the video game project into providing more views, or at WP:NOT to see if it would violate "not a guide." Collectonian (talk) 17:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Manga chapters that will never be published

Hope you don't mind me asking you another question. I'll be starting on Cowboy Bebop tomorrow, but I realized I'm not sure what to do with the chapter that was never published in a tankōbon. It's been many years now, so I know it's never going to happen. I don't know whether I should make one of those lists like the ones on other pages of all the chapters waiting to be published or a separate section say what magazine it appeared in and what time. I own the magazine, so that wouldn't be difficult. The only other instance of similar occurrence is the 109 chapter of Death Note that was never collected into tankōbon, but since it is never mentioned on the wiki page, I'm not sure how to go about formatting this. Do you have any ideas?Grapeofdeath (talk) 03:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't mind at all :) For something like that, just note it in the main article either as part of the manga section or in the media section. Something similar was done with Rurouni Kenshin, though the article itself is in need of work, it shows one way of handling it. Collectonian (talk) 03:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

AIV repoort

Hi Collectonian, I am copying my response to your report on Jelly_world411 at 14:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC) to WP:AIV here, in case you didn't get a chance to see it. R. Baley (talk) 15:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

  • "I am reluctant to block at this point, because the damage is pretty minor, and the account operator is more immature than malicious. Please leave a note at my talk page if problems get more intense or problematic. I will add their talk page to my watchlist. R. Baley (talk) 14:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)"
Alrighty and will do :) Collectonian (talk) 15:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Contact

Is there any way I can contact you, email or IRC perhaps? Rudget (Help?) 15:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I have email, of course ;-) However, I only discuss Wikipedia on Wikipedia. Collectonian (talk) 15:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
No matter, then. :) Rudget (Help?) 17:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Adam Powell of Neopets

He was deemed unworthy of an article. We have an Adam Powell who is.Londo06 16:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't mean you get to take over the old article. Your Adam Powell is no more notable than this one, and he already has an article. You don't get to just claim the other name because its prettier or something. Leave it alone already and be happy with the article you already created. Collectonian (talk) 16:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I have provided a link, were anyone to be interested in another Adam Powell.Londo06 16:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't matter. You are taking over an article with an extensive history with a FOUR year editing history. You can't do that, period, especially just to steal the name. Your player has an article, work on it there where it belongs. Collectonian (talk) 16:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Would be happy to associate that information within a special section within the neopets article, else see some verification for non articles having precedence. Were that to be put in front of me I would obviously cease and desist.Londo06 16:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I believe the right thing to do here would be to move the current Adam Powell article to Adam Powell (Neopets), then move the existing rugby player article to Adam Powell with a link to the Neopets article at the top. Londo is doing it the wrong way but it makes no sense to me to enforce a disambiguation for a non-notable individual. Tim (Xevious) (talk) 16:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
That would seem like the proper procedure (though I believe once Adam Powell is moved, an admin would then have to delete the old Adam Powell before the move could be continued), and it is certainly far preferable and Londo's just taking over the article to claim the name without so much as a word and continuing to do so after being repeatedly told he was acting inappropriately. Collectonian (talk) 16:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I was unaware of such things until afterwards, upon quick inspection it was only a redirect. Apologies for that aspect of my actions.Londo06 16:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Hands up; I've gone about this the wrong way. Agree with Tim (Xevious) about a way forwards.Londo06 16:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I have done the first part, moving Adam Powell to Adam Powell (Neopets), and have put a CSD on the old Adam Powell to prepare for moving. Collectonian (talk) 16:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
And its done. Now, if/when Adam Powell (rugby player) passed its current CSD (i.e. an admin removes it), then it can be properly moved to Adam Powell. Collectonian (talk) 16:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


Xena Episodes

I understand that you are against the creation of articles for episodes of Xena: Warrior Princess. But there are many series whose all episodes have articles, as Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Avatar: The Last Airbender. I would like to open a vote on the Discussion page of Xena: Warrior Princess about the creation of articles for the episodes. This is against the rules? (Nighttemptation (talk) 21:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC))

I'm against teh creation of episode articles period when they violate Wikipedia guidelines, which almost all of them do. It isn't against the rules to open the discussion, but they don't belong, nor do those others. Episode articles should be rare, and only for the very few episodes which actually are notable. If your only desire is to just make some articles full of huge plot summary and silly trivia like other attempts, please just put it on the Xena wiki. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is never a valid reason to keep violating Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and episodes SHOULD meet WP:EPISODE and WP:FICT, which require significant coverage in third-party sources (and being in a TV listing doesn't count). Collectonian (talk) 22:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

D.Gray-man character cleanup

See discussion here. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 03:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Template cleanup

See discussion here concerning cleaning up Template:D.Gray Man. Given that the present template looks awful, this change is pretty necessary. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 18:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Notes left here (and on the one above) :) Collectonian (talk) 18:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

User conduct

WP:RFC/USER is a step you can take. WP:3O is another option, but I prefer an RfC. If both fail and the conduct continues, then you can take it to WP:MC. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 19:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Girls Just Wanna Have Fun (Xena episode)

I have reverted your undo because the article is better than before. Since you have so far shown the most interest in the article, you should check what of the former cleanup tags should be added again (I left them off for now). Regards, – sgeureka t•c 18:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I've put them all back. It isn't improved at all, IMHO. Still an unnotable plot filled article that fails WP:EPISODE and should be merged back to the episode list. Collectonian (talk) 18:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Abtract

Is there a policy or something that says it is wrong to accuse editors of such and such behaviour? For instance, I am getting tired of Abtract labeling me a "stalker", in spite of the fact that I have told him (several times in fact) that many of the pages he happens to edit are on my watchlist. What do you think? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it violates WP:CIVILITY (policy) and WP:AGF (guideline). Abtract seems to have a false view of 3RR, and though he says he is working on the civility issues, I see he is still making accusations while saying he's working on it. :( If he ignores Redrocket's current attempt to talk to him, and continues his actions, I'd be inclined to look at some stronger options, such as an WP:RFC/USER, since multiple editors have now tried to correct his actions with no results.Collectonian (talk) 18:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. Guess telling Abtract to read those policies might fuel the flames? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Such audacity! When have I admitted such a thing? And still no signs of changing. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, his respond to Redrocket leaves a lot to be desired. I pointed him to Civility already, so guess he didn't read it either. :( Collectonian (talk) 18:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
When should we take action? Like Redrocket said, he has been warring quite a bit over the last week or so. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm...his responses are showing he has no intention of changing, so I think an RFC/U may be in order, but let me touch base with Redrocket and an admin first. I'm thinking either Red or I should file it, if we go that route, so he can't claim its a personal thing. Collectonian (talk) 18:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Go for it. Let's see if we can put an end to this nightmare. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
As he continues to show no signs of changing, I have started Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abtract Collectonian (talk) 23:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

It was deleted?

I don't see any note in the deletion logs for AnimeonDVD.com or AnimeOnDVD.com. Reason why I'm linking "AnimeonDVD.com" is because of WP:RED. Take a look at what links to AnimeonDVD.com. And I had the same discussion with Tintor2 regarding this (see very bottom here). Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

It was deleted twice under AnimeOnDVD, once by AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AnimeOnDVD and once by CSD. It would be good if it had an article, but with only 3-4 links out of the hundreds of usages, maybe better to just leave unlinked for now? Collectonian (talk) 18:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to talk page crash. I'd note that there are numerous instances in which AnimeOnDVD is used as a reference [4] AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 18:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Guess I was supposed to be red linking "AnimeOnDVD.com". WP:RED#Dealing with existing red links doesn't quite suggest that any variants from the deleted term should not be linked. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
AoD is heavily used as a reference, as it is considered an extremely reliable source for anime and manga topics, particularly for reviews. They have plenty of industry support, and I suspect could pass WP:WEB if someone wanted to take the time to write up a real article on them, particularly with its 10 year history and the recent purchase of the site by Mania.com. I've debated it but haven't gotten around to it yet. Of course, the first issue would be...what name to use :P AnimeOnDVD is how Chris himself refers to the site, and I believe AnimeOnDVD.com is most used when their reviews are quoted by licensors on product ads and releases. However, the site's footer uses Anime on DVD. Collectonian (talk) 18:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I say AnimeonDVD.com, with redirects, AnimeOnDVD, and Anime on DVD. And of course a hatnote stating "this article is for the site of AnimeOnDVD.com if you are looking for a list of anime released on DVD go here" AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 18:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Can we settle on linking "AnimeOnDVD.com"? (Note the capital "O") That's all I'm proposing, mainly because most pages spell it out like so. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Sure...though if you're going to go through and add links to all the refs, you're gonna be very busy for awhile ;) Collectonian (talk) 19:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Good luck. Let me know when the article is created, I'll do what I can to add to it. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 19:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Now I remember why I never got around to doing it...AoD has no About Us section :P Collectonian (talk) 21:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I KNEW you were going to catch that one. :)

I saw that List of Meerkat Manor meerkats edit, thought about cutting it, then thought "I'm not 100% sure on that one--better let Collectonian weigh in on it." And ten minutes later, it was gone! Always good to have many pairs of eyes on something... thanks!Gladys J Cortez 22:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

LOL, yep. I don't want those to be like some featured lists and left to rot after getting that FL star. ;) Someone else said Rocket Dog was killed by a car (in the middle of an uninhabited area?). The new series premieres next month...may have to do some page protecting to keep the IPs from going crazy :P Collectonian (talk) 23:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Guess who's back? [5] Now it's a "vehicle"--maybe a city bus? Still unsourced, of course...Gladys J Cortez 20:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Yep...wait till the season starts in June. It will be a mess. Collectonian (talk) 21:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

New Project

Myself and several other editors have been compiling a list of very active editors who would likely be available to help new editors in the event they have questions or concerns. As the list grew and the table became more detailed, it was determined that the best way to complete the table was to ask each potential candidate to fill in their own information, if they so desire. This list is sorted geographically in order to provide a better estimate as to whether the listed editor is likely to be active.

If you consider yourself a very active Wikipedian who is willing to help newcomers, please either complete your information in the table or add your entry. If you do not want to be on the list, either remove your name or just disregard this message and your entry will be removed within 48 hours. The table can be found at User:Useight/Highly Active, as it has yet to have been moved into the Wikipedia namespace. Thank you for your help. Useight (talk) 17:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Coming Home (Xena episode)

You joined the article Coming Home (Xena episode) with Xena: Warrior Princess (Season 6). But should not have been an open vote to decide if that should happen, as Girls Just Wanna Have Fun (Xena episode)? (Nighttemptation (talk) 22:58, 3 May 2008 (UTC))

No. You created it without consensus and establishing notability, in violation of WP:EPISODE. Girls Just Wanna Have Fun only got a free pass as it was around awhile and went through AfD. Collectonian (talk) 23:00, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:List of Anime Ep TV

Template:List of Anime Ep TV has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Collectonian (talk) 19:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Is it possible for you to withdraw this? -- Cat chi? 23:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
No. I stand by my reasons for submitting it for deletion. It is an unnecessary and inappropriate duplicate of the real episode list template. Collectonian (talk) 23:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Endless discussion part 3

Started new discussion. (I guess you could merge our endless speech, he he). However, are you making the peer review of Himura Kenshin. At least I could make the improvements I can.--Tintor2 (talk) 01:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

LOL, I'm just calling it a little dedicated section of my talk page ;) And peer review started (I knew I'd forgotten something...its a brain dead day LOL) Collectonian (talk) 01:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
He he, thanks.--Tintor2 (talk) 01:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Collectian, could please tag Saint Seiya and redirect the story arcs article? There a discussion in that talk page to improve.--Tintor2 (talk) 19:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Me and my friend sesshomaru are discussing something from Himura Kenshin here. Its about the weakness of a technique and how should it be written. Since we cant agree, can you give your opinion there? Thanks.--Tintor2 (talk) 00:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Note left :) Collectonian (talk) 00:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
About the List of Rurouni Kenshin chapters, last month I decided to stop making summaries since I thought I could better improvements in other articles. Even, if I get to finish it the article will be tagged for copy-edit and jagger (no idea what is jagger, he he). Once again I agree with all the merges you said in the talk page. Regards.--Tintor2 (talk) 13:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I ll start giving a hand in Rurouni Kenshin, once I finish Fma and also delete that clean-up tag. I guess the expert more or less is done since I have been asking you everything about the article improvements^_^.--Tintor2 (talk) 13:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


He he, today I wont appear here until wikipedia midnight time (here in South America is earlier), so see you.--Tintor2 (talk) 14:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Hey, what is that of wikiboned? are you ok?--Tintor2 (talk) 01:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, just kinda brain dead when I try to do any editing right now. Probably too much stress from my hunt for my first house and an overload from working on too many things at once. I'll still be watchlist stalking monitoring and be around for discussions and stuff :) Collectonian (talk) 01:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Ah, you are just a bit tired, for a moment I thought you had an accident. Cheers and relax.--Tintor2 (talk) 02:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Could I know what else of fma require clean up?--Tintor2 (talk) 20:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Collectian? Sorry for bothering, but at least I would like to know the sections that require clean up.--Tintor2 (talk) 18:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, your message got lost in a barrage of others of late. The character section needs its formatting fixed. I think that's about it for the major needing a tag clean up. Collectonian (talk) 16:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
^_^Hooray! I will work in the character section.--Tintor2 (talk) 17:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Is this a reliable source? It may help with Sagara Sanosuke.--Tintor2 (talk) 15:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm...I'm inclined to say the interviews are okay, but not the reviews as they are user submitted. Collectonian (talk) 17:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Started a new discussion here. Feel free to join.--Tintor2 (talk) 16:01, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Will do. Collectonian (talk) 17:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I found these two interviews that look pretty nice that talks about Kenshin's voice actor.[6] [7]. I just cant understand too much about it. Could you add it?--Tintor2 (talk) 18:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for bothering but are you going to post the information of those interviews? I find myself very hard to do it (what is a ADR?), but I can make you sure that the information is totally helpful. Regards.--Tintor2 (talk) 13:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

If no one beats me to it, I'll try to get to it sometime soon. I have a 12 page mortgage pre-approval application and a bunch of documents to gather to go with it by first thing Monday morning. Weee...Collectonian (talk) 16:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay.--Tintor2 (talk) 17:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


Peer review request for Facebook

Hi, if you have time could you please take a look at Facebook and post any suggestions you may have at Wikipedia:Peer review/Facebook/archive3? I'd like to get it to WP:FAC soon but first I'd like a copyedit from people who are not involved with the article, and if you have any content suggestions such as what to keep or remove, I would also appreciate that. Thanks! Gary King (talk) 21:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to take a look at it tonight or tomorrow. Feeling under the weather today. One thing I did notice real quick is that Facebook Platform redirects to Facebook features, so probably doesn't need two mains and double links.Collectonian (talk) 22:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Ah yes, thanks, done! Gary King (talk) 10:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
responded Gary King (talk) 23:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Unending discussion

This discussion is becoming annoying. I've about stretched my patience to the breaking point with this user (and as you know, I consider myself very even-tempered and overly civil), and his obstinate nature is about all I can handle. Fresh comments would be nice. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 08:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

And since this is "canvassing," I get an WP:ANI case from him here also. Drama. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 08:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh gravy...canvassing? To ask for fresh views. *shaking head* Collectonian (talk) 16:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


Email?

Could you email me? I wont bring the matter up here, as I know I have several sets of eyes watching my edits. RobJ1981 (talk) 19:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Another Tarja Sock

Hey. As the closing admin of Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Tarja Lawless, I was wondering if you could look at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Nighttemptation. I believe this is another of Tarja's socks but so far nothing has happened with the report. Collectonian (talk) 20:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Done and indef blocked. Sometimes SSP's take a while as so few admins watch it. Thanks for your report. If you find anymore it'll probably be quicker to come straight to me or User:Enigmaman. Thank you! ScarianCall me Pat! 20:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Great, thanks, and will do. Collectonian (talk) 20:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

TFD: Template:List of Anime Ep TV

Hopefully, I answered your question to your satisfaction. --Farix (Talk) 21:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Blade

Well, looks like Ryulong asserted his ownership of all articles tokusatsu again, and undid all those edits you made to Kamen Rider Blade, as he usually does to any attempt at removing content from an article, no matter how superfluous. Thanks for trying to help, though. It was nice to see someone had my back. Howa0082 (talk) 13:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed it, again, and restructured it to meet the guidelines of the Television MoS (rather than the anime/manga one). Collectonian (talk) 14:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Was that why you chopped so much? I didn't realize you were using the anime/manga ones. Meh. I liked the vast majority of the edits, anyway, so wha'ever. Howa0082 (talk) 15:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
They are similar, so it would have been chopped either way (television one actually doesn't allow as much plotty stuff, in some ways). The main difference is in the organizing of the sections and some variants in their names :) Nominated that Undead article for deletion...so now Fractyl is glutting my watch list by adding "references" to the official series site to all 52 listings *doh*Collectonian (talk) 15:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I'm reformating to keep the page up. Tell me if this format works.
Spider Undead (スパイダーアンデッド Supaidā Andeddo?, 11-14)
  • Statistics
    • Deck: Ace of Clubs
  • Episodes: 11-14, 42, Missing Ace
  • Sealed by: Garren's Burning Divide(series), J-Garren's Jack Burning Shot (Movie)

The Spider Undead was a accomplice of the Peacock Undead, selecting the ideal users to become Leagule before he intentionally had himself sealed into the Change Spider card to create Leangle. Though sealed, the Spider usually takes over the body of Mutsuki Kamijō, using him to become more powerful for the Battle Fight until he no longer needs a human host. Affected by Titan's venom in episode 42, Spider starts to completely take over Mutsuki to the point of turning into the Undead himself. The Spider was forced out from Leangle during episode 42 when attempting to assume king form, with Mutsuki free of the Undead's influence thanks to Hikaru Jō giving Noboru Shima a stronger influence. The Spider was properly resealed by Mutsuki with the King Rouser. Though unsealed in Missing Ace by the Albino Joker, the Spider Undead was resealed by J-Garren.[1]

Fractyl (talk) 15:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The format has nothing to do with anything related to its deletion at all. You need to work on dealing with the real issues, which is its complete lack of real-world notability. Running through and reformatting it right now will just be wasted effort. Collectonian (talk) 15:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Explain the "real-world notability", because the only place to find those are on episodes AND on TV Asahi(Offical Blade page). Not to mention the article opens with "Undead are are a fictional race of monsters in the 2004 Japanese Kamen Rider Series Kamen Rider Blade." And the Undead that didn't make physical appearences where already made into cards. Fractyl (talk) 16:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
That is the point. They have no real-world notability. The episodes and the official website do not show any real-world notability. They are insignificant characters outside of the series. No one has done extensive discussions about them, reviews, analysis, etc. They don't need their own article, nor do they need listing as they are just one-shot characters. Collectonian (talk) 16:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
What of the Royal Flush Undead, the Aces, or the Jokers? Along with the Trials and Unknown Undead, they have alot more info than the minor Undead as they made a bigger impact. Fractyl (talk) 16:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
The entire topic is unnotable. The amount of information is irrelevant when it all comes from the series itself, and the "impact" is only within the show. Again, real-world information, such as creation, conception, reception, etc sourced by reliable, third-party sources not related to the series is required to establish that the topic of the Undead is notable enough to have their own article. Collectonian (talk) 16:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
But it doesn't work like that. We can't explain that kind of stuff, though some Undead are homeage to older Kamen Rider monsters, like a Gelshocker monster for Titan.Fractyl (talk) 16:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it does work like that, at least here. Wikipedia is not a fansite and not a guide to the series. The emphasis is on the real world aspects. The undead are already adequately explained in the main article, making the list completely unnecessary and excessive fictional, in-universe plot regurgitation. They are not notable and need nothing more than the short summary in the main article. Collectonian (talk) 17:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I am trying to make a consistant formatting amongst the toku articles similar to what has been done at the Japanese Wikipedia's pages. There is a plot section, a characters section, a section detailing the monsters of the day, an episode list (we have articles for them here that serve as short summarizations of the episodes, but I prefer having a numbered list and the list page), mentions of movies and specials, a theme song section, a cast, and whatever else there may be. I know that these pages don't have a written MOS, but the formatting on the other pages (Kamen Rider Den-O, Kamen Rider Kiva, Juken Sentai Gekiranger, GoGo Sentai Boukenger, Engine Sentai Go-onger) are all similar (and not conforming with a different project's personal MOS). Also, there's nothing wrong with using the logo that comes from the PS2 game if they are inherently the same image. Why bother uploading another fair use image when there's one that serves the same purpose, albeit a different source.?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

If you want to make them consistent, then bring the others in line with the television MoS. They are television series. The Toku project is a child project of the TV project, whether it wants to acknowledge that or not. You don't get to decide to implement your personal MoS, and the project is not exempt from following the existing MoS. As for the image, because the fair use is invalid for its use. It is not representative of the television series, but of the video game, and it doesn't come from the television series. Collectonian (talk) 20:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
There is nothing that says that these pages have to be in line with the TV WikiProject's MOS. The toku project is not a child project of anything, as it covers (currently) TV series, films, video games, music, and several aspects. Just because this particular article is about a TV series does not mean that it needs to follow the MOS of every other TV series. I'll admit that WP:TOKU doesn't have an MOS to go by yet, but I would certainly think that other similar articles that are formatted the way I was reformatting Blade's page also aren't consistent with the TV MOS, but are consistent with each other. The MOS is a guideline; not a written law.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Twinkle removed

Collectonian, I've removed your Twinkle script for this edit. Twinkle is not to be used to edit war, and marking edits made by administrators as vandalism is a violation of our policy on no personal attacks. Please discuss things in a civil manner rather than resorting to edit wars and accusations. Thank you. Hersfold (t/a/c) 21:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I hope you also intend to do something about that administrator who thinks his personal style choice can take precedence over the existing and primary MoS for the project, or who has been doing a slow edit war over that article for months and refuses to discuss anything, but just keeps reverting to his preferred version that violates the MoS and multiple Wikipedia guidelines. Collectonian (talk) 21:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
If you'd be willing to give him a chance, he's trying to work with other editors to set up a guideline. Right now, however, you are in violation of 3RR and will be blocked if you continue to revert these edits. Stop now. Hersfold (t/a/c) 21:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Whatever, he's an admin so he can do what he want. Let him ruin the article again, it can just remain a glutted, horribly formatted, mess. Collectonian (talk) 21:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Comments like that don't help things either. Admins have no more right to edit pages than other editors do. Have you considered joining in the discussion about this? You might be able to provide some input, and that would be far more constructive than fighting over it. Hersfold (t/a/c) 21:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
See above, all he wants is to use his own personal style that allows unnecessary, inappropriate information. From the project talk page, they did the same when the Film project tried to clean up the film articles too. And that may be what's said, but reality is usually different. Collectonian (talk) 21:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't really care either way; I'm in no way involved with this and don't care to be. But edit warring over it is causing more damage that even the worst formatting could. I can see that you've opened a discussion topic, though, so hopefully this will get sorted out. Thanks. Hersfold (t/a/c) 21:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Not really, his answer was to just emphasis he'll do what he wants. *shrug* Oh well, not like there are tons of other bad articles on Wikipedia as well. Collectonian (talk) 21:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
BTW, you neglected to mention how long you've removed my Twinkle access for. Collectonian (talk) 22:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I haven't protected your monobook page, as I'm sure you've noticed; however I also notice it's been removed from you once before for a similar situation. I won't impose any time limit this time, however would strongly encourage you watch your actions with the tool in the future once you do reinstall it. If it gets removed again, it may be permanent. Twinkle, like rollback, should be used carefully and not as a tool to edit war. Hersfold (t/a/c) 22:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
No, I hadn't noticed. I presumed it had been protected so I couldn't add it back. Collectonian (talk) 22:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

FMA

Was afraid of this happening. Would you prefer consensus for my edit? It's just I really think we should be crystal clear on the genre part. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind it, I just think two is a little over kill. One should be enough, I'd think. Those inclined to ignore will just ignore both anyway :P If you want to put it back, I won't revert again. BTW, did you see the RfC/User on Abtract? Collectonian (talk) 05:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I shall restore the edit then. And about that RfC, would it help if I signed somewhere here? I read it all, but wasn't sure whether to comment or not (might incite Abtract). Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I think you need to certify, and give diffs of where you tried to talk to/correct him. I think since you're the main one he kept being incivil with, you can certify it. It needs at least one more certification before it can move on. Collectonian (talk) 06:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Huh, that RfC was deleted, but Abtract's behaviour doesn't concern me now (seems he sort of stooped anyway). In any case, what was to become of the Battosai and Sakabato redirects? Were they supposed to re-target Himura Kenshin's page and become new sections? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 14:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, user RfCs must be certified by at least two involved users within 48 hours. I was the only one to certify so it was deleted. He'll likely return to his usual behavior now, feeling he got another free pass. The Battosai and Sakabato redirects should be changed to point to Kenshin's page, but they don't need separate sections. Just point to the main article. Both have already been merged in, I believe. Collectonian (talk) 14:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Xena episodes References

Why IMDB is not a reliable source? (SeriesYFilmes (talk) 22:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC))

Because consensus said it is not. IMDB is a user-edited website and fails WP:RS. Collectonian (talk) 23:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. (SeriesYFilmes (talk) 00:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC))

Blood: The Last Vampire Novels

I don't know if I understand your reverts since you put almost everything back to how it was. Though I do understand the thing about references and won't do that again. Do you mind if I put the correct release dates back by the books? Grapeofdeath (talk) 14:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Mostly I fixed the wording and put the ref into the text as an inline citation. Woops, yes, feel free to put back the correct dates, I thought I'd moved them back in when I redid it. Collectonian (talk) 14:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Jenna Ficher's blog

In answer to one of your points brought up during the FARC for The Office, I would certainly consider Jenna Fischer's blog to be a reliable source for information about the show regardless of where it's hosted. When we blacklisted links to MySpace, for understandable reasons, we didn't seem to consider that notable people might be hosting their blogs there. Daniel Case (talk) 14:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Dirty Dancing

I'm going to try and take Dirty Dancing to FA again... Since you were one of the principal opposers, I thought I'd check with you, what do you think? --Elonka 13:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to take a look at it soon and see if I notice anything. Collectonian (talk) 06:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Wolf's Rain

I'll take a look if I can find the time. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 12:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks :) Collectonian (talk) 15:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Reference library request - Anime explosion!

Hi, I'm sorry to see you're feeling burned out atm - when you've got the time and energy, could you please thumb through your copy of Anime explosion! (which I'm assuming you've got by now, as you're on the anime reference list) for any gems of information in the Sailor Moon chapter? Thanks for your time. -Malkinann (talk) 08:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh wow, I totally forgot! Yes, I do have it. I'll get it scanned in as soon as I can, as its about eight pages. Collectonian (talk) 14:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay (and forgetting). You can download the PDF here (its almost 13 megs, so may want to just do a save as :P). The first eight pages cover the chapter on Sailor Moon. Pages 9-11 are from the chapter on the theme of death and rebirth in anime and focus mostly on the anime version of the Hotaru storyline. Pages 12 and 13 are from the chapter on spiritual aspects of anime, giving a profile of Rei in the section on the depiction of mikos in anime. For the reference tag: {{cite book |last=Drazen |first=Patrick |title=Anime Explosion! The What? Why? & Wow! of Japanese Animation |year=2002 | month=October |publisher=Stone Bridge Press |location=[[Berkeley, California]] |isbn=1-880656-72-8 |oclc=50898281 |pages=pp. }} Collectonian (talk) 23:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for that :) Am I right in assuming that all further references (inside the book) are taken care of by the footnote format (and are thus included in the pages you've scanned) rather than in a reference list at the back? -Malkinann (talk) 09:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
You mean the references it uses? It uses footnotes with a full list in the back, though referencing the book itself should be fine? Collectonian (talk) 14:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I've been keeping a "reference wishlist" at Talk:Sailor Moon/to do, with references that are out there somewhere, but we don't have ready access to, and I was wondering if the reference list of the book could give us any more leads as to what is out there in Sailor Moon scholarship. -Malkinann (talk) 22:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Akatsuki (Naruto)

Why {{talkarchive}}? That's for actual archive pages, unless there's something I'm missing. Maybe {{talkheader}} would have been best (it did have links to the archives). Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Its something I've been doing for the talk pages of merged articles lately, rather than dealing with merging those talk pages into the talk archives of the pages they were merged to. It helps emphasis that the merged page's talk contents shouldn't be edited and that the discussion is now closed. Talkheader won't work because it encourages active discussion. Another possible option would be to move the page to Talk:Akatsuki (Naruto)/Archive 15, then have the main page just have the archive box and a note that article was merged. Collectonian (talk) 03:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Sounds much better. Can you perform the change? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Done. Collectonian (talk) 03:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Could you fix the redness in your comment? I'd do it, but WP:TALK discourages editing of other user's comments. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I was fixing...i can't spell villain half the time :P All fixed and tweaked. Collectonian (talk) 04:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. But why didn't you place the tags on top and keep one talkarchive? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
What do you mean? Collectonian (talk) 05:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Never mind. It's of little importance. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

MERGING BLOODY ROAR CHARACTERS

Hello, Madam! I just proposed a merge of ALL Bloody Roar characters. If you like, you can join the conversation, and help with the eventual consensus. Oh, and sorry about the "accident" I left on your main page. (I removed it) I'm still getting used to this sort of thing. ^^; ZeroGiga (talk) 08:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

No prob :) Collectonian (talk) 14:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Copyediting

I took a whack at it and realized I'm not familiar with FICT or MoS:LANG, I made some basic things, but you might try moving down the list to the next LOC guy. MBisanz talk 08:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, no problem. Even some basic fixes are an improvement, I think :) Collectonian (talk) 14:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry.

I had no idea yesterday would turn into such a huge clusterfsck. Sorry for dragging you into the mess that is WP:Toku. Howa0082 (talk) 11:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Its okay. Sorry I didn't realize he was an admin. Probably nothing to be done now but, unfortunately, just ignore those articles and work on something else as the same problems will crop up on all of them. He's made it very clear that he will never allow the TV MoS to be properly applied to any of those articles, and will likely just undo anything that doesn't meet his own personal style. Collectonian (talk) 14:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Normally, I would do that. But I've been driven off articles before, and I have no intention to be driven out of an entire Wikiproject just because of this nonsense. I'll just... work around him as much as I can, I guess. Howa0082 (talk) 19:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Same here. Its frustrating and discouraging. :( Good luck! Collectonian (talk) 19:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Tibet during the Ming Dynasty

Hello. Recently, you opposed the candidacy of this article. Since then, it has seen major improvements, largely because User:John Broughton, User:Bertport, and I, User:PericlesofAthens have copyedited the living hell out of it in the past week. Lol. Also, the infamous User:LaGrandefr has not shown his insidious face or made his presence known for an entire week now (which is unlike him), so the article seems to be stable at last. Also, two users have recently supported the article. I was wondering if you would look over it and reassess it.--Pericles of AthensTalk 16:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Point these unsourced statements out on my talk page and I'll see what I can do.--Pericles of AthensTalk 17:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

What? Are you pulling a fast one on me buddy?! If so I think it's kind of funny. But seriously dude, that's like asking for a citation that George Washington became president of the USA in 1789, or asking for a citation that Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon in 49 BC. These are well known, common sense historical events. Not only that, I provided a citation from Rossabi about the Mongol conquest of Tibet in the 1240s, long before the Song Dynasty was conquered in 1279. Not only that, I provided a link to the article History of the Song Dynasty, which is well-sourced and goes into great detail about the conquest of the Song Dynasty. Not only that, if you doubt the existence of the Red Turban Rebellion or the Hongwu Emperor, that's like asking me if King Henry VIII existed, and asking for a citation. Unless there is some crazy historical revisionist out there like Anatoly Fomenko who wishes to challenge these events by explaining that aliens ruled the earth before 1400 AD, then WP:CITE wouldn't suggest that I provide citations for these, unless some publication comes forth to challenge them.--Pericles of AthensTalk 17:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm not. I'm saying they are unsourced. And there are enough crazy historical revisionists that I suspect someone out there would question anything. As someone who knows nothing about that area's history, how do you know its correct without a source? Collectonian (talk) 18:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh, well I figured this was well-known stuff, even in Europe and the US people have at least heard of the Ming Dynasty (through porcelain antiques). If you really think it needs a citation, I'll be more than happy to add one. Here, let me just throw a bunch of my history books down, close my eyes, pick one at random, and find a citation for the Hongwu Emperor and the Red Turban Rebellion, because I literally have 10 or 12 books that at least mention it. Lol.--Pericles of AthensTalk 00:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Heard of yes, but for most folks the limit is about "oh yeah, those Chinese knick knacks." US education on foreign areas is mostly optional for most students and most opt out. I've taken a world history class myself, but have no memory for facts and figures, and it doesn't really gointo much information about a lot of stuff. Collectonian (talk) 00:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Very well. I added a citation. Is there anything else that bugs you about the article?--Pericles of AthensTalk 00:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Citations & so on

Hi - I made some major edits to the ED article, which you haven't changed, but you did change back the citation style, which is a major bugbear of mine. Standard academic style is 'Quigly 2000b' or something like that, with the full details in the references. Embedding long citations in the text itself quickly makes it unreadable and ugly. Just a plea for elegance and readability. You are welcome to do with the article what you like, anyway. Peter Damian (talk) 18:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

PS I checked in Wikipedia:Author-date referencing and the method I was using (Harvard) is the first method recommended. It is also (as I said above) a standard and universally used method. Of the other two, one is the use of endnotes, but there is nothing there that says the method of embedding URLs is standard. Peter Damian (talk) 19:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
That citation style is ugly, and perfectly useless in that article. Also per the MoS you don't change the established style of an article without consensus. The style was already established as being pure inline. And Harvard being first does not mean it is the best or the most recommended. It is actually the least used, and rarely, if ever, used in articles like this. Collectonian (talk) 19:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Well I haven't changed it back, but you agree the source is practically unreadable? And it is not in fact an ugly style. The use of any other method is unknown in the academic world. Peter Damian (talk)
Actually, other methods are used, just perhaps not in your areas. I've cleaned up the refs properly. Collectonian (talk) 19:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
You agree the source text is now unreadable? Peter Damian (talk) 19:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
No. The references are now perfectly, and properly formatted. Harvard style doesn't belong, period. It is fine the way it is now that I've fixed the formatting. Collectonian (talk) 19:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
No they are not perfectly, nor properly formatted. You haven't provided a single reference for your claim that embedded URLs are acceptable. One has to read past a swathe of http colon this and that and makes decent editing impossible. I after all reworked the whole of the first paragraph into something less barbaric (which you have retained, thank you). Give me a break. Peter Damian (talk) 19:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, they are. Frankly, get over yourself. This isn't an academic tome, its Wikipedia, and the style used on the article is the style used in DOZENS of featured articles, if not hundreds. It is the most common citation style here and extremely, widely acceptable. If you don't like looking at it, I suggest you stick to the more mundane academia topics here where the Harvard style is actually liked and common. It isn't used much anywhere else. Collectonian (talk) 19:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
(edit) forgive me, but I checked through your last 500 mainspace edits, and most of your contributions are linking and lists and formatting stuff. You don't do much 'prose' stuff i.e. the stringing together of connected thoughts into something resembling a coherent whole. This is what I do: I find these wretched embedded URLs a nightmare and a curse and an abomination. They make decent writing impossible. Given that I reworked that paragraph and made it nicer and less illiterate, I think it reasonable to allow me to use the style of citation that I find comfortable working with. Reasonable? Peter Damian (talk) 19:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
(conflict) No, the academic style is not mundane, i.e. worldly. The anime stuff is mundane (forgive me again). And you persist in misunderstanding my point when you say "If you don't like looking at it" - I don't care about the looking, it's writing and editing my way through a thicket of URL's that I don't like. You understand? Peter Damian (talk) 19:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Just to be clear, once again, it's the use of URLS in references that I am objecting to. Peter Damian (talk) 19:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
ROFLOL, you really do need to get over yourself if you think "anime" is mundane. And your idea that I don't do much "prose" stuff...oh, yeah, I didn't write that silly featured article, or those silly featured lists, or the silly featured topic. Those are just nothing to you, I guess. And no, you don't get to use the style of citation you are comfortable with just because you don't like us "commoners" style. It doesn't belong, no one else supports it, and you don't get to decide on your own to completely change it just because you are some academic who hates the real world. As for URLs in refs, get over it. Its staying, and you aren't going to run around changing the entire way Wikipedia works just because you don't like it. Honestly, get used to it or stay out of any articles that don't already use Harvard style. Collectonian (talk) 19:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

What about you?

BarnSakura for excellent edits
I hereby award you the Anime and Manga BarnSakura for your excellent edits at most anime and manga articles, and all the help you gave me! Tintor2 (talk) 16:08, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Aww, thanks and always glad to help :) Collectonian (talk) 16:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Emm, I need a little favour could you upload this image but without the white spaces (no idea how to do it) to help in the List of Saint Seiya chapters? Thanks.--Tintor2 (talk) 01:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Done :-) Collectonian (talk) 01:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks^_^Tintor2 (talk) 01:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Started a new discussion here. Feel free to join.--Tintor2 (talk) 01:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Discuss first

Before "partially reverting" me a second time, please see this. I heavily disagree with the edit, and would prefer not to edit war. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 15:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Replied there. I wish you had noticed all of the rewriting I also did before reverting... Collectonian (talk) 17:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Enterprise

Hey, you. I'm not even going to bother bringing this up at the requests board. Would you be willing to take a look at Star Trek: Enterprise for me, and leave me a note on my talk page about any improvements you can see being needed? I rewrote the article months ago, and haven't really wanted to dissect my own work since then. Fix the quality rating, too, if you feel it needs to be changed. Thanks. Howa0082 (talk) 19:03, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

If I remove the TrekUnited and TrekToday refs, that section about the big, dumb, failed campaign becomes unreferenced. Which means I have to remove it. Right? Howa0082 (talk) 14:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
If no other sources exist, then yes. You can start by removing those refs, and tagging for needing citations...give some time to find other, more reliable sources. Collectonian (talk) 14:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Cool beans. I've always hated that section, anyway. Howa0082 (talk) 15:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

A nice talk

Thanks for the conversation on Corman and his films. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 04:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC).

You're welcome :) Collectonian (talk) 14:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Rave Master - network_other

I'm sorry for editing the Rave Master article a second time. Well, it looked okay, anyway, but I really wanted the data to show, not just a simple "show" button.

I won't touch that article anymore since it's okay in the first place (silly me)...

Kenshinflyer (talk) 18:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. We only show the initial network of airing. All others go behind the show button to avoid the infoboxes from being too long (some shows have aired on dozens and dozens of networks). We do the same with publishers of manga. Collectonian (talk) 18:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

New Account

Hi, I was the guy discussing the List of Friends episodes. I have now created an account (as I said I would) but I would like to know how you made your user page all fancy as mine looks a bit bare. You don't have to tell me but just give me link to the information if possible. That's one thing Wikipedia could make clearer – their own programing language. Thanks. Citizen89 (talk) 22:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I've left a note on your new talk page that has a lot of useful links and information that can help you learn the basics of Wikipedia. For my user page, I mostly used basic wikimarkup. The section on "How to edit a page" in your new welcome message has details on that. For the userboxes, you can find a list of ones available at Wikipedia:Userboxes. :) Hope that helps. Collectonian (talk) 00:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Whedonesque.com

Hi! Thanks for the help--I hope you had some automated way of making all those changes, rather than hand-editing all my technical errors (e.g., wrong date formats). If you see any other error that you'd rather tell me to fix than do yourself, I take constructive criticism reasonably well--doubly so when I've been seeking it out! I'd love to hear your ideas on the content, structure, etc. of the article as well if you're interested in commenting on those, but regardless, thanks for the assist. Jclemens (talk) 04:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I was able to do some with some quick search/replace, but about half done by hand as well (glad the article wasn't too long yet LOL) :) Collectonian (talk) 04:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
As it stands now, do you think the article should have been quick failed GA review for lack of reliable sources? Jclemens (talk) 15:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, sorry, but I would have quick failed it as well. In addition to the references, it has several MoS violations (including some very basic ones regarding headers -- I already fixed the MoS issues in the references), and its far too short to be considered broad in its coverage. It's also missing an image :-P Collectonian (talk) 15:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Hmm. So there is a minimum length? I was shooting for a tight, well documented article--that is, I wanted everything notable to be said, but didn't really see anything non-notable missing. I'll read up on header requirements. I've been looking at adding the web logo, but want to do the research to get it right, first. Thanks again! Jclemens (talk) 15:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Either a logo, or a screenshot would be good (for a website, a screenshot of the first page is usually preferred). No minimal length, but the "Recognition" section is just a list of a few awards, when it should be prose and, preferably, include reviews and critical commentary as well. If there isn't much more to say about the site than what's currently there and that can be sourced, then it calls to question whether it is really a notable website that should stand alone, or if it should be merged to Joss Whedon's article. Collectonian (talk) 15:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Sukeban

When cleaning up an article such as sukeban please take care not to delete the references from the reference list. Could you please use {{or}} to note the specific parts of the article that you think are original research? -Malkinann (talk) 20:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

There was no evidence in the article showing that the book was actually being used as a reference for anything. For OR, all of the parts I removed calling specific characters as "sukeban" without any reference to actually back it up. Just people's personal opinions. Collectonian (talk) 00:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Except the part where it was listed under "References"? In WP:CITE's language it might be considered a "general reference". I'm not exactly sure what it's used for, but I'm sure you can find the person who used it in the history of the article. I'm a little surprised that you think there are inappropriate self-published sources in the article - I'm guessing you mean Erica Friedman. Her site is used extensively as a reference for Yuri (term), as was discussed here. -Malkinann (talk) 09:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Gripe.

I'm bothering you again. Take a look at this and let me know what you think. And if you at all feel it's a worthless article, oh god, look at the original. I'm not too sure what else to do with this, but I think I've pared out the essential tv information, while also keeping in mind the idea of less plottiness, while also balancing Toku's desire for endless amounts of exacting information. I think it's a decent start and I'm nearly ready to upload it to mainspace, but what do you think? Howa0082 (talk) 04:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you got a little happy with the bolding ;) Beyond that, though, not sure what to say. Too much character info for me, but I doubt he'd be satisfied with an article that actually focused on the real-world stuff, like production, distribution, etc. *sigh* 04:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I know. But then, it's a decades-old program from Japan. I seriously doubt the ease at which someone could find any articles about the production of that show. I'm sure it's out there, but being that it'd be entirely in Japanese, I have no idea how to find any of it. I had originally only had the Biomen listed at all, but realized pretty quick the article became virtually a stub at that point, hence why now you get to read all about Farrah Cat. It used to be worse, though. A lot worse. Howa0082 (talk) 14:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Yep...with it unlicensed, its probably not going to have much info available at all...well, unless you learn to read Japanese books ;) (and if you do, my hats off to you! Speaking it is hard enough!) Collectonian (talk) 14:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Anime - popular culture and society

Hi, my name's Nick and I'm doing a speech on anime as a popular culture for a course in my final year of high school. The main focus of the speech is the two-way relationship between popular culture and social change. So, as a key contributor to the Anime/Manga portal I was hoping you could help me out. How do you think anime (in all its forms) has influenced wider society, and how have changes in society been reflected within anime? Also, how, in your opinion, is anime constantly changing and evolving?

Thanks in advance for your help, Nick.--Nick??? 14:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really sure I'm qualified to answer the first question, since I'm not that familiar with Japanese culture and society, nor how anime may have influenced it. I'm also a much bigger manga reader than an anime watcher (though I greatly enjoy anime). You might do well asking at AnimeOnDVD.com's forums, as quite a few readers are more familiar with that side of things and can probably speak far more intelligently about it that I can. For changes in society being reflected, again since I'm not intimately familiar with Japanese culture, I can only speak to the more general side of things. The growing dependency, and maybe addiction, to technical gadgets is certainly being reflected in more modern anime series. Where as older series, such as Sailor Moon had the characters bound by the "old fashioned" ways of communicating, in the newer Cardcaptor Sakura we see Sakura with walkie talkies and larger portable phones, reflecting the big bulky first model cell phones. In the newest series, characters regularly have cellphones, to the point that we have manga series such as Calling You, in which a character feels like an outcast and strange because she doesn't have a cellphone (and to compensate, creates one in her mind). In the Fruits Basket manga, its seen as a sign that the character Yuki is becoming more sociable and less stand offish when he obtains his first cellphone. I also think some of the modern series are addressing topics of current concern, such as global warming and environmental issues, in increasing regularly. Series such as Blue Seed, Arjuna, and Pretear and films such as Princess Mononoke and Nausicaa do so in varying degrees of insistence. I still think Japan sometimes buries its head in the sand on some topics, though, just like US television. Not to many anime series, for example, deal with HIV/AIDs, cancer, etc. One of the few, Full Moon o Sagashite does have a child dying of throat cancer, and shows a little bit of her treatment and avoids the cliche of having her cancer miraculously cured through magic.
Is anime constantly changing and evolving? Yes, I think so. Of course, artistically, but also in terms of plot and scope. Sure, its still a mixed bag with some silly, some outrageous, some seemingly never ending, and some serious and heart-wrenching, but as a whole I think it continues to build on the past to grow. Of course, the classics are also still good, which I think is one of anime's greatest charms. With a lot of american cartoons, we grow up loving them, then watch them as an adult and go "OMG I can't believe I liked that" while I've found anime doesn't grow stale. Series I watched 10 years ago, I still watch now, still love, and still discover new things about.
I hope this helps some, and either way, I think its a great topic for a paper! :D If you haven't already taken a look, you might find Patrick Drazen's Anime Explosion and Susan Napier's Anime from Akira to Howl's Moving Castle: Experiencing Contemporary Japanese Animation to be very useful sources. Collectonian (talk) 14:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Fantastic! Thanks so much - you've really given me something to go on! I will definitely check out some of the titles you mentioned. I'll be sure to give you a mention in my bibliography, too :P Thanks again.--Nick??? 11:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Latest JJonz sock

Blocked indef. Daniel Case (talk) 07:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Much appreciated. Collectonian (talk) 07:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Review Fires on the Plain

Could you review Fires on the Plain (film)? This is not a review for B class, I'd just like an opinion about it. Me and Dekkapai have worked on it quite a bit. It would be appreciated if you could get to this quickly though I understand you are Wikibonked. Oh, and if you could give me an opinion on my new section in WP:film talk page "Saving Private Ryan - Sniper issue" that would be appreciated as well. I will ask other editors about this as well. Happy editing! Yojimbo501 (talk) 01:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

It's getting there. A few notes: Awards should be a subsection under Reception. Availability should be renamed distribution, moved up above reception, and include the theatrical release information (per MoS). The lead needs quite a bit of work to meet the MoS and WP:LEAD. Anything else from the interviews that can expand out the production section? What is the "Bibliography" for at the end? Is the book about the film? Is it being used as a reference? With the wealth of reviews available, including the Rotten Tomatoes score is unnecessary and adds nothing to the article. I'd remove that line and start straight with the modern review remarks. Also, some ref format fixing is needed :) Hope that helps. Collectonian (talk) 01:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I put "Awards" under "Reception". A couple of questions come to mind quickly: Though I said that this is not a review for B class, would you say this is more close to B class or to start? Should I get more images for the article? Does the "Modern Reviews" section strike you as unnecesary (or atleast the title;P)? Citizen Kane is older and doesn't have it. However I'd be a liar if I said that another guy made that, I did to hold the Rotten Tomatoes reviews. Speaking of that, do you think that we should get rid of the rotten tomatoes thing but keep the review? Well, thanks. Me and Dekkapai have worked on it quite a bit and it's always nice to hear that your work is good. Yojimbo501 (talk) 19:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Its getting closer to B. I don't personally think the Modern Reviews header is needed. More images are not needed either unless its to illustrate something that can't be clearly conveyed by the text (don't want to get issues with excessive non-free). I'd get rid of the Rotten Tomatoes percent stuff. The reviews themselves are fine as long as they are from critics and not users. :) Collectonian (talk) 19:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh yeah, The Bibliography is there because the book is about Kon Ichikawa and quite a bit is on Fires on the Plain (film). Yojimbo501 (talk) 21:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Cool. Any chance it can be used as a source? :D Collectonian (talk) 21:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I think Dekkappai has used it as a source. I'll ask him if it maybe contains some info on production. Hate to admit it but, as much of an Ichikawa fan as I am, I don't have it :(. Oh, I'll get to some of the sfuff you reccomended. Yojimbo501 (talk) 22:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Seeing a recent edit of yours, which stated that Imdb was not a accurate source, does that mean filmography isn't good there either? Oh, and on a completely different note, I'm aware there was a discussion about having a GA symbol. Do you know what I'm talking about? I can't remember what it was. Yojimbo501 (talk) 23:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Basically, IMDB can be used to look up the credits on a film (producer, director, etc), in liu of squinting to read the film credits. However, the film itself is still considered the source there, and if the film conflicts with IMDB, then the film is considered the accurate one. IMDB is not considered a reliable source because it is almost entirely user edited, and users can add/change almost anything in it, including the trivia, plot summaries, credits, awards, etc.
GA stands for Good Article. There are specific criteria for what qualifies as a good article, though the very short version is "just below featured article quality." A good article should be relatively well written, well sourced, comprehensive in coverage, well formatted, stable, and follow applicable guidelines regarding image usage. In order to be considered for a GA class, an article must be nominated as a "Good article candidate." It will be reviewed by another editor against the GA criteria and either passed (if it meets all requirements), put on hold (minor issues to fix), or failed (if it badly fails all the criteria). Collectonian (talk) 00:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Sorry about taking out the Jamie S. Rich rview. Somebody pointed out that the Reception section was overly long. As for that, she/he also noted that the same Jamie S. part was a pretty long quote and reccomended cutting it. Since it was also a dvd review, I figured it could still show some usefullness in the Availibilty section. Oh, and what I meant by the GA symbol was that editors were discussing a idea for making a symbol simmilar to the FA symbol that would be shown on the top right corner. Thanks. Yojimbo501 (talk) 01:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Ahh...I don't think it needs to be removed completely. Can just tighten up the prose some. Oh, yeah, the GA symbol discussion. Its already been archived, but it can be read at Wikipedia talk:Good articles/Archive 11. Collectonian (talk) 01:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

About me renaming reception distribution... that was a mistake. I made don't know how I such a big one :P. Oh, and I had a feeling I'd miss out on the GA symbol discussion. Yojimbo501 (talk) 01:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

LOL, hey, we all have those moments ;) And trust me, you didn't miss much, and it will probably be back in another couple of months since it seems to be a regularly occurring argument LOL. Collectonian (talk) 01:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Really? I think it is an okay idea but some people have noted that it could bring competition. I'll admit I get excited every time I see that little star thing. Yojimbo501 (talk) 01:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)