User talk:Collectonian

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is Collectonian's talk page, where you can send messages and comments to Collectonian.
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot.
Any sections older than 3 days are automatically archived.

Contents

I prefer to reply to comments on the page they were left, so if I left a comment on your page, reply there it is on my watch list. If you leave a comment here, watch this page until the discussion is done as I will only leave replies here. Comments which I find to be uncivil, full of vulgarities, an attempt flame baiting, or that are are excessively rude may be deleted without response. Comments from harassing editors or wikistalkers will also be summarily removed without response. If I choose not to answer, that's my right, don't keep putting it back. I'll just delete and get annoyed at you.

Are you here about an edit I made? You may want to check my user page first to get some general info on some common questions about edits I make. Here are some quick links as well:


[edit] Himura Kenshin and other stuff

I added to the main Rurouni Kenshin article videogames and soundtracks info, so I guess some merges could be done. Also, did something happened with the copyeditor that was supposed to help in Himura Kenshin? I remembered he copyedited conception and lead. Well, regards.Tintor2 (talk) 20:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Been wondering that myself. She never finished copyediting Wolf's Rain either, and I finally just dropped its GA nom (the person who put it on hold for GA review also disappeared). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
But are you going to nominate it again? And what about the merge of the soundtracks and the videogames?--Tintor2 (talk) 20:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm finishing up the merges now. Probably not on Wolf's Rain, at least not anytime soon. I'm going to wait until I've been able to clean up the character and episode lists, and can fix up the character section more, before trying again. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Do you think somebody may give a little copy edit hand to the Sagara Sanosuke, if I ask that in the Wiki project?Tintor2 (talk) 23:54, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Maybe. Someone somewhere mentioned a new resource for finding copyeditors...let me see if I can find it. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
So?Tintor2 (talk) 13:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Do you think Fullmetal Alchemist is ready for a peer review? If so, could you create it?Tintor2 (talk) 15:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Should be, but what goal should I note? GA or straight to FA? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I cant deal to make a FA due to my English, GA would be easier.--Tintor2 (talk) 18:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, to go for GA or FA, it would need a copy edit. I'll post the peer review. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey Collectian, I need advice, Im making the list of Dragon Ball manga chapters here but there is a problems. In Japan the volumes were published as 42 volumes called Dragon Ball, while Viz Media released the series in a different way. They released the first 16 vols with the name of Dragon Ball and the volumes 17-42 were titled Dragon Ball Z, starting since one. Thoughts?Tintor2 (talk) 17:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. I would recommend just noting the change in title in the lead. Could possibly break the section list into two subsections. Does the story actually change significantly at volume 17? And sourced reasons for why Viz added the Z to the name? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
No, its not very different, in fact volume 17 ends with the story arc of volume 16. I dont know why Viz changed the titles, but they did according to the sources of my sandbox, (check English sources in my box).--Tintor2 (talk) 18:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
If its not different, then a mention in the lead is all that's needed. :) From what I read on ANN, it looks like Viz renamed it because the Dragon Ball Z anime starts with the events in the 17th volume. The Shonen Jump page for DBZ confirms this[1]. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
So should I make subsection 1-16 and another 1-26?--Tintor2 (talk) 19:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm...probably, yes. Since the division will be the more well known amongst English readers, do one subsection for Dragon Ball and one for Dragon Ball Z, then note the reason for the rename in the lead. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice^_^, are you going to redirect the Dragon Ball Sagas? I remember some kind of conversationTintor2 (talk) 18:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Which Sagas? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Most of these.Tintor2 (talk) 23:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Ugh, these episode lists are such a mess! I may have ended up doing some double redirects. You might want to go behind and check to make sure they are right, since I don't watch the series. Some may also be off due the screwed up episode list structures. List of Dragon Ball episodes is not an actual episode list at all. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey thanks, I think to continue with Myojin Yahiko, since tomorrow. Next time I ll ask copyedit before nominating.Tintor2 (talk) 02:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me :) At this rate, we might even end up with an RK featured topic before its over with ;) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Here its an old version of the list of characters of the Rurouni Kenshin characters. I deleted the the one-episode characters, but it stil needs a big clean up. Thoughts?Tintor2 (talk) 21:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Its pretty long :P I think the organization might need a little work, and probably some more of the characters can come out, but certainly a good start. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Feel free to delete any character.--Tintor2 (talk) 23:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
From the sandbox I mean, I cant think what character to delete so I ll leave that to you (maybe some minor like gensai and those two girls from the anime?)--Tintor2 (talk) 00:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I'll try to go through it later to see which ones can come out. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your delisting of Jump Square

I believe that you are the one who needs to review the GA process as your undiscussed delisting appears to contradict the process. Please see guideline #4 here which states that you need to allow time for the editors to respond. Thanks.--Finalnight (talk) 01:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

No, when an article very clearly fails GA and was inappropriately passed, a quick delist is allowed, especially if the issues can not be fixed quickly. This has been confirmed before (see the talk page, discussion is still there). The sweeps task force, in fact, also delists the same way for blatantly non-GA articles like this. I am extremely familiar with GA, thanks, and your passing of this article was beyond wrong. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi Collectonian! To be honest, I don't think it should have gotton a GA rating, the referencs are totally my bad. But I don't think it should be Start class... but that's just me! I'm cool with it ^_^. Anyway thanks for coming to help on the page. I would need some help right about now.

P.S. I will get some references on the JC SQ. Comics section, I can actually get references everywhere... easily! Well, maybe a few sections have hard to find references, but it's all good. – 「ＪＵＭＰＧＵＲＵ」@Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 17:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi and glad to know you agree that it shouldn't have gotten GA. Unfortunately, there is a huge range of stuff in Start class (they are talking about making a C class to go between start and B). Its not quite B class do to the organization issues and lack of references. As more clean up is done, it should be relatively easy to get it to B. :) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I gave JC SQ. some references. : ) – 「ＪＵＭＰＧＵＲＵ」@Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 00:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Cool. You may want to take a look at some other magazine articles as well, to get ideas on content and formatting. I know there is a basic MoS as well, but darned if I can remember where it is at the moment. I used it as a guide in redoing and structuring Shojo Beat though. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Wow you did a great job on the page! It's pretty much flawless, are you trying to get it to a GA? The reason I want to make Jump SQ. a Good Article is because I've come to a notice that most of the Jump articles aren't very good (especially Business Jump).... neither is really any other manga magazine article. ~_~ So with Jump SQ. I wanted to make a change to that, so I started with a very crappy article, started by making lists in those fancy boxes, History, Supreme Yomikiri Series, etc., and there you have it! – 「ＪＵＭＰＧＵＲＵ」@Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 15:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks :) I would like to get it to GA one day. I'd like to expand it a little more, if I can, and needs copyediting and a peer review before it would be ready though. And agreed on the other mags. Magazine and company articles are some of the projects most neglected ones, unfortunately. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
You're right, people only care about the series.... which is a shame. Maybe you should add a section bout how people think that Shojo Beat is the female version of Weekly Shonen Jump, which is abviosly not true. Trust me a lot of people think that. – 「ＪＵＭＰＧＵＲＵ」@Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 16:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Yep. I've been slowly working on cleaning up the Tokyopop, A.D. Vision, and Viz Media articles. I plan to add in a reaction section, if I can find some reliably sourced comments about it. Its sales pale in comparison to Shonon Jump so far, but still not doing to bad, I think. :) (says the person who owns every last issue since it debuted LOL) Need to see if anyone has done any discussions about Viz's failures with the Shojo Beat anime line, versus the seeming success of the manga.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh my gosh! AD Vision, and TOKYOPOP are train wrecks! Well I guess it's not as bad as the Japanese translation on Me & My Katamari (Boku no Watashi no Katamari Damashii), it said it was translated to My My Clump Spirit and My Clump Spirit of Mine. Yikes! It should just be "Our Clump Spirit". So anyway, have you ever read Jump SQ.? – 「ＪＵＭＰＧＵＲＵ」@Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 16:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Yep. Viz and Tokyopop I managed to get some history going on. AD has been tougher (sucky site has no historical stuff). Dealing with people want to rant about stuff is the biggest thing though. I cleaned out some of the worse stuff awhile back, but all three still quite a bit of work yet. And nope, never ready Jump SQ. Shojo Beat is the first manga anthology I've read at all, much less subscribed too. I usually either read new titles by checking them out from the library, or blind buy the first volume after either flipping through or reading a promising review on AoD. :) SB lets me get a monthly hit of manga and try out new series too :D -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Have you ever read a Japanese manga magazine? I find them alot more interesting ^_^, it's more authentic and the series are unedited. – 「ＪＵＭＰＧＵＲＵ」@Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 16:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Nope...I can't read Japanese and I'd find just looking at the pictures kind of frustrating ;) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
It's okay : ). I would find that frustrating too. Is there any series that you've admired? – 「ＪＵＭＰＧＵＲＵ」@Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 22:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I added a Reception section to Jump SQ., there is over 60 references now. Alot of the page is sourced. – 「ＪＵＭＰＧＵＲＵ」@Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 18:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Great! I'd also suggest reconsidering some of the lists/tables in the article. May also want to clean up and clean out the ELs. There are quite a few there. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Good idea, they would be great sources. – 「ＪＵＭＰＧＵＲＵ」@Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 19:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
External links are cut down. – 「ＪＵＭＰＧＵＲＵ」@Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 00:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Category needs cleanup

Ever since you redirected Majin Boo Saga, a couple of the links in Category:Dragon Ball sagas needed a revise of their own. Do you have time to sort through these? I still have a long watchlist to check. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Let the bot take care of the double redirects? :P For the episode lists, I've asked for help with those in the projects, cause merging the split lists and fixing names/formats is a big task. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I do remember something like that on my watchlist. Where is the discussion exactly? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Talk:List of Dragon Ball episodes for the discussion I started, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga#Any Dragon Ball fan there? for the call for help :P -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
List of Dragon Ball GT episodes done. Needs another check, and missing some English translated and some transliterated titles, but much better I hope :) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for updating the GT pages. Wish I could help, it's just that (for some reason) I have no inspiration to edit those articles. Can you come up with a different phrasing for Sano, as discussed here? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm suprised I got the inspiration to tackle it this morning. I just meant to take a look to see what each page was using :P Yep, will work on the Sano phrasing soon as I can remember which volume Sano talks about why he became a fight merchant in (or find it; should be one of the first ones). Probably not until later this afternoon/evening though.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Hate to sound like a broken record but have you the time to make that edit to Sano? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
okay...finally done :) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. Do you think Fireball (manga) should be proded? Doesn't appear WP:NOTABLE. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, though gotta give the creator two points for adding "it is notable because" :P -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
BTW, want to weigh in on the discussion at Talk:List of Dragon Ball Z episodes#Have their own pages! regarding the redirecting of the plotty saga pages back to the episode pages as they were redunant and violated WP:PLOT and WP:FICT. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I did stumble upon that conversation. User:Ynhockey didn't seem too civil there eh? I would join in, but don't have an opinion on the subject. What would you want me to say? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, not our first meeting, unfortunately. Just wanted a third opinion from someone from the project, on whether the saga pages belonged. :) Still need to work on merging that list with its dubbed. GT is merged, but need to add in the missing titles. Took me 3 hours to do GT...wonder how long Z will take LOL -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Could you possibly take a look..?

Hello Collectionian.

I'm currently waiting, patiently, for feedback on my article Prehistoric medicine so that I can improve it to a GA-status article, but it's a very, very long time coming. I was wondering whether you might be able to have a look at it for me and provide some, even breif, suggestions of your own. You seemed very friendly and professional, when you messaged me some time ago, and so you were the first person I thought of. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 21:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I'll try to take a look at it later this evening. :) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Some things I immediately noticed. The article is violating some basics of the Wikipedia MoS, such as having the refs inside the punctuation. For example, "[2]." should be ".[2]." It also steps out of the article with parenthetical "see alsos" and "see below", which are a big no-no. The first image should be in the top right corner rather than moved down. The lead doesn't seem to meet WP:LEAD, being relatively short with two referenced items seeming to indicate they are not summarizations of the article. Some of the sectioning seems excessive. If the larger section only has two paragraphs, they really don't need individual headers. You may also want to check WP:MOSHEAD, as some of the headers seem to go against the grain. The references need some consistent formatting, per Wikipedia:Citing sources. I personally find the citation templates, such as {{cite web}} and {{cite book}} useful for this purpose, but you can also manually format them. For a GA run, I'd first recommend making the MoS fixes noted above, having the article peer reviewed, and have it thoroughly copyedited. There are also quite a few statements in the article still needing in-line references before it could pass GA. I hope this helps some. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Collectonian for reviewing the article. I've made most of the changes you mention and will continue to make more, but, and I know it probably doesn't comply with something in the basics, I don't think that the first image should be moved to the top-right, purely for aesthetic reasons.
I have some things to add (I didn't even realise the {{{title}}}.  thing!), the article will hopefully become a GA-article, eventually! Again, thank you so much for taking the time to have a look at the article. I'd be happy to return the favour anyime so, if you need me, don't hesitate to ask. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 09:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
No problem :) I kinda agree on the image, but I thought I should mention it since it recently came up as an issue on a list I'm prepping for FLC. The image is beside the menu (takes up the otherwise big white space), but someone said it had to be at the top. So it might come up when you go to do a GA or FA run. :) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I'll readjust it if it becomes a big issue. But it seems like no-one is going to make an issue of it, because no-one ever seems to be reassessing or reviewing it.. Is everything always this slow on Wikipedia? Anyway, it's not your problem and you've done quite enough already, thanks again. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 20:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bleach character cleanup

See this discussion. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 02:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments left. Any thoughts on Link's desired changes in DBZ and his claims that the MoS violates Wikipedia's naming guidelines? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Episode summaries are original research

Un-cited episode summaries are original research. They have no basis, besides fan created speculation. Therefore, they deserve removal based on Wikipedia's original research policy's clause: This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position.. Please refrain from vandalizing Wikipedia pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.210.39.120 (talk) 04:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

No, they are not. They are fully in keeping with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. They are sourced from the primary material. The only vandal here is use. If you continue vandalizing Wikipedia and being disruptive, you will be blocked. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Please provide primary source material. Forming an episode summary requires an opinion on what is important in a specific episode. It is subjective and OR. Also, please provide a link to the policies and guidelines that pertain to this issue. Thank use for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.210.39.120 (talk) 04:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
We do not put citation tags on episode summaries, nor regular plot summaries. It is the overwhelming consensus of Wikipedia that its unnecessary. The source is implicit to the primary source. Episode summaries are neither subjected nor OR. Te page you quoted, WP:PSTS, also includes this: "For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. To the extent that part of an article relies on a primary source, it should only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge..." Episode summaries are descriptive claims, not OR. Wikipedia:When to cite#When a source may not be needed expands on this: "Plot of the subject of the article – If the subject of the article is a book or film or other artistic work, it is unnecessary to cite a source in describing events or other details." Also on many other pages and its been discussed dozens upon dozens of times with the same conclusion, plot summaries do not need sourcing and are not OR. This is also shown extensively in our featured articles on various fictional works, and their featured episodes lists. Plot summaries do NOT need citing. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
In this case, can you explain to me how someone can view the two relevant sources--the One Piece manga and anime--and not come to the conclusion that some episodes in the anime are not based on the chapters in the manga? It's implicit in the media that either story arcs appear in the manga or they don't.129.210.39.120 (talk) 04:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I figured you were doing this just to be pointy. An episode summary is a description of the work. Comparing two works is synthesis and OR. A descriptive plot summary with no interpretative statements does not require sourcing, and is not OR. Saying episode X is based on manga Y is not a description, its a declaration and interpretation that requires sourcing, same as saying anime X is based on manga Y. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
So, you can write an article based on one source, but not multiple sources? 129.210.39.120 (talk) 05:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
That is not what I said, and you know it. If you are only going to keep arguing just to argue, I'm not going to bother with talking to you. You don't seem to actually want to learn or understand anyway, just try to justify adding back the filler labels. Suffice to say, if you try to add them back, or remove the plot summaries again, you will be blocked from editing at all. Being disruptive just to make a point is also considered vandalism.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
"Comparing two works is synthesis and OR." Quod erat demonstratum. 129.210.39.120 (talk) 06:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Genres

Do you know enough YuYu Hakusho to have an idea about the genres? For instance I think including occult detective is fine, but the other editor there doesn't think so. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, no. Never seen or watched it at all. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Issues with List of One Piece chapters article

Since you added the cleanup and introrewrite tags, I think it's fair to ask what you feel needs to be "cleaned up" in this article. It's pretty standard fare from what I've seen, so if you have any specific issues I'd like to know where to start. Thanks. Ark (talk) 19:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

For clean up, mostly just some basic wikilink fixing. Month year without a day should not be wikified. The ELs look like they are really general refs, and need to be fixed. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Clearing things up

Okay:

  1. Gune and I are reglaurs at the OP pages, I have accepted we are going to loose a dozen articles, but I'll try to save them. I know this is futile, but doesn't mean I won't look for ways around it. I want to loose half of what we have, but I'm a sympathic fool who has difficulty making big bold choices. I have witnessed pages being lost before and have squawked my distaste this the last set of deletetions that we shouldn't be creating new ones anymore as we have the wikia. Yet still people have. I've been left in the gutter and just gone to say "whatever pleases you, but don't say I didn't tell you".
  2. Gune still wants to fight, I like to support the other reglaur editors anyway. So though I have accept that we're most likely will loose a lot of pages, if someone really wants them I'll try and aid them to the best of my knowledge. If not for Gune, I'd have suggested moving straight onto AfDing without a second thought.
  3. Justyn is a known editor, someone has previously been concerned with the articles. I simply asked him to come here mostly as a support Gune mostly, as it was beyond my help. If I can't help Gune, I'll find someone who can. That is mostly being a good smartian if anything.
  4. I'm a beyblade fan, and even I don't like the articles for Beyblade. I don't monitor those pages, and if I did I'd loose half of them. I asked for some help, because all of them are in desperate need of attention. They are hard to understand, I don't have any committments of anti-vandalism or anything like that attached to them. I do visit other pages, if I see anything that needs to be done, so be it. I enjoy visitng the non-OP pages more because I don't have to concern myself with people I know hating me.
  5. Though I fight the AfD, as I said, I wouldn't mind loosing half of them as they are hard to control and take a lot of attention away from the wikia. The fans can't keep their fandom off of them, I am tired of this and have been on only "anti-vandalism" watch because of it. Not only that, but a lot of pages were created by me and the guys working on here 2 years ago and I have long realised their mistake.

AfD related stuff isn't my strong point. Mostly because theres a little niggering thought of doubt on them that thinks a page can still prove its worth even when the wikipedia is swatting it aside. And please, no speeches about this, I know I'm not a great wikipedian. If your going to crib me for everything, fine, thats up to you. Please let it be known - I DO support the AfD but I also support editors I know well enough first.

But if you must know, this is what I want: No characters or crew listings at all, they've long become redundant since we have the wikia which lists everything we have and more. Terms I didn't want loosing, but its gone and I won't cry over the fact it was lost, only over how it was lost. Epsidoes - I'd loose them in a blink of an eye! We have the wikia that lists them and half the OP sites out there have them listed. There is no need for any of them. Obivous keep Oda's page, the main page... If Episodes must be kept, then fine, have them, chapter and side comics only. If not all we'd be left with is the main page and the mangakas page, only 2.

Now you see that what I want and what I do are too different extremes. Would people like my idea? No. Thats why we're in this sitaution we are now - I just don't try to upset people. Angel Emfrbl (talk) 06:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

So basically, you hate half of the actual accept and basic pages, and would want to keep almost nothing at all? Interesting...and you call me a deletionist :P For the record, I firmly believe an manga/anime series should have a main article, a list of chapters (where applicable and has enough volumes), a list of episodes (again, where applicable), a list of light novels (w.a.), and a single list of major characters (as applicable). Individual character articles should be the exception, not the rule, and only where the character's have demonstrated real world information and their article can be at least 50% real-world info (conception/creation, reception, impact, etc) and not just all plot. Everything, of course, properly referenced. Side comics are not notable, and should only be mentioned at all if they are earlier works that were inspirations for the main. All in keeping with the Anime and Manga MoS and all relevant Wikipedia guidelines. Honestly, if you don't want to upset people, I'd suggest being more consistent. Right now, you seem to say one thing to me, one to Gune, and one to other people, which seems more like a politician than a human being. ;P It also inspires no confidence at all in your words. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 07:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Whoa!

Stop removing my information on BLEACH the title information is true. I'm not posting a fan site to be posting a fan site I am posting that site because it's where the information can be found. --Neoonyxalchemist (talk) 15:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

No, the title information is not true. It is a fan guess, not verified factual information. Fansites are not reliable sources, nor is it appropriate to link to sites that distribute illegal content. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lyric

You deleted my edit changing Lyric to McMurphy. I had my TV on mute when his name came up and it said LYRIC.Meerkatxoxo (talk) 16:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

What was actually said, though? Did they say Lyric, or did only the captions say Lyric? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] About Greek Uncovered

If the page is to be redirected to Greek (TV series), then shouldn't it make some mention of the "spinoff" or whatever it is? I've got no opinion on the overall outcome here, I just know it's really iritating to be redirected to an article that doesn't tell you why you were redirected there. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 18:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Working on it :) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Cool, thanks. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 18:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

--lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

No problem, and thanks....mmm...chocolate -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Mmmmmm.... Yummy! – 「ＪＵＭＰＧＵＲＵ」@Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 20:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Peer Review Request

Hello. I am the primary contributor to the article Last of the Summer Wine and am attempting to get it up to FA. I saw your name on the list of peer review volunteers and was wondering if you would be interested in taking a look through the article to see if you can spot anything for us to change. Any help you can provide would be greatly appreciated. Cheers! Redfarmer (talk) 19:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Courtesy reminder

Hello, Collectonian ... I added the "redundant" courtesy message to Wikipedia:Proposed deletion (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) because of this conversation with Some Other Editor ... I won't revert your revert, but I do wish that you'd reconsider restoring it ... you reverted while I was adding this message on the Discussion page. :-)

Happy Editing! — 151.200.237.53  (talk · contribs) 20:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

As it is a policy page, it would be better to discuss a rewording on the talk page first. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I've tried to "ask first", and my experience is that there's not a whole lot of discussion beforehand ... since WP:BOLD is based on that wonderful adage by RDML Grace Hopper,

It is easier to ask forgiveness than it is to get permission.

I just went ahead and added it with the "Consider adding as a courtesy" message ... I figure that it doesn't hurt to repeat "as a courtesy" for the users who tend to "skip/skim-read" and might not catch it the first time. :-)
OTOH, some users are (by their continuously disruptive behavior) unworthy of such courtesy, which is why it must be optional, rather than required. — 151.200.237.53 (talk) 01:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Neoonyxalchemist

Hi Collectionian. Thanks for the message on my talk page. I was aware that tagging User:Neoonyxalchemist's page with the {{sockpuppet}} tag didn't open an SSP or RFCU case. Some instances of sockpuppetry are clear enough that further investigation isn't required. In my judgment this was such a case. Best, Gwernol 21:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

True, but without a case, neither can be blocked and it seems obvious he is using it abusively. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Je fini

I have blocked User:SeriesYFilmes indefinitely. You're right, their grammar, editing style etc. is incredibly similiar. Thanks for the message, friend. Take care. ScarianCall me Pat! 09:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

No prob and thanks. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The lead in Case Closed

In my opinion the lead paragraph I added, and you removed just a while ago was mostly mentioned in the article, at least the movie ones. I would actually source them later when I go back home-- so keep those there.--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 16:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Please just wait to add it until you can actually source it. Only the statement about the movies is supported by the article. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Quick thought about media list redirect

List of Excel Saga media should probably redirect to List of Excel Saga chapters, since the manga was the original medium and is on-going. (I came to this conclusion by parallelism to the WP:MOS-AM's injunction to focus on the original medium in the main article. :)--Monocrat (talk) 03:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm...that is a good point. I was moving it back to List of Excel Saga episodes because that was the lists' original name, and its original focus. The manga information was added over a year later. :) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)