![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
I've put in a request at Template talk:WikiProject Anime and manga to have the checklist either show always or at least also show for C class so people can see the list without having to mark is as B and causing it to show up in the list of articles needing their classes fixed. -- Collectonian ( talk · contribs) 13:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I did not make a mistake. The entire paragraph is now sourced by the ANN article, which states what I put there, that both one-shots ran in the special summer issue. I also left a note on the talk page about it. -- Collectonian ( talk · contribs) 04:37, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
I was thinking that it would be good if every pirate crew mentioned in One Piece is gathered on one page, List of One Piece Pirate Crews. The page is already created and you have made contributions in it.
Therefore, I wanted to ask whether every seperate One Piece pirate crew page like Red Haired Pirate Crew should be merged within the article List of One Piece Pirate Crews. - Krupted Soul ( talk) 13:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
This editor is reverting many good faith edits for unexplained reasons. Have you noticed? Lord Sesshomaru ( talk • edits) 19:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Do you have any real objection to switching all of the Japanese terms to their English counterparts (i.e Shichibukai --> Seven Warlords of the Sea or whatever)? The terms in this site's articles really should make sense to the casual reader, while things like that really just appeal to the hardcore fan. TTN ( talk) 18:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
There are FOUR english translations! ODEX, VIZ, 4Kids and FUNIMATION! Use the universal Japanese names for the sake of the arguments involving those four DIFFERENT translations being questioned. 92.232.91.192 ( talk) 18:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
"I don't know what you're implying here, but being the one who did most (step forward if you disagree) of that cleanup, and also being the one who suggested putting this article up for deletion, instead of simply truning the page into a redirect, without saving anything of it's conent, I'd like to point out, that I consider this AfD to be part of that cleanup process."
I wasn't trying to imply anything, really. Because TTN ( talk · contribs) had also nominated a large number of other articles for deletion over just a couple of days' time, I had assumed (I've got to stop doing that... *knuckles head*) that he nominated this list just to get rid of it (not that I'm saying it didn't need gotten rid of, of course), and that he was unaware of the previous cleanup push. That being said, I am unaware of any of the details of this cleanup myself, as I have unwatchlisted a number of high-traffic articles since I started working, and never watched the One Piece-related articles particularly closely anyways. The only reason I even knew of the cleanup is because I kept {{ One Piece}} on my watchlist, and have seen articles being removed from the template one by one. — Dino guy 1000 19:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
...for removing my double post on Talk:List of One Piece episodes. I'm sorry if a Wikimedia server error (which I encountered yesterday morning) unexpectedly caused this to happen. -- Slgrandson ( How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 09:35, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
hey don't worry about it i wasn't really offended. if i find some useful information i'll let you know.-- Sanji_1990 ( talk) 02:09, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
on the in-universe, out-universe why does it matter which it is? wouldnt an in-universe grouping of characters give the reader more knowledge and be easier to read and understand for readers for example haveing the groups say, the supernovas, watergate7 carpentors, shandrona warriors, for examples that would be around 20 characters and be much more infomation on what groups the characters and less info on the invidual, this would make it easier to understand whose who, be able to find and link infomation much better, also work better with characters that would need an explantion of but not there own section.
this isant speffic to that article i referring it to minor characters the characters in the place you referred are different from the minor characters they can be group or separeted becuase of amount of info and importance to story however most minor characters dont have the importance or the info its best to group them to increase the importance for example ill use the 11 supernovas because its easy they only reason im seeing that the 9 supernovas are still on that list is because people see them cooler than other characters. all of them ecept maybe kidd should be deleted. but when grouped into the 11 supernovas, the 11 supernovas combined make a section that hold more importance that works better for the invidual characters and the whole of the article, i have/had called agentheartlesspain or something like that forgot what it was 24.152.140.190 ( talk) 21:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Is there some particular reason you feel the need to be repeatedly abusive about how stupid you think my ideas are? Once is enough. Several times saying the same thing without adding anything useful is over the line. arimareiji ( talk) 22:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
I just reported Gune to the admins for his edit warring. I'm sick of this. -- Kraftlos ( Talk | Contrib) 10:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
The summaries were fixed. Could have a look there to see if it is now better? Tintor2 ( talk) 22:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, by the way, could you later check Wikipedia:Peer review/List of Bleach chapters/archive1 and add your comments? Regards. Tintor2 ( talk) 15:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
The Manga and Anime BarnLoli Award | |
Man, you just get loads of loads of work done, and you certainly don't have enough barnstars. Thanks for the assessments! DARTH PANDA duel 22:53, 8 December 2008 (UTC) |
Goodraise, I'd appreciate it if you stopped editing the details of Dead End Adventure that I've had to resubmit three times now-- your excuse of "reverting multi-edit vandalism and excessive plot details" and "pointless plot details" just doesn't fly with me. Have you looked at the information regarding the other movies? Movie 4 was given the shortest of synopsis out of all of them, and my edit was a concise description of the plot and subplots of the film-- while I concede that it is a 'multi-edit' matter, it's neither vandalism nor excessive. So please, stop reverting my edits.
Also, in case you have any doubt that any of the characters I listed in the subplot (Biera, Anaguma, Shuraiya Bascùd) actually are a part of the Dead End Adventure, I suggest you take a look at [2]. Thank you. Klayr ( talk) 22:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC)Klayr
I noticed your recent assessment of New Cutie Honey. I've edited it a bit since then, and if you have any thoughts to share about the article's condition or how I can improve it to, e.g., a good article, I've now listed it for peer review. Thanks, -- an odd name 20:38, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
umm the user known "Geg" is doing the Sake vs. Booze again. and I just thought you should know about it. =^-^=; —Preceding unsigned comment added by Defender of comic justice ( talk • contribs) 03:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Just curious, but shouldn't you, when assessing the articles (specifically Memories Off as a C-class, also fill out the B-class review? I know when I did it I always fill it out. -- クラ ウド 668 05:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Looks like a fanfic character -- especially with that parentage. In any case, she doesn't appear in any cast list, which is enough to delete her as arrant nonsense. — Quasirandom ( talk) 15:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Since you were good enough to come through and assess the article, I was wondering if you could come back and expound a little bit on what you see as missing, that you rated B2 as N? Just looking for a little outside guidance. — Quasirandom ( talk) 14:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Kraftos has done the first 50 on section 38, but as it is listed as Doing on the second 50 and he hasn't said which, I'm not sure which ones he's done. じん ない 23:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
Anime and manga service award | |
By order of the Coordinators of the Anime and manga Tag and Assess—for your outstanding work in
Tag & Assess 2008—I award you this Silver Wiki. You are an example to us all. |
![]() ![]() |
BarnSakura | |
For tagging and assessing over 1,000 articles in
Tag & Assess 2008, by order of the coordinators I hereby present you with this BarnSakura. — G.A.S talk 16:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC) |
![]() ![]() |
Working Man's Barnstar | |
For tagging and assessing 800 articles in
Tag & Assess 2008, by order of the coordinators I hereby present you with this Working Man's Barnstar. — G.A.S talk 16:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC) |
![]() |
Anime and manga service award | |
For tagging and assessing 600 articles in
Tag & Assess 2008, by order of the coordinators I hereby present you with this Service Award. — G.A.S talk 16:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC) |
As always, keep up the good work:) and furthermore...
![]() ![]() |
Barnloli | |
For tagging and assessing hundreds of articles not included in
Tag & Assess 2008, I further present you with this Anime and manga BarnLoli. Thanks for the help. — G.A.S talk 16:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC) |
Hello, thanks for your quick assessment of List of Speed Grapher characters! I had a question for you... I was basing my list off of List of Naruto characters, which did not exhibit anything I can identify as a nav template. At the risk of sounding stupid, what is a nav template? If you mean the template at the bottom, Speed Grapher doesn't have enough articles to justify one, unfortunately. NOCTURNENOIR ( m • t • c ) 03:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
You said in one of the Afd's that you have read the manga several times, and obviously you have a good knowledge of what makes a good wiki page. Have you considered starting List of Ranma ½ characters yourself? I have only watched the anime, and with so many characters that either have smaller, or simply non existant parts in the anime I don't feel qualified to do it myself (theres also the issue of the quality of my writing...). Even if it was just one paragraph per each of the more notable characters, it would be a good way to start the process of merging the seeprate articles over time into the list. Theres no rush of course, but you do seem qualified! I can help with merging and watching the page if it's any help. Dandy Sephy ( talk) 20:16, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Sorry about the heading formatting, I thought I had found an error. I had to get the two revisions side by side to realize what I had done. >.> -- Kraftlos ( Talk | Contrib) 11:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Wow, I forgot about that prediction; good call! I'm so glad we have those archived merge discussions to back us up! -- Kraftlos ( Talk | Contrib) 12:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
About the assessment of the article, first thanks for keeping me honest. I got a little too excited about the article's progress and got a little carried away, overlooking some glaring errors. You assessed the article as failing the grammar/style (B4) criterion, was that because of the copyedit banner on the page or because you noticed errors on the page? Because since I put the tag up in December, I think the bad grammar has been done away with. Anyway, I just wanted to know what I need fix on the page and what you might have seen that I'm not seeing. Thanks! -- Kraftlos ( Talk | Contrib) 07:35, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
I would preferred to have some more discussion before an assessment was made on that article due to the ramifications of an article like that being under the WP:ANIME scope. じん ない 08:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
I've put in a request at Template talk:WikiProject Anime and manga to have the checklist either show always or at least also show for C class so people can see the list without having to mark is as B and causing it to show up in the list of articles needing their classes fixed. -- Collectonian ( talk · contribs) 13:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I did not make a mistake. The entire paragraph is now sourced by the ANN article, which states what I put there, that both one-shots ran in the special summer issue. I also left a note on the talk page about it. -- Collectonian ( talk · contribs) 04:37, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
I was thinking that it would be good if every pirate crew mentioned in One Piece is gathered on one page, List of One Piece Pirate Crews. The page is already created and you have made contributions in it.
Therefore, I wanted to ask whether every seperate One Piece pirate crew page like Red Haired Pirate Crew should be merged within the article List of One Piece Pirate Crews. - Krupted Soul ( talk) 13:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
This editor is reverting many good faith edits for unexplained reasons. Have you noticed? Lord Sesshomaru ( talk • edits) 19:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Do you have any real objection to switching all of the Japanese terms to their English counterparts (i.e Shichibukai --> Seven Warlords of the Sea or whatever)? The terms in this site's articles really should make sense to the casual reader, while things like that really just appeal to the hardcore fan. TTN ( talk) 18:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
There are FOUR english translations! ODEX, VIZ, 4Kids and FUNIMATION! Use the universal Japanese names for the sake of the arguments involving those four DIFFERENT translations being questioned. 92.232.91.192 ( talk) 18:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
"I don't know what you're implying here, but being the one who did most (step forward if you disagree) of that cleanup, and also being the one who suggested putting this article up for deletion, instead of simply truning the page into a redirect, without saving anything of it's conent, I'd like to point out, that I consider this AfD to be part of that cleanup process."
I wasn't trying to imply anything, really. Because TTN ( talk · contribs) had also nominated a large number of other articles for deletion over just a couple of days' time, I had assumed (I've got to stop doing that... *knuckles head*) that he nominated this list just to get rid of it (not that I'm saying it didn't need gotten rid of, of course), and that he was unaware of the previous cleanup push. That being said, I am unaware of any of the details of this cleanup myself, as I have unwatchlisted a number of high-traffic articles since I started working, and never watched the One Piece-related articles particularly closely anyways. The only reason I even knew of the cleanup is because I kept {{ One Piece}} on my watchlist, and have seen articles being removed from the template one by one. — Dino guy 1000 19:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
...for removing my double post on Talk:List of One Piece episodes. I'm sorry if a Wikimedia server error (which I encountered yesterday morning) unexpectedly caused this to happen. -- Slgrandson ( How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 09:35, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
hey don't worry about it i wasn't really offended. if i find some useful information i'll let you know.-- Sanji_1990 ( talk) 02:09, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
on the in-universe, out-universe why does it matter which it is? wouldnt an in-universe grouping of characters give the reader more knowledge and be easier to read and understand for readers for example haveing the groups say, the supernovas, watergate7 carpentors, shandrona warriors, for examples that would be around 20 characters and be much more infomation on what groups the characters and less info on the invidual, this would make it easier to understand whose who, be able to find and link infomation much better, also work better with characters that would need an explantion of but not there own section.
this isant speffic to that article i referring it to minor characters the characters in the place you referred are different from the minor characters they can be group or separeted becuase of amount of info and importance to story however most minor characters dont have the importance or the info its best to group them to increase the importance for example ill use the 11 supernovas because its easy they only reason im seeing that the 9 supernovas are still on that list is because people see them cooler than other characters. all of them ecept maybe kidd should be deleted. but when grouped into the 11 supernovas, the 11 supernovas combined make a section that hold more importance that works better for the invidual characters and the whole of the article, i have/had called agentheartlesspain or something like that forgot what it was 24.152.140.190 ( talk) 21:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Is there some particular reason you feel the need to be repeatedly abusive about how stupid you think my ideas are? Once is enough. Several times saying the same thing without adding anything useful is over the line. arimareiji ( talk) 22:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
I just reported Gune to the admins for his edit warring. I'm sick of this. -- Kraftlos ( Talk | Contrib) 10:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
The summaries were fixed. Could have a look there to see if it is now better? Tintor2 ( talk) 22:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, by the way, could you later check Wikipedia:Peer review/List of Bleach chapters/archive1 and add your comments? Regards. Tintor2 ( talk) 15:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
The Manga and Anime BarnLoli Award | |
Man, you just get loads of loads of work done, and you certainly don't have enough barnstars. Thanks for the assessments! DARTH PANDA duel 22:53, 8 December 2008 (UTC) |
Goodraise, I'd appreciate it if you stopped editing the details of Dead End Adventure that I've had to resubmit three times now-- your excuse of "reverting multi-edit vandalism and excessive plot details" and "pointless plot details" just doesn't fly with me. Have you looked at the information regarding the other movies? Movie 4 was given the shortest of synopsis out of all of them, and my edit was a concise description of the plot and subplots of the film-- while I concede that it is a 'multi-edit' matter, it's neither vandalism nor excessive. So please, stop reverting my edits.
Also, in case you have any doubt that any of the characters I listed in the subplot (Biera, Anaguma, Shuraiya Bascùd) actually are a part of the Dead End Adventure, I suggest you take a look at [2]. Thank you. Klayr ( talk) 22:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC)Klayr
I noticed your recent assessment of New Cutie Honey. I've edited it a bit since then, and if you have any thoughts to share about the article's condition or how I can improve it to, e.g., a good article, I've now listed it for peer review. Thanks, -- an odd name 20:38, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
umm the user known "Geg" is doing the Sake vs. Booze again. and I just thought you should know about it. =^-^=; —Preceding unsigned comment added by Defender of comic justice ( talk • contribs) 03:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Just curious, but shouldn't you, when assessing the articles (specifically Memories Off as a C-class, also fill out the B-class review? I know when I did it I always fill it out. -- クラ ウド 668 05:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Looks like a fanfic character -- especially with that parentage. In any case, she doesn't appear in any cast list, which is enough to delete her as arrant nonsense. — Quasirandom ( talk) 15:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Since you were good enough to come through and assess the article, I was wondering if you could come back and expound a little bit on what you see as missing, that you rated B2 as N? Just looking for a little outside guidance. — Quasirandom ( talk) 14:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Kraftos has done the first 50 on section 38, but as it is listed as Doing on the second 50 and he hasn't said which, I'm not sure which ones he's done. じん ない 23:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
Anime and manga service award | |
By order of the Coordinators of the Anime and manga Tag and Assess—for your outstanding work in
Tag & Assess 2008—I award you this Silver Wiki. You are an example to us all. |
![]() ![]() |
BarnSakura | |
For tagging and assessing over 1,000 articles in
Tag & Assess 2008, by order of the coordinators I hereby present you with this BarnSakura. — G.A.S talk 16:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC) |
![]() ![]() |
Working Man's Barnstar | |
For tagging and assessing 800 articles in
Tag & Assess 2008, by order of the coordinators I hereby present you with this Working Man's Barnstar. — G.A.S talk 16:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC) |
![]() |
Anime and manga service award | |
For tagging and assessing 600 articles in
Tag & Assess 2008, by order of the coordinators I hereby present you with this Service Award. — G.A.S talk 16:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC) |
As always, keep up the good work:) and furthermore...
![]() ![]() |
Barnloli | |
For tagging and assessing hundreds of articles not included in
Tag & Assess 2008, I further present you with this Anime and manga BarnLoli. Thanks for the help. — G.A.S talk 16:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC) |
Hello, thanks for your quick assessment of List of Speed Grapher characters! I had a question for you... I was basing my list off of List of Naruto characters, which did not exhibit anything I can identify as a nav template. At the risk of sounding stupid, what is a nav template? If you mean the template at the bottom, Speed Grapher doesn't have enough articles to justify one, unfortunately. NOCTURNENOIR ( m • t • c ) 03:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
You said in one of the Afd's that you have read the manga several times, and obviously you have a good knowledge of what makes a good wiki page. Have you considered starting List of Ranma ½ characters yourself? I have only watched the anime, and with so many characters that either have smaller, or simply non existant parts in the anime I don't feel qualified to do it myself (theres also the issue of the quality of my writing...). Even if it was just one paragraph per each of the more notable characters, it would be a good way to start the process of merging the seeprate articles over time into the list. Theres no rush of course, but you do seem qualified! I can help with merging and watching the page if it's any help. Dandy Sephy ( talk) 20:16, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Sorry about the heading formatting, I thought I had found an error. I had to get the two revisions side by side to realize what I had done. >.> -- Kraftlos ( Talk | Contrib) 11:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Wow, I forgot about that prediction; good call! I'm so glad we have those archived merge discussions to back us up! -- Kraftlos ( Talk | Contrib) 12:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
About the assessment of the article, first thanks for keeping me honest. I got a little too excited about the article's progress and got a little carried away, overlooking some glaring errors. You assessed the article as failing the grammar/style (B4) criterion, was that because of the copyedit banner on the page or because you noticed errors on the page? Because since I put the tag up in December, I think the bad grammar has been done away with. Anyway, I just wanted to know what I need fix on the page and what you might have seen that I'm not seeing. Thanks! -- Kraftlos ( Talk | Contrib) 07:35, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
I would preferred to have some more discussion before an assessment was made on that article due to the ramifications of an article like that being under the WP:ANIME scope. じん ない 08:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)