![]() | 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 |
During Tag and Assess 2008 the instructions were given that we were to set the template at "|class=B if and only if an article meets the majority of the B-Class criteria". And again the example tag below "Nearly B-Class: ''{{WikiProject Anime and manga |class=B |B1=n |B2=y |B3=y |B4=y |B5=y |B6=y |importance=Mid}}''". This article clearly is meeting the majority of the B-class criteria (all except one); why are you setting it back down to C? I realize this is a small thing and really doesn't matter, but it really irks me that even after I explained my reasons you still insist on setting it that way when it was explicitly stated otherwise in the Tag and Assess instructions. Why are you doing this? -- Kraftlos ( Talk | Contrib) 08:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
|class=B
. The idea was, in short, to only complete the chedklist for high C, and B class articles in order to save time. About a week or two after we started, the template was updated to display the checklist for all C class articles as well, and the maintenance category was added. The auto assess is not taken into account by the "Display an assessment of an article's quality as part of the page header for each article-gadget", hence the need to fix it.I was told after talking to the members at WP:VN to put them in the character page because they are separate from the main game and do not really fit with the series, but more with character list because they have only 1 character in them from the series. They also commented that it would likely give more notability to the characters list as well. じん ない 23:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
thanks for taking the time to comment on Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction)#Final_adoption_as_a_guideline. I am glad you see how important this guideline will be, since it will determine the inclusion or exclusion of television character and television episodes. You maybe interested that it looks like several editors replied to your contributions. Have a wonderful week. Ikip ( talk) 04:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar | |
The "What a Brilliant Idea!" Barnstar should be awarded to a user who figures out an elegant solution to a particularly burdensome bottleneck or problem, or who identifies a means to improve Wikipedia in a profound way. This barnstar is awarded to goodraise, for his/her revolutionary ideas proposed on User:Goodraise/Notability (fiction). This proposal will help wikipedia retain valuable contributions and as a result, editors. Thank you. Ikip ( talk) 18:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC) |
Thought you might like to know:)
Thank You
I really appreciate your help, especially on the assessment requests. G.A.S talk 09:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
All I was commenting on was that Jinnai's numbered list is botched, and has two number ones in it. If you can just fix it, feel free.— Kww( talk) 04:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your review. Could you please check if I got the serial comma right? I believe that was your last concern. Thanks for your help. MisterBee1966 ( talk) 12:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
A television series running on a major television network should be inherently notable, so I removed the tag from Chikkun Takkun WhisperToMe ( talk) 01:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks; I forgot the stupid hash symbol. Deor ( talk) 04:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
The FLC does not seem to be getting attention. Could you add your comment if you are free? Thanks. Tintor2 ( talk) 02:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Well I don't know about any real official decision or anything, but it's just that back in 07 the article went through a format change to use a template for each volume and it was rewritten to not include literal translations. Though as far as I know, other manga articles don't use them either and tend to stick with the official version. If there were literal translations, there would be many more than just those and it would probably crowd up the template a bit. The Splendiferous Gegiford ( talk) 17:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
My apologizes that this was not successful. I do believe, however, that this list should either have the FLC reopened so that prior reviewers are given a chance to respond (the concerns were addressed, but the FLC was closed before the reviewers could respond to our fixes) or get sent to FLC again in the near future, as it is definitely passable at this stage. If you need any more help with this, or anything else, don't hesitate to ask. NOCTURNENOIR ( t • c ) 17:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
I saw you replaced the episode refs and noted that they did not cite the OP and ED songs. Are you sure of this? Absolutely every single anime I've watched (and I just checked all of the series I have on hand, including Speed Grapher, Spice and Wolf, Fullmetal Alchemist, Darker than Black, and Ah! My Goddess) cites the artist and the song (in the Japanese releases, at least). Of course, I don't have any copies of One Piece, but I'd expect that credit is given there as well so I'm surprised that One Piece does not do the same... ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ( t • c ) 22:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello! I'm not here to complain about it being removed; in fact, I do agree with you, and have run across problems using ANN user-contributed information (one list feels very messy because of it...I'm not even sure I have the correct DVD volume release!). However, most GAs, FLs, FAs, and articles soon to be promoted have those references. Should a discussion be started to have a group of people sweep through the GA/FL/FAs to remove those sources? It's much easier to reference the official sites. Also, maybe make more of a notice for others, so that they are also aware of the change? I'm willing to start a discussion, but wouldn't know how to go about notifying others. Of course, it's not exactly necessary to do so, as future GA/FA/FLs are monitored pretty carefully. Thanks! WhiteArcticWolf ( talk) 13:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Most of the time the info is perfectly reliable (and thats good enough for their news articles when used as sources). I often see it dismissed as "user editable", but this isn't quite correct. Information is user submittable but requires someone on the other end to okay the change (and you are suppossed to provide evidence) - or this was at least true a couple of weeks ago when I tested this. Deciding the information is unreliable is not a small matter, it has project wide ramifications - we are going to find it very hard to get articles promoted if we can't use it, and most of our articles of B+ status will essentially be knowingly using 'unreliable' sources. Dandy Sephy ( talk) 14:34, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
The ANN section of the MoS was added very recently after extensive discussion regarding what is, and is not, reliable. I'm not sure why you felt the need to remove it without discussion nor any seeming evidence that the view on what is an is not considered reliable on ANN has changed. If you feel some part of that should be adjusted, it should be discussion, not just removed and apparently being quietly dismissed elsewhere. ANN news is fully reliable, and ANN's encyclopedia is reliable within the boundaries established there. -- Collectonian ( talk · contribs) 14:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
I see you have done a lot of rearrangement of the various "List of One Piece" pages, in some cases moving the same page more than once. Two questions: (a) are you done now? (b) are you planning to fix the dozens of redirects that now point to the wrong targets (see [1])? The two questions go together, since there isn't much sense in fixing the double-redirects right away if the targets are just going to change again. -- R'n'B ( call me Russ) 11:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
There is something that I have been wondering that would be awesome to do with some sites. How do you archive the websites? It happens that some of the sites Im citing could be dissappear one of these days. Regards. Tintor2 ( talk) 23:33, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Started discussion at Talk:List of Bleach chapters#Splitting. Feel free to comment. Tintor2 ( talk) 20:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
The Manga and Anime BarnSakura Award | |
I hereby award you the Anime and Manga BarnSakura for your excellent edits in the anime and manga articles, most notably the One Piece articles. Keep up the good work! Tintor2 ( talk) 14:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC) |
Kei-clone is a Forum mod on MAL, and the previous COI tag was removed simply because it wasn't discussed or reasons given (at least, just from looking at the summarys). Worth readding it? Dandy Sephy ( talk) 22:16, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
can you check the peer review thing, i've left messages. Dumbledore —Preceding undated comment added 19:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC).
Yes! I found a website dedicated to this dub! It's great if you want to learn about it. It has cast lists, interviews, clips, and even pics of the video (or VCD) box sets. Here's a link! http://www.freewebs.com/singaporeanonepiece/index.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.206.228.68 ( talk) 02:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Sorry the link doesn't work (I'm bad at typing in web addresses) just go to youtube and search for "One Piece movie 8 ending english" I apologize fo any trouble I may have caused you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.150.12.207 ( talk) 03:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Why not fix it, then, rather than removing it? -- Raijinili ( talk) 14:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Would you still like the FLC nomination to be withdrawn and archived, or would you prefer it to be kept open? If the latter, just strike your comment there so no one else does it by accident. Regards, Matthewedwards : Chat 02:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I'll use this same topic to ask for help. I think I finished edits that you have listed, besides the size of the summaries, and would appreciate more tips. Also I pretty sure aga-search.com is reliable, but can you check for me. Thank you. DragonZero ( talk) 00:57, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. DragonZero ( talk) 20:28, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi Goodraise.
I think our edits have overlapped. You nominated:
on the grounds that appropriate online searches in both English and German did turn up no useful sources.
At the same time I edited the articles to add secondary sources. Unless you have other reservations about these articles that you have not yet written about, I think there is no longer a case to answer. -- Starbois ( talk) 17:19, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Your recent revert [2] at WP:FICT was not supported by any discussion on the talk page. Rather than using the tactic of blanket revert, why not bring your views to WT:FICT so that everyone can understand your position on this issue. -- Gavin Collins ( talk| contribs) 15:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Royal broil 03:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Hey. You opposed the previous FLC of List of Speed Grapher episodes on the basis that the episode summaries were utterly confusing (a sentiment I agree with). Could you take a look at the first four episodes, which I've attempted to rewrite, and let me know how it looks? If it's still incomprehensible, I'm going to have to rethink this again, but if not, I will rewrite the rest of the summaries following this format. Thanks. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR talk // contribs 04:27, 12 May 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 |
During Tag and Assess 2008 the instructions were given that we were to set the template at "|class=B if and only if an article meets the majority of the B-Class criteria". And again the example tag below "Nearly B-Class: ''{{WikiProject Anime and manga |class=B |B1=n |B2=y |B3=y |B4=y |B5=y |B6=y |importance=Mid}}''". This article clearly is meeting the majority of the B-class criteria (all except one); why are you setting it back down to C? I realize this is a small thing and really doesn't matter, but it really irks me that even after I explained my reasons you still insist on setting it that way when it was explicitly stated otherwise in the Tag and Assess instructions. Why are you doing this? -- Kraftlos ( Talk | Contrib) 08:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
|class=B
. The idea was, in short, to only complete the chedklist for high C, and B class articles in order to save time. About a week or two after we started, the template was updated to display the checklist for all C class articles as well, and the maintenance category was added. The auto assess is not taken into account by the "Display an assessment of an article's quality as part of the page header for each article-gadget", hence the need to fix it.I was told after talking to the members at WP:VN to put them in the character page because they are separate from the main game and do not really fit with the series, but more with character list because they have only 1 character in them from the series. They also commented that it would likely give more notability to the characters list as well. じん ない 23:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
thanks for taking the time to comment on Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction)#Final_adoption_as_a_guideline. I am glad you see how important this guideline will be, since it will determine the inclusion or exclusion of television character and television episodes. You maybe interested that it looks like several editors replied to your contributions. Have a wonderful week. Ikip ( talk) 04:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar | |
The "What a Brilliant Idea!" Barnstar should be awarded to a user who figures out an elegant solution to a particularly burdensome bottleneck or problem, or who identifies a means to improve Wikipedia in a profound way. This barnstar is awarded to goodraise, for his/her revolutionary ideas proposed on User:Goodraise/Notability (fiction). This proposal will help wikipedia retain valuable contributions and as a result, editors. Thank you. Ikip ( talk) 18:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC) |
Thought you might like to know:)
Thank You
I really appreciate your help, especially on the assessment requests. G.A.S talk 09:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
All I was commenting on was that Jinnai's numbered list is botched, and has two number ones in it. If you can just fix it, feel free.— Kww( talk) 04:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your review. Could you please check if I got the serial comma right? I believe that was your last concern. Thanks for your help. MisterBee1966 ( talk) 12:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
A television series running on a major television network should be inherently notable, so I removed the tag from Chikkun Takkun WhisperToMe ( talk) 01:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks; I forgot the stupid hash symbol. Deor ( talk) 04:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
The FLC does not seem to be getting attention. Could you add your comment if you are free? Thanks. Tintor2 ( talk) 02:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Well I don't know about any real official decision or anything, but it's just that back in 07 the article went through a format change to use a template for each volume and it was rewritten to not include literal translations. Though as far as I know, other manga articles don't use them either and tend to stick with the official version. If there were literal translations, there would be many more than just those and it would probably crowd up the template a bit. The Splendiferous Gegiford ( talk) 17:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
My apologizes that this was not successful. I do believe, however, that this list should either have the FLC reopened so that prior reviewers are given a chance to respond (the concerns were addressed, but the FLC was closed before the reviewers could respond to our fixes) or get sent to FLC again in the near future, as it is definitely passable at this stage. If you need any more help with this, or anything else, don't hesitate to ask. NOCTURNENOIR ( t • c ) 17:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
I saw you replaced the episode refs and noted that they did not cite the OP and ED songs. Are you sure of this? Absolutely every single anime I've watched (and I just checked all of the series I have on hand, including Speed Grapher, Spice and Wolf, Fullmetal Alchemist, Darker than Black, and Ah! My Goddess) cites the artist and the song (in the Japanese releases, at least). Of course, I don't have any copies of One Piece, but I'd expect that credit is given there as well so I'm surprised that One Piece does not do the same... ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ( t • c ) 22:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello! I'm not here to complain about it being removed; in fact, I do agree with you, and have run across problems using ANN user-contributed information (one list feels very messy because of it...I'm not even sure I have the correct DVD volume release!). However, most GAs, FLs, FAs, and articles soon to be promoted have those references. Should a discussion be started to have a group of people sweep through the GA/FL/FAs to remove those sources? It's much easier to reference the official sites. Also, maybe make more of a notice for others, so that they are also aware of the change? I'm willing to start a discussion, but wouldn't know how to go about notifying others. Of course, it's not exactly necessary to do so, as future GA/FA/FLs are monitored pretty carefully. Thanks! WhiteArcticWolf ( talk) 13:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Most of the time the info is perfectly reliable (and thats good enough for their news articles when used as sources). I often see it dismissed as "user editable", but this isn't quite correct. Information is user submittable but requires someone on the other end to okay the change (and you are suppossed to provide evidence) - or this was at least true a couple of weeks ago when I tested this. Deciding the information is unreliable is not a small matter, it has project wide ramifications - we are going to find it very hard to get articles promoted if we can't use it, and most of our articles of B+ status will essentially be knowingly using 'unreliable' sources. Dandy Sephy ( talk) 14:34, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
The ANN section of the MoS was added very recently after extensive discussion regarding what is, and is not, reliable. I'm not sure why you felt the need to remove it without discussion nor any seeming evidence that the view on what is an is not considered reliable on ANN has changed. If you feel some part of that should be adjusted, it should be discussion, not just removed and apparently being quietly dismissed elsewhere. ANN news is fully reliable, and ANN's encyclopedia is reliable within the boundaries established there. -- Collectonian ( talk · contribs) 14:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
I see you have done a lot of rearrangement of the various "List of One Piece" pages, in some cases moving the same page more than once. Two questions: (a) are you done now? (b) are you planning to fix the dozens of redirects that now point to the wrong targets (see [1])? The two questions go together, since there isn't much sense in fixing the double-redirects right away if the targets are just going to change again. -- R'n'B ( call me Russ) 11:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
There is something that I have been wondering that would be awesome to do with some sites. How do you archive the websites? It happens that some of the sites Im citing could be dissappear one of these days. Regards. Tintor2 ( talk) 23:33, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Started discussion at Talk:List of Bleach chapters#Splitting. Feel free to comment. Tintor2 ( talk) 20:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
The Manga and Anime BarnSakura Award | |
I hereby award you the Anime and Manga BarnSakura for your excellent edits in the anime and manga articles, most notably the One Piece articles. Keep up the good work! Tintor2 ( talk) 14:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC) |
Kei-clone is a Forum mod on MAL, and the previous COI tag was removed simply because it wasn't discussed or reasons given (at least, just from looking at the summarys). Worth readding it? Dandy Sephy ( talk) 22:16, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
can you check the peer review thing, i've left messages. Dumbledore —Preceding undated comment added 19:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC).
Yes! I found a website dedicated to this dub! It's great if you want to learn about it. It has cast lists, interviews, clips, and even pics of the video (or VCD) box sets. Here's a link! http://www.freewebs.com/singaporeanonepiece/index.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.206.228.68 ( talk) 02:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Sorry the link doesn't work (I'm bad at typing in web addresses) just go to youtube and search for "One Piece movie 8 ending english" I apologize fo any trouble I may have caused you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.150.12.207 ( talk) 03:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Why not fix it, then, rather than removing it? -- Raijinili ( talk) 14:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Would you still like the FLC nomination to be withdrawn and archived, or would you prefer it to be kept open? If the latter, just strike your comment there so no one else does it by accident. Regards, Matthewedwards : Chat 02:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I'll use this same topic to ask for help. I think I finished edits that you have listed, besides the size of the summaries, and would appreciate more tips. Also I pretty sure aga-search.com is reliable, but can you check for me. Thank you. DragonZero ( talk) 00:57, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. DragonZero ( talk) 20:28, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi Goodraise.
I think our edits have overlapped. You nominated:
on the grounds that appropriate online searches in both English and German did turn up no useful sources.
At the same time I edited the articles to add secondary sources. Unless you have other reservations about these articles that you have not yet written about, I think there is no longer a case to answer. -- Starbois ( talk) 17:19, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Your recent revert [2] at WP:FICT was not supported by any discussion on the talk page. Rather than using the tactic of blanket revert, why not bring your views to WT:FICT so that everyone can understand your position on this issue. -- Gavin Collins ( talk| contribs) 15:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Royal broil 03:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Hey. You opposed the previous FLC of List of Speed Grapher episodes on the basis that the episode summaries were utterly confusing (a sentiment I agree with). Could you take a look at the first four episodes, which I've attempted to rewrite, and let me know how it looks? If it's still incomprehensible, I'm going to have to rethink this again, but if not, I will rewrite the rest of the summaries following this format. Thanks. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR talk // contribs 04:27, 12 May 2009 (UTC)